Navigating Hostile Waters- secular research in Baptist History Part one of two by Jim Curran

Jim Curran April 17, 2020 

Navigating Hostile Waters- secular research in Baptist History Part one of two

Sometimes my Baptist history research deals with decidedly different sources. Typically I do most all research in Baptist history books of one sort or another. However occasionally I run across a secular or other book that can help in research.

Navigating Hostile Waters- secular research in Baptist History Part one of two

Sometimes my Baptist history research deals with decidedly different sources. Typically I do most all research in Baptist history books of one sort or another. However occasionally I run across a secular or other book that can help in research. Sometimes these sources can be neutral, other times outright hostile and sometimes ill informed. That being said sometimes these can give information that we don’t find elsewhere. This may seem strange to do so but it is to be noted that many prior Baptist historians have done research in this area. For example Martyr’s Mirror has many trials taken from Catholic documents. There are many others that have used similar sourcing. So that being said How can these things help us? In this first part we will look at issues and then in the next examine some of the sources that can be used.

Understanding Bias

1) Before starting anything in this field we need to understand that there is bias that we need to cut through. History is written by the victors and thus their information is what has often been preserved as the predominant history. We can see that born out in American history as an example. Non religious and religious sources will in some way shape or form mention the First and Second Great Awakenings. They were such significant events that secular sources find it a little hard to ignore, although they may downplay it. We can contrast this awareness to that of the Separate Baptist Revival. How many are aware of its existence- yet it had as much of an impact. Why is this? It was not written by the majority.

2) Every historian carries some bias. Even so called secular historians carry bias. Someone who is indifferent to religion will also be somewhat indifferent to its impact. One example perhaps that I could site is George Shultz’s biography of Baptist missionary Isaac McCoy “An Indian Canaan.” While it covers the historical events well- it misses McCoy’s motivation of reaching the Indians for Christ. This is because the author is writing this as an academic exercise and misses the spiritual motivation. On the other hand historians Catholic and denominational will often carry much more bias. This is especially true in dealing with accounts of Catholic trials or the beliefs or “heretics.”

3) Since historians tend to go with the “majority view” outlying histories are often rejected. One interesting account that I read a while back was “Massacre at Montsegur:” byZoe Oldenbourg about the Albigensian crusade. It has been belittled a little by other historians as it is more sympathetic to the Albigenses than normal. However it is one of the best written books on the subject and much less biased that the other side.

Lost in translation

1) While of lesser importance than the next point sometimes some translation is required. Studying Baptist history often requires studying English history. Many academic writers will quote authors directly using middle English. I ran into this extensively in reading “A history of the Lollards and Protestants in the Dioceses of York” lately. In reading this you must think phonetically in which case you can understand it. Some translation of Latin phrases will often be necessary in many academic texts. (And I will be the first to admit my high school Latin is rusty enough to need a tetanus shot.)

2) One thing often neglected in translation is worldview. Even dealing in the same language different worldviews result in vastly different meanings. Take for example the word “Baptism.” To us it means Immersion after salvation by a qualified administrator. It’s purpose is a declaration of having accepted Christ as Savior. To others that same word takes on different meaning (incorrect Scripturally we should add.) To the Catholic that same word indicates a sprinkling given to infants as a sacrament that conveys grace to the participant. They also hold that this is how a person is saved. To someone in a “Church of Christ” it is an immersion that is done by an adult as a part of salvation. Thus we see that the same word conveys very different meanings (with only one correct Scriptural one.) This is the same when we are dealing with religious (primarily Catholic) sources. What we said and what they understood were two totally different things. Martyr’s Mirror contains many trials sourced from Catholic documents and can be used as an example. The position that is argued in the trials by the Catholics as to belief is very different from the statements of faith given by their hands. In one case the Catholics accused them of rejecting marriage- this was denied but the accusation stood. However what was in question was the Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament and in doing so they refused to be married in a Catholic church. We can see that the bias as well as the miscommunication led to false accusations. When one examines these accusations in light of worldview we see better what is happening.

Learning to gleen- It is important in all of this to realize that we have to filter the bad material out and keep the good. Know what you believe first and stand on it.

These being said we will dive into some thoughts on sources in the next part.

Facebook