No. 44. >> Wow. That's quite a story. Did any church or churches benefit from this shift in perspective? >>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Good question, Nick. In fact, several traditions really benefitted from this development over the course of the early part of the 1800s. A few were older church bodies. But most of them really found their first expressions here in America during this period of time. Simply put, this theological, political, social, economic transition that occurred between 1790 and 1850 let's say had a special impact on the development of the Baptist churches, especially on the Methodist churches. But then also allowed for the emergence of other traditions like the Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ. So it did have recognizable impact on some of these church bodies here in America. Let me give you a case in point. Way back in this class we talked about the development of church bodies here on the American scene. And in the colonial period we noted that the big three, if you will, were the congregationalist church, always the largest, followed by the Church of England. And then following that were a variety of groups. But by the late 1700s, the Presbyterians had fitted themselves into the third position and relatively comfortable there. Beneath that, there were a variety of others. Between 1790 and 1850, things change in some very basic ways. And I would like to go back to the Gaustad Atlas once again through the congregations that they count there simply to get the bigger picture as this transition occurs. You'll recall that in 1780, the Congregational Church was the largest with 749 local congregations. It was followed by the Presbyterians with 495. The Baptists with 457. The Anglicans with 406. Lutherans, 240. German Reformed, 201. Dutch Reformed, 127. And Roman Catholics with 56. 1780 the colonial pattern still largely held. Though things were about to change. In fact, in that period between 1780 and 1820, everything would change. So then by the year 1820, the numbers go this way: The Methodists have 2700 congregations. The Baptists, 2700, as well. Presbyterians, 1700. Congregationalists, 1100. Lutherans, 800. Episcopalians, as they are now called, 600. The Quakers are keeping records for the first time. And we have 350 of their congregations. German Reformed, 300. Dutch Reformed, 180. Unitarians, 150. Universalists, 200. And Roman Catholics, 124. There is some dispute about actual Universalist numbers. And in fact, I should offer a proviso at this point about various numbers. Different traditions count a congregation a different way. That is to say all of these Methodist congregations include the many, many, many tiny churches, two or three families. In some cases perhaps only one. On preaching stations on a larger circuit. So there is some variety there. The Baptists, to form a Baptist congregation, doesn't require a Constitution. Rather, simply requires a covenant between one or two people it at the very least. And thus, many of these Baptist congregations are extremely small. Presbyterian and congregational churches tend to be larger. 200, 300 people perhaps in those. So one has to be cautious in how one counts the numbers here and invests the numbers with a certain weight. Nonetheless, what this does show is just how rapidly some of these church bodies grow. By the time we push on then to 1860, another 40 years down the line, the numbers read like this: The Methodist Church has nearly 20,000 separate faith communities. 19,883. There are 12,150 Baptist congregations. 6,400 Presbyterian. By now Roman Catholicism has 2500. Congregational Church, 2200. The Episcopalians, 2100. Lutherans, 2100. Disciples of Christ, another new church body on the American scene, has about 2100. Quakers, 726. German Reformed, 676. Universalists, 664. Dutch Reformed, 440. And Unitarians, 264. Of course, what is most striking about these numbers is the growth of the Methodists and the Baptists. Everybody grows, as we see from these numbers. There are more congregations in America every year, every month, every week literally during this period of time that we're looking at. But nobody grows as quickly as the Baptists and the Methodists. And the Methodists are clearly out in front of everybody else. So why is that? Why do these two groups particularly enjoy such rapid growth in this period? Let's take the Baptists first. They come to the American scene with a very clear message. Their material principle, as we've already discussed, is one of the autonomy of the local congregation. The freedom of the local congregation from external adjudicatories, externally ruling groups. Thus, when it comes to populating Baptist churches and providing them with pastors, the Baptists have a leg up on many of the other Christian traditions here in America because their message, freedom and liberty, resonates very well with much of what we hear on the American scene at this point in time. Not just in the church but more broadly speaking. To become a Baptist congregation simply requires a covenanting of two or more people. Thus, if one feels compelled to begin a new congregation, one doesn't have to go back east to appeal to a Synod or to a bishop or something of that sort for permission to form a congregation. One simply does it. And it's accomplished. Thus, many of these Baptist churches, as I mentioned before, are very small. But they also have a profound sense of ownership on the part of the people who create them. People who are absolutely invested in the organization and sustaining of this particular congregation. Now, one of the things that they want and demand is biblical preaching. And hence, the question regarding how do you get a pastor. Now, if you went back to the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, Episcopalians, the traditional Reformational churches, the manner in which you received a pastor was, first of all, you had to have a candidate. And before a man became a candidate for the ministry, he had to receive a theological education. Then he had to be examined by his peers. Then call and ordination upon that. And call and ordination generally were overseen by Synods. Within the Lutheran tradition the Pennsylvania Synod formed in 1748 specifically came into existence for this purpose. To train and to examine and to call and ordain pastors for Lutheran parishes. But it was an external group, if you will. An outside authority that acted as gatekeeper. Within the Baptist tradition, there was none of this. If a person felt compelled to preach, then they had that freedom. And the proof of their call was not within the educational system. The ordination certificate did not become a seal of approval in that respect. But rather, the effectiveness of the preacher indicated whether or not he had the gift of the Spirit. When the Spirit gave that indication, it was sealed or recognized as the congregation laid hands on and ordained that con date for the ministry. All of that could happen within the context of the local congregation. There was no need for seminaries. There was no need for external adjudicatories. It simply happened in the autonomous local church. And because of that where some of the traditional church bodies struggle to meet the needs of the American frontier, the Baptists were well positioned to provide congregations and pastors for emerging community of people. Very quick. Hence, their growth. Also, theologically we could note that they did have that transition occurring, as we've already discussed, from the more particular Calvinist position to the more general Arminian position during this period, as well. So they had a message that resonated as well as a method for developing congregations and dividing pastors. And they enjoyed tremendous success. The Methodists enjoyed even greater success. As a church body, they jumped into the camp meeting revivalistic scene with more vigor than any other tradition. In fact, in many ways it defined their experience here in America. The Methodists were decidedly and pronouncedly Arminian in their theology. And unashamedly so. Holding up the results that they were able to achieve as proof of the substantially correct position of their theology. But they also had a method for getting the word out and for forming congregations. Different in thrust than that of the Baptists. What the Methodists did was to develop an intentional itinerant ministry. Where a Baptist preacher would be set aside by his peers for ministry in a settled place, and while he would likely spend most of the week farming and then be the preacher on Sunday, the Methodists did have a committed ministry. Men set aside to simply do the work of the ministry. But they were not to be settled. They were always on the move. Hence, this language of itinerancy. Traveling consistently to take the Word out. We came to call them Circuit Riders. They called themselves that, as well. A Circuit Rider was assigned a given area, geographical location. And in that area he would develop points on a circuit. Usually a kind of a rough circle. Although, it wouldn't always look that way on a map. In which there were these communities that he would organize. And then would simply continuously ride to them. Riding the circuit. Reaching these people, these communities every six to eight weeks or so. It seemed there would be long absences of the ministry. And in the interim what they did to provide cohesion among these various communities was to use similar devotional materials sold by the Circuit Rider. That's how he made the salary. Which then were used in his absence by lay readers or lay preachers. By the way, some of these Circuit Riders were lay preachers themselves. Not all were ordained. Nevertheless, there was a sense of cohesion and unity through the use of similar worship and devotional materials that held these scattered circuits, points on a circuit together, even in the absence of the Circuit Rider. So the presence of the Circuit Rider was not absolutely critical to the community's existence. But it certainly did underscore and help to achieve a sense of utility and identity under these certain groups. Now, the Circuit Rider would continually ride the circuit developing these congregations and others consistently. And if it got to the point where there were too many points on the circuit, then the circuit would be divided. And another minister raised up to ride the circuit. By virtue of this, there's consistent and explosive growth among these Methodist communities of faith, as we've seen in the numbers from Gaustad a little bit earlier. True, many of them are very small initially. But over time they grow into large and driving congregations. And interestingly and ironically enough over time, they begin to take on the character of the more settled congregations around them as the 19th Century progresses. In fact, one of the really interesting points about Methodism is that after its initial explosive growth, that levels off somewhat to the consternation of many who say: We've lost our other worldly character. We've lost the true biblical message. Which then does in the 20th Century especially lead to some severe tensions within Methodism as it grapples with these internal tensions. But in the 19th Century, it's growing like crazy. What is perhaps most ironic about Methodist growth is the fact that it does so from an Episcopal polity. There is a bishop. And the bishop makes certain decisions. That's still true. And one of the decisions the bishop makes is who will serve where. Now, in a democratized setting that seems awfully strange to have a bishop making determination about a man's ministry and whom a congregation will receive as their preacher. But in Methodism given the explosive growth, its rapid expansion, it proves to be an extremely effective polity. And albeit one with a certain tension built in. I read a book a few years back called "Taking Heaven By Storm," which is the history of Methodism in the early national period that we've been looking at here. And it says we shouldn't overestimate the authority of the bishop. He was largely an administrator. And administrators oftentimes have to deal with the criticism of those whom they are leading. And in fact, said the author of this book, the manner in which assignments were made reflects certain democratizing principles. That is to say the Methodist preachers would come together for their three- or four-day conference. And in the conference they would talk about growth, numbers. They would enter into matters of discipline, theology and the like. But the last and the most looked forward to part of the conference was the assignment. When the bishop would post the assignments for the coming year. And generally what would happen according to this author the bishop would post the assignments as the last thing, building up the tension until the last moment, before the assignments for the coming year were revealed. He would post them and move out the door as quickly as possible to leap on his already saddled horse and ride away with all possible haste before the men had a chance to complain about where he had assigned them. They would all be clustered around the post of the signings. Then they would have to try to find the bishop who was already out in the woods somewhere if they had a complaint. Now, that's probably an extreme example. But you get the point. There are bishops and there are bishops. These are not like the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who are absolutely responsible for the activities of the church. This is a give-and-take. And if the bishop should provide responsibilities and assignments to a man and to men and to more men than he could effectively hold off politically, he could find himself very easily no longer the bishop. He had to play that side of things. Nonetheless, we see here an intentional missional strategy on the part of the Methodists to provide as many points of contact on the American frontier. In this respect, they adapt themselves more quickly than anyone else to these remarkable circumstances. As Americans push west in huge numbers, they are perhaps the best poised initially to take advantage of the unique circumstances on the American frontier. Now, Nick, the last of this bunch, the Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ group, I'm sure you have questions that would probably emerge about them. Maybe we could hold off on them for the time being. And come back to them a little later. Because they fit into a little bit different group than the ones we've been talking about. But I think it is important to note at this point in time that part of this overall revival, Methodistic, Baptistic growth in the American frontier, which is all to say in this period, 1780 to 1860, Christianity in America undergoes a fundamental change. And the manner in which that is expressed are monistic, revivalistic, continues to influence the church today. And I think we'll see that play itself out over the remainder of this course.