The anabaptists have historically been horrible about keeping a running history of the movement past the early Radical Reformation era. With the one exception of the Martyrs Mirror. Martyrs Mirror was published in 1660 it was a large book detailing the deaths of Anabaptist Martyrs, and included engravings by Jan Luiken. The author was dutch, Tieleman Janz van Braght. The book of 1290 pages and its journaling of the atrocities was written in Dutch as well. For about 300 years this was the only history that Anabaptists wrote of themselves. Most of what is passed down to us we find in theological treatise of the time and after. Both Zwingli and Luther wrote of the "misguided" and "treacherous" anabaptists. The Spiritualists of that time such as Sebastian Franck were diplomatic with there rendering of Anabaptists saying that they were a pious group but one that tended toward legalism.-Something that is still true today with many of the descendants of the movement.
One of the exceptions in the 300 year gap is through the writings of Gottfried Arnold in his work, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie. There have been several editions printed but none yet in English. Arnold was a Pietist Lutheran Pastor, mystic, and hymn writer who through his pietistic leanings was able to grapple with the truths of Anabaptism and dispell some of the notorious untruths of Anabaptism, one being that they were "universalists". However due to the hate and bigotry of when it was first published, 1699, it did not gain a following.
According to GAMEO, Ernst Troetlsch said, "a church history which is even today not out-of-date and which can still be compared with modern church historians. It covers an incredibly rich field of material and carries the student into the atmosphere of extra-ecclesiastical Protestantism as no other book does" (Sociallehren, 1912, 800).
We don't here much until Harold Bender in his treatise on Anabaptist History, sought to connect all of the sheep of Anabaptism into the Swiss Anabaptist fold. Bender himself had ethnically was descended from these Anabaptists, and it was through his upholding of the Schliethiem Confession and other source documents that he held that the great migrations of Anabaptism started with the Swiss. They were the fathers and mothers of Anabaptism. Benders model of development is characterized as "onegensis" or of out of one creation.
Soon after other anabaptists soon quickly criticized Benders history of onegensis. George H. Williams and Roland Bainton, were two such men who held issue with benders commentary on the roots of Anabaptism. This led to a revision of history citing that the many different leaders of Anabaptism and the countries in which they live grew up concurrently or out of what was termed "polygenesis". That the anabaptist arose out of the social chaos of the Reformation and the injustices that were doled out to the peasant classed.
I myself disagree with this analysis. I find the roots be quite enmeshed. However, I find that at times these were predominantly men on the cusp of overthrowing the establishment, they did not have the where with all due to many of the leaders being martyred or exiled. That the early leaders were most likely 75- 90% educated with a small percentage that were illiterate. Anabaptists have a mythology of pride in the peasant roots. However their leadership in fact were on par, with many of the other evangelical pastors of the time. Where they lacked was in political prowess. They did not always try to work for change in the mode of the area in which they abide. Change could happen over time as Zwingli knew but not at break neck speed. The radical movement could have become a mainstay if it was done at a slower pace. The ministry the radicals presented was to the peasant classes but we find that the Reformed and Lutheran traditions ministered to these folks as well, but it would seem the radical movement fan the flames of the injustices that were seen in the
countryside.
It is also must be asserted that often times the historiographer has a preconceived notion that the Peasants war was a war that was lead by the poor for the poor. In actuality it may be truthful to say it was a time period when the guilds were reaching "middle class status or upper middle class status" and were not willing to submit to the taxation of the church and the local government. This same issue would arise again in our own country. Often times Americans depict the Civil War being led by Farmers and common men, however this is a mythology that is much like the Anabaptist one. The reality was the rich Plantation owners and privateers and merchants, otherwise known as the merchant class, paid for the war. We have seen these uprisings happen again and again, in Egypt, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Russia, Italy, South America etc. The U.S. won, the Anabaptists were defeated, but with the Anabaptist the people still remained and there stories were passed down as a people defeated.
No comments:
Post a Comment