MennoNet.com

Have any of you on here ever delivered or participated in delivering a church history lecture (preferably somewhat Anabaptist focused)?

I teach a one-semester church history course to 11th and 12th graders every two years.

Heirbyadoption wrote:Have any of you on here ever delivered or participated in delivering a church history lecture (preferably somewhat Anabaptist focused)?

Not Anabaptist focused

Many times. And various courses. Not saying I am good at it and I am certainly not a trained historian but there must be a shortage of those out there as I have been asked many times in different settings. Usually they vary from a low of 3 to high of about 6 sessions.
The subject I get asked most often to speak on is an introduction and history of the Martyr's Mirror.

appleman2006 wrote:The subject I get asked most often to speak on is an introduction and history of the Martyr's Mirror.

I'd like to hear this sometime!

I have.

Am curious how in depth some of you anabaptist historians (sorry, Max ) get on the Remnant churches and their effects, such as Broadbent covers? Or do you generally just begin with the Reformation?

Ernie wrote:I have.

You have? Now you have me curious. When and where?

I talk a fair bit about early groups like the Montanists and Donatists, briefly mention the Waldensians and similar medieval groups, and devote a half-lesson or so to Wycliffe and Hus. My course is intended to give a broad overview of church history, with a special emphasis on Anabaptism. It ends up being about one-third Anabaptism and two-thirds everything else.

I'm skeptical of the whole "remnant" idea. It seems to encourage an unrealistically black-and-white view of organizations and people, and interpretations of them as if they existed in our context rather than their own. It's been a while since I read these authors, but as I recall Verduin is especially guilty of this, while Broadbent is better in this regard.

Heirbyadoption wrote:Am curious how in depth some of you anabaptist historians (sorry, Max ) get on the Remnant churches and their effects, such as Broadbent covers? Or do you generally just begin with the Reformation?

The subject intrigues me. I cannot say that I have touched on it in any depth although in my MM course I do often spend the better part of one session talking about the church from Christ up to the 1500's and try to emphasize the positive parts. More from van Braght's perspective though than from Broadbent's.
People have been critical of van Braght's attempt at showing a link of the early Christian church down through to the reformation but I believe a careful reading of what he is saying shows that in most cases he is simply trying to point out that the practice of believer's baptism and nonresistance are not new practices but that believers have believed and practiced this teachings down through time. There are a few cases where I think he stretches things a bit to make his point but I also think that he probably was working with the best resources he had at the time.