Primitivism is not a denominational sub-group within the Baptist camp, but is rather a broad type that transcends different associations or fellowships. It is in that sense comparable to fundamentalism, landmarkism, etc. I use this term from time to time and have been asked what it means.
While studying Baptist groups, I first ran across the term "primitivism" in the works of Albert Wardin (Baptist Atlas and Baptists Around the World). In classifying Baptists, Wardin identifies a number of groups as Primitivists. Primitive Baptists are probably the largest group of Baptists that would be considered Primitivists, but primitivism is not synonymous with Primitive Baptists. A number of Baptist groups are considered primitivists, especially the Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, United Baptists, "Two-Seed" Baptists, the "Duck River" Baptists, some old-time Missionary Baptists, and a few Free Will Baptists.
Persons hearing the terminology "Primitivist" or "Primitive" Baptist may think of crude or backward. The idea is really "original." When people started using the term "Primitive Baptist", they meant that they believed "Primitive" Baptist was the strain of Baptist that best represented what Baptists originally were. Lemuel Potter (Old School) and W. P. Throgmorton (Missionary) once held a debate called "Who are the Primitive Baptists?" Each held his own group to be the "primitive"/original Baptists.
Back to the original question - What is primitivism? My dictionary says, "belief in the superiority of a simple way of life close to nature." Translated in the religious realm this means a preference for the "simpler" times of the "primitive" (New Testament) church. Put another way, it is the desire of primitivism to recreate and live New Testament Christianity. Martin Marty calls it "the dream of restoration of a purer order." Primitivism in motivation is related to the restorationism of Alexander Campbell & others. One major different between primitivistic Baptists and Campbell would be that these Baptists believe that they have constantly been recreating primitive Christianity, whereas Campbell believed that it had disappeared and needed "restoration". "An Anabaptist, (Michael) Servetus believed what has always been basic to restorationism: that the true, apostolic church went into apostasy, that all existing churches are false, and that the only way to have the true church again is by a restoration of primitive Christianity. This is also known as primitivism, which implies that the New Testament provides a detailed pattern for the church, so that in any age the true church can be reproduced by faithful adherence to the New Testament mode...[Leroy Garrett in Encyclopedia of Religion in the South, p. 641]." The above paragraph was written by a Restorationist, so it reflects more of the idea of restoration, but it still presents the basic idea of primitivism - that the New Testament provides the pattern for the continual faithful reproduction of the church. Don't all Baptists believe this? Probably most would say so; but they do not mean it the same way as the small subsection considered "primitivists."
I will try to give a few examples of how primitivism reveals itself among Baptists. The following information is from Local Baptists, Local Politics: Churches and Communities in the Middle and Uplands South by Clifford A. Grammich, Jr. In his research on six groups of primitivistic sects (Central, Duck River, Old Missionary, Old Regular, Eastern District Primitive, and United Baptists), Grammich compiled a grouping of "common characteristics" among these churches (pp. 93-111). These common characteristics should not be seen as synonymous with primitivism, but rather the way primitivism worked itself out among these particular churches.
If primitivism is an attempt to recreate the purer order of the New Testament, the following ways are seen as part of how churches in these six groups try to recreate that order. Grammich says, "What becomes evident is that this religion is a religion of the common people, and that the common people shape it...(p. 93).
1. Belief in the King James Bible as the unerring Word of God.
2. Emphasis on Ancient Origins of Their "True" Faith.
3. Belief in Salvation somewhere between Predestination and Free Will. [Grammich's study did not include the Regular or Absolute Primitive Baptists]
4. Emphasis on Personal, Experiential Knowledge of Salvation.
5. Non-professional Clergy without Formal Religious Education.
6. Opposition to Missions. [some would argue they only oppose "mission methods"]
7. Simple, Egalitarian Style of Worship. [examples include extemporaneous sermons, extemporaneous prayers, shouting, traditional hymns usually without instruments, outdoor baptisms, communion and footwashing]
8. Weak Central Authorities.
9. Traditional Sex Roles.
10. Rural Origins and Membership.
11. Stable Growth at Home but Losses through Migration.
Grammich notes parallels on the KJV issue with fundamentalists (point 1), but also quotes Deborah McCauley saying, "their preference in biblical literature differs profoundly from a preponderance of evangelical fundamentalism in particular...they accept ambiguity -- running deep and broad -- as an indisputable fact of life. They do not feel driven to resolve it in their preaching with semantically fancy footwork that artificially overcomes ambiguity by forcing all the pieces to fit together neatly...(p.95)." Though he also sees a common theme with landmarkism in point 2, Grammich knows of no formal connection between the two. It is my opinion that the commonalities between primitivism and landmarkism (with some Baptists sharing both ideas) helped landmarkism grow its base. The vast majority of modern landmark Baptists are no longer considered primitivists.
If you believe that the New Testament provides a detailed pattern for the church, that can be reproduced by faithful adherence to the New Testament....
....you just might be a "Primitivist".
10 comments:
The thing is, Cliff was not trying to define primitivism but rather giving the common characteristics of the 6 primitivistic groups he used in his study.
I probably added confusion when I wrote about this being "how churches in these six groups try to recreate that order." While maybe not an "historical accident" (e.g., providence), this rural base is not something the churches deliberately do/believe as "recreating" the New Testament style church.
Let me also add that I included the Cliff's description of these Baptists to kind of put a face of what some "primitivists" might look like. The core of primitivism is really more about the approach, IMO, rather than exactly how applying that approach turns out.
What about the term "hardshell"? You don't hear it as much as in the past. I would take it that for the most part it is still synonymous with "primitivism".
Neil
It is not unusual that primitivism would share many basics with other Christian groups that do not have a primitivistic mindset. IMO, what is distinctive of primitivism is the foundational thinking -- the New Testament provides a detailed pattern for the church that should faithfully be followed -- and not the variations in how thinking plays itself out in real life. But primitivism is not just a theory, it takes real life existence in numerous ways among Christian churches, and has been probably strongest in the rural southern United States.
I'll comment below on a few of your comments. Too, I'd caution that you not read too much into Cliff's list. These were incidental to the main purpose of his book, which was about politics. So he was not trying to set forward a list of what "primitivistic" churches were/are, but describing the churches that were being researched in the study. I used that as an illustration of what primitivists might look like. Maybe it was a bad choice. I could have used the a cappella, one cup, no-Sunday School, no-associations, no-mission boards, non-institutional churches of Christ, but I'm really writing more relative to Baptist. Or I could have used the Primitive Baptists, but one point I want to make is that primitivist does not equal only Primitive Baptist.
2. Emphasis on Ancient Origins of Their "True" Faith.
Catholics and Anglicans, Restorationists, lots of people feel this way about their faith as well.
I would think that most Christians have some concept of something like this. But most don't accept it in the degree that they think their churches should "look like" the churches of the New Testament. As for Catholics, though they claim origin back to Peter as the first pope, they have no drive at all for Catholicism to look like the churches of the book of Acts and the New Testament. The church speaks for God, and changing, adapting, doctrine and practice as needed, is well within that concept.
3. Belief in Salvation somewhere between Predestination and Free Will. [Grammich's study did not include the Regular or Absolute Primitive Baptists]
Aren't all Christians somewhere on that continuum?
Yes. The book goes a little more into the tension this has played out among these Baptist.
4. Emphasis on Personal, Experiential Knowledge of Salvation.
All evangelicals, right?
Not sure how you're using the term. One thing Cliff emphasizes is that membership drives and evangelistic campaigns carried on by modern Baptists are replaced with an emphasis on the individual's experiential conversion to God "on his own time" -- sometimes through a period of intense mourning of sin, and which often results in folks joining these churches at an older age than is common in the more modern-looking Baptist churches.
6. Opposition to Missions. [some would argue they only oppose "mission methods"]
What about the Missionary Baptists, some of whom you say are primitivists?
The missionary Baptists that are defined as primitivists usually do not accept any kind of organization for advancing the preaching of the gospel.
The mission/anti-mission terminology we are stuck with somewhat misses the real differences. They pretty much developed through pejorative use. As far as I can tell, no group of Baptists ever objected to the preaching of the gospel, only the new-fangled methods by which it was being done. Today some who object to the methods are called Missionary Baptists, some Primitive, some Regular, some United, etc. Those in East Texas who are called "Missionary Baptists" today were called "anti-missionary" in the late 1800s and early 1900s by their Southern Baptist Convention brethren. Many of them have adopted the very things they objected to 100 years ago.
10. Rural Origins and Membership.
Not all rural churches are primitive?
No, nor are all primitivistic churches rural. But when you speak of actual primitivistic churches in the United States today, most of them have rural origins (usually the ones in towns were started by country folks who moved to town). I think probably some of this playing out this way is supported by the mindset of why some people live rural lives versus why some people live urban/city lives. There are often very different emphases and interests in people related to these lifestyles.
11. Stable Growth at Home but Losses through Migration.
What Grammich was referring to with this, is that these primitivistic churches tend to remain fairly stable in their "areas" (the groups he studied were generally confined to specific geographical areas), but that they tended to lose members who moved out of the area. This was simply describing a fact of life for those churches, and is not inherent in primitivism. I have seen this happen -- folks move off where there is not a church like the one they came from and simply adapt themselves to whatever they find. This is a fact of life for all smaller denominations, but with primitivism it is not consistent with their theology.
In addition to what I posted about, here are some comments made by a Primitive Baptist minister friend of mine about Cliff Grammich's points.
1. Belief in the King James Bible as the unerring Word of God.
At least a strong preference for the KJV.
2. Emphasis on Ancient Origins of Their "True" Faith.
I rarely hear this in the churches among whom I travel. I suppose we all know this is what we believe and it is a bit tiresome to hear it week after week.
5. Nonprofessional Clergy without Formal Religious Education.
Believe it or not, when I was ordained there were a couple of fellows who objected because I had a college education -- not a religious college education either -- but they were in a severe minority of the group assembled for the occasion. They would have had a "fit" had they known I had studied Biblical Greek.
I think this area is the weak area about primitivists groups. Ministers often get a couple of topics in their head and that is all you ever hear from them.
That said, I know a few men who are quite elderly and barely literate, who can expound, with power of conviction and rhetoric, on various theological topics.
6. Opposition to Missions.
I think the author misses some of the point on this one. It isn't strictly an opposition to missions, but rather an opposition to mission boards separate from the local church.
7. Simple, Egalitarian Style of Worship [examples include extemporaneous sermons, extemporaneous prayers, shouting, traditional hymns usually without instruments, outdoor baptisms, communion and footwashing].
Perhaps one of the most appealing things about primitivist bodies...
Shouting is not as common as it once was, but still exists. There was quite a bit of it this weekend at our associational session. Some of it is a bit tiring though, in that the same women will shout at the same point in the same minister's sermon. See comment above about some ministers rehashing the same subjects over and over. Most of the shouting happens when someone is speaking of heaven and wanting to go on, at least in my experience.
Shouting is almost an exclusive thing among women. Many of the men are gathered together in a "that's right" knot.
On the other hand, perhaps I am too starched to appreciate it.
8. Weak Central Authorities
Or no central authority at all.
9. Traditional Sex Roles.
Something I noticed this weekend, when we had our annual associational session--25 years ago the men sat on one side of the building and the women on the other. Some still do, almost exclusively, but more and more family units are sitting together during services. Yet, there remain the practice of the single women and the single men not sitting together, and the widows sitting on the right hand side of the meeting house in the front. Other traditional roles outside worship services are breaking down as well, as reflects the general societial changes.
The term "hardshell" seems to have fallen into disfavor. From my experience, I am led to believe the majority of Primitive Baptists don't really like (though some do), and that some of their "opponents" no longer think it polite to call them that.
I think that "hardshell" and "primitivism" does have a lot of overlap in meaning whether or not they are synonymous.
I have oft heard the origin of the term "hardshell" attributed to preaching the "hard shalls" of the Bible. I'm really pretty skeptical of that, and haven't seen or heard any source cited other than tradition (which of itself doesn't mean it is wrong). I've always found that the idea of "hardshell" being a pejorative term fastened on them by their opponents seems a little more believable to me (but haven't seen a source for that either, other than the fact that is has been used that way).
Online reading you all might find interesting:
Sophisticated Primitives Then, Primitive Sophisticates Now by Martin Marty
Another worthwhile read that has some information on this subject is Doing Diversity Baptist Style: Major Variations, by Albert W. Wardin, Jr. (This is a part of the The Baptist Style for a New Century pamphlet series).
Over his years of study of Baptist groups, Dr. Wardin has refined his categorization of primitivistic Baptists -- separating the more moderate Calvinists into a division entitled "Old Time Baptists", while reserving "Primitivists" for Primitive Baptists and Old Regular Baptists.
Old-Time Baptists "are generally moderate Calvinists" and "exist apart from other Baptists and tend to follow older patterns of Baptist life. Located primarily in rural areas, they...are considered Old-Time Baptists both because by rejecting conventions they are outside the mainstream of Baptist life and because of their worship and church practice."
Primitivists are "similar to the Old-Time Baptists in rejecting a trained ministry. They differ, however, in their adherence to hyper-Calvinism, antimissionism, and rejection of all institutions outside the local church."
If anything, Baptists are notorious to defy classification. For instance, most United Baptists fit well in Wardin's "Old-Time" Baptist definition. But there are a few on one end that are similar to Free Will Baptists, some that are no different from Landmark Missionary Baptists, and some on the other end who tend toward a strong "Calvinism" and are more "anti-missions" than some Primitive Baptists.
IMO, primitivists are generally closer to old Baptist practice, or at least the foundational idea by which they derived their practice. The early English Baptists of whom I've read, as well as the Continental Anabaptists, seem to be quite driven by the idea that the New Testament provides a detailed pattern for the church that should faithfully be followed.
I didn't notice it on that site, but another one entitled Primitive Methodist Church addresses the name: "The name is meant to indicate they were conducting themselves in the way of Wesley and the original Methodists, particularly in reference to open-air meetings." And the
Primitive Methodist Church web site states, "They named it 'The Society of Primitive Methodists' because they desired to return to the Roots of the Methodist movement."
This is basically consistent with the reasoning used in calling Baptists "Primitive".
Your comments on "Primitive Methodists" got me to thinking about a weekly radio broadcast I remember of around 25 or so years ago, called "The Old Country Church." It was hosted by an older couple, Bro. and Mrs. Paul Smith out of Missouri. They would each sing a couple of songs and play instrumentals as well, with some guests in between. They never actually stated a particular Church, but I remember him saying on more than one occasion, they were "Wesleyan in doctrine." He would give a short sermon at the end, usually in a parable style. I figure they would probably be or come very close to being Primitive Methodist.
Neil
Post a Comment