Morning Steven, Thank you for pointing out the Universalism in America book. For people who are seriously interested in reading about the differing views of Pietism, at least as practiced in America in the colonial days, Eddy's book is a well written primer. Yes, you do need to get past the Biblical and theological references but as a general background source it is well written. What intrigues me to no end is that modern German Baptist historians have chosen, or not been aware of, these various works. It could be that they chose not to read it because it was not "German Baptist" in origin. Or perhaps it was an ignorance of the not widely known aspect of Universalism and Pietism having an impact on early German Baptist history. I choose to take the moderate stand that it was because of a lack of understanding of the impact. The longer I get in the tooth the more I accept that this lack is because of self-imposed blinders to the possibilities that other religious based concepts did have an impact. And because the late 19th and early 20th Century German Baptist historians, sans Cassel, did not write on the subject, writers of our time are not aware of the larger impact. Perhaps if more was known of George Adam Martin, both from a literary and historical standpoint, we today would have a better understanding of the roots of the German Baptist church in Pietism. While many modern historians are aware of his problems with the accepted ruling councils of his day, it is only recently becoming understood that he was somewhere in between Annual Meeting Brethren, Ephrata Brethren and Universalists. Just look at where he or his students in theology were and it soon becomes apparent that our more moderate Annual Meeting Brethren were constantly at odds with this Pietist based theology. We have the problems in the Carolinas, which I believe also extended up into southern Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois and yes even into southern Ohio. And this "at odds" relationship lasted long after Martin's demise. Read about the Landisites, Eymanites (Oymanites) and any of the other short-lived sects and stretch your imagination. Read between the lines! Perhaps you might even say that Martin's Pietist impact lasted into to the 1880s. Could we term the Old Orders as Annual Meeting Brethren of Martin's day and the Progressive's as the Pietists of Martin's day? Martin seemingly espoused a congregational based ruling body (each church ruled itself) while the Annual Meeting Brethren of that era preferred a body of elders ruling the entire body of the church. An interesting concept! Perhaps I got the horse before the cart on that one. <grin> Wayne Webb ----- Original Message ----- > > Oddly enough, Ham was traditionally stated as being the John H by earlier > historians. > Mentioned without source in 1884 in Richard Eddy's UNIVERSALISM IN > AMERICA, > volume 1. > H.K. Carroll stated this as well in a 1878 magazine article in SUNDAY > AFTERNOON magazine. > > Going back further to 1848 is Dave Bennedict in the "General History of > the > Baptist Denomination in America...) claiming it was Ham. He puts these > Dunker > universalists in Green River County, Kentucky; > southern Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. I think Ive seen material from > around this same time (1840s), but Im still working on putting my notes > in order. > > steven rowe

I greatly appreciate these discussions on this list! I am getting an education about the history of the Brethren that is not generally taught. Wayne Webb's comparison of the Old Orders as the Annual Meeting Brethren of Martin's day and the Progressives as the Pietists of Martin's day got my attention. This tension in the church is still going on today in regard to congregational autonomy as opposed to the rulings of Annual Conference. This is happening in relation to a number of issues including Biblical Authority and other issues that I won't name to prevent discussions that are too controversial for the list. It's interesting to see that we still have the same tensions today that the Brethren have experienced for many generations. John Shafer Oakton, VA> From: SpiWebb@aol.com> To: brethren@rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:21:40 -0400> Subject: Re: [BRE] John H. of mention in the 1798 Annual Meeting> > Morning Steven,> > Thank you for pointing out the Universalism in America book. For people > who are seriously interested in reading about the differing views of > Pietism, at least as practiced in America in the colonial days, Eddy's book > is a well written primer. Yes, you do need to get past the Biblical and > theological references but as a general background source it is well > written.> > What intrigues me to no end is that modern German Baptist historians > have chosen, or not been aware of, these various works. It could be that > they chose not to read it because it was not "German Baptist" in origin. Or > perhaps it was an ignorance of the not widely known aspect of Universalism > and Pietism having an impact on early German Baptist history.> > I choose to take the moderate stand that it was because of a lack of > understanding of the impact. The longer I get in the tooth the more I > accept that this lack is because of self-imposed blinders to the > possibilities that other religious based concepts did have an impact. And > because the late 19th and early 20th Century German Baptist historians, sans > Cassel, did not write on the subject, writers of our time are not aware of > the larger impact.> > Perhaps if more was known of George Adam Martin, both from a literary > and historical standpoint, we today would have a better understanding of the > roots of the German Baptist church in Pietism. While many modern historians > are aware of his problems with the accepted ruling councils of his day, it > is only recently becoming understood that he was somewhere in between Annual > Meeting Brethren, Ephrata Brethren and Universalists.> > Just look at where he or his students in theology were and it soon > becomes apparent that our more moderate Annual Meeting Brethren were > constantly at odds with this Pietist based theology. We have the problems > in the Carolinas, which I believe also extended up into southern Virginia, > Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois and yes even into southern Ohio. And this "at > odds" relationship lasted long after Martin's demise. Read about the > Landisites, Eymanites (Oymanites) and any of the other short-lived sects and > stretch your imagination. Read between the lines!> > Perhaps you might even say that Martin's Pietist impact lasted into to > the 1880s. Could we term the Old Orders as Annual Meeting Brethren of > Martin's day and the Progressive's as the Pietists of Martin's day? Martin > seemingly espoused a congregational based ruling body (each church ruled > itself) while the Annual Meeting Brethren of that era preferred a body of > elders ruling the entire body of the church. An interesting concept! > Perhaps I got the horse before the cart on that one. <grin>> > Wayne Webb> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > Oddly enough, Ham was traditionally stated as being the John H by earlier> > historians.> > Mentioned without source in 1884 in Richard Eddy's UNIVERSALISM IN > > AMERICA,> > volume 1.> > H.K. Carroll stated this as well in a 1878 magazine article in SUNDAY> > AFTERNOON magazine.> >> > Going back further to 1848 is Dave Bennedict in the "General History of > > the> > Baptist Denomination in America...) claiming it was Ham. He puts these > > Dunker> > universalists in Green River County, Kentucky;> > southern Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa. I think Ive seen material from> > around this same time (1840s), but Im still working on putting my notes > > in order.> >> > steven rowe > > > ------------------------> Search the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/BRETHREN> ------------------------> Support Our Sponsoring Agency> The Fellowship Of Brethren Genealogists (FOBG)> For further information contact Ron McAdams mailto:McAdamsr@hotmail.com> ------------------------> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRETHREN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008

> > What intrigues me to no end is that modern German Baptist historians > have chosen, or not been aware of, these various works. It could be that > they chose not to read it because it was not "German Baptist" in origin. Or > perhaps it was an ignorance of the not widely known aspect of Universalism > and Pietism having an impact on early German Baptist history. > > > Perhaps you might even say that Martin's Pietist impact lasted into to > the 1880s. Could we term the Old Orders as Annual Meeting Brethren of > Martin's day and the Progressive's as the Pietists of Martin's day? Martin > seemingly espoused a congregational based ruling body (each church ruled > itself) while the Annual Meeting Brethren of that era preferred a body of > elders ruling the entire body of the church. An interesting concept! > Perhaps I got the horse before the cart on that one. <grin> > Floyd Mallott (Studies in Brethren History) and Donald Durnbaugh (Brethren in Colonial America) -both reference Eddy. And you don't include my own comments on the Pietism sequence: - that the conflict of the Carolinas, and sequel in Kaintuck, didn't finish with the Far Western Brethren and a Compromise, because the Compromise itself was not acceptable to many. Annual Meeting, itself, took the stand that there was really no compromise, that it was just an agreement to accept the decisions of Annual Meeting - look at the record of what they did. There were many Brethren who moved west from Illinois into Missouri and further, who refused the Compromise, and Annual Meeting, and are lost to the Brethren. Then you, too, include the divisions of the church, in 1881 and 1882, when the Old Order refused the Compromise, and returned to the earlier decisions of Annual Meeting. I am not sure I would place either the "Progressives" or the "Church of the Brethren" in the Pietist camp - but they are certainly closer to the Compromise. Merle C Rummel

Merle, Thank You I am someone, who finding what her great-grandfather was an elder of in 1995, has been on a long journey to find an amazing ancestry. The only explanation I have found for the Falls City, NE, 1881-1882 split was "order of the dress." Christian Forney organized the Brethren Church at Beaver City, NE, in 1884 after relocating to Burr Oak after leaving Falls City. Christian is listed in Burr Oak as one who joined the Progressive movement. The church in Falls City was built on Christian and Sabina's land. When they Falls City, they deeded the land to the trustees of the church. After many problems, is now a Brethren Church. Christian was for many years until his death, presiding elder and pastor at Beaver City. I did get from the archives in Elgin, both his retirement and obituary from the Brethren Evangelist. I assumed they were there as he had been an active German Baptist elder or that he was related to Elder John Forney, both of them. Christian and his father, Elder John Forney, Sr,. worked on relief committees, road to visit outlying members, together. They seemed to be very close. Christian's wife was the granddaughter of Elder Henry Meyers, one of the instigators of the split. His father followed the rules of the Annual conference until his death. Dress alone did not, to me, seem sufficient reason for Christian to follow Henry instead of his father. Was it just the congregational based church as the ruling body instead of the rulings of the Annual Conference? That does make more sense than dress. Are there other reasons in the Compromise that were real conflicts? Any insight for my dilemma would be more than appreciated. Mary Ann Rhodes . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Merle C Rummel" <cliff@rtkonline.com> To: <brethren@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [BRE] John H. of mention in the 1798 Annual Meeting > >> >> What intrigues me to no end is that modern German Baptist historians >> have chosen, or not been aware of, these various works. It could be that >> they chose not to read it because it was not "German Baptist" in origin. >> Or >> perhaps it was an ignorance of the not widely known aspect of >> Universalism >> and Pietism having an impact on early German Baptist history. >> >> >> Perhaps you might even say that Martin's Pietist impact lasted into >> to >> the 1880s. Could we term the Old Orders as Annual Meeting Brethren of >> Martin's day and the Progressive's as the Pietists of Martin's day? >> Martin >> seemingly espoused a congregational based ruling body (each church ruled >> itself) while the Annual Meeting Brethren of that era preferred a body of >> elders ruling the entire body of the church. An interesting concept! >> Perhaps I got the horse before the cart on that one. <grin> >> > > Floyd Mallott (Studies in Brethren History) and Donald Durnbaugh > (Brethren in Colonial America) -both reference Eddy. And you don't > include my own comments on the Pietism sequence: - that the conflict of > the Carolinas, and sequel in Kaintuck, didn't finish with the Far > Western Brethren and a Compromise, because the Compromise itself was not > acceptable to many. Annual Meeting, itself, took the stand that there > was really no compromise, that it was just an agreement to accept the > decisions of Annual Meeting - look at the record of what they did. > > There were many Brethren who moved west from Illinois into Missouri and > further, who refused the Compromise, and Annual Meeting, and are lost to > the Brethren. Then you, too, include the divisions of the church, in > 1881 and 1882, when the Old Order refused the Compromise, and returned > to the earlier decisions of Annual Meeting. I am not sure I would place > either the "Progressives" or the "Church of the Brethren" in the Pietist > camp - but they are certainly closer to the Compromise. > > Merle C Rummel > > > > ------------------------ > Search the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/BRETHREN > ------------------------ > Support Our Sponsoring Agency > The Fellowship Of Brethren Genealogists (FOBG) > For further information contact Ron McAdams mailto:McAdamsr@hotmail.com > ------------------------ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRETHREN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message