Explanations and Information regarding Baptist Groups in the USA, February 2022 update
Introduction.
The broad divisions used in this outline descend
from those created by Albert W. Wardin, Jr., and explained in his book Baptist Atlas.[i] He developed classifications
specifically to make sense of Baptists in America – a difficult project to say
the least! The categories take into account Baptist divisions based on
theology, history, culture, ethnicity, and means – including developmental
differences in the Northern and Southern United States, ethnic differences, the
Calvinist/Arminian theological divide, and ideas concerning centralization, including
the anti-missions controversy of the 19th century. A working knowledge of the
history of Baptists in the United States will illuminate and simplify the way
forward, helping the reader understand the classification of Baptist bodies in
the United States.
Who
are Baptists?
The question “who are Baptists” is broad
and difficult. A cursory knowledge of the bodies listed in Baptist Groups in the United States will inform one of a
wide range of disparate beliefs and practices. The thread that binds these
groups together are a common heritage of history and theology, even where the
fellowship of that heritage is now essentially broken. The purpose of this list
is not to biblically define who the
Baptists are, but rather to try to make sense of the loosely connected or
disconnected groups of churches, associations, conferences, conventions,
fellowships who define themselves as
Baptists.
For this listing, the bodies included are
historically connected Baptists who would likely espouse the following
distinctives. [ii]
- Believer’s baptism by immersion
- Local church government, congregational and independent
- Priesthood of believers
- Religious Freedom
- Soul Liberty
- The Bible as the rule of faith and practice
Some groups with “Baptist” in their denominational
designation are not included in Baptist Groups in
the United States. Either (1) they are not historically
connected to the main body of Baptists in the United States – for example,
German Baptist Brethren – or (2) they have moved themselves outside the main
body of Baptists, in doctrine, practice, and their own choices of fellowship. Some
taxonomists include Baptist splinters – such as the Pentecostal Free Will
Baptist Church, the Holiness Baptist Association, and General Conference of the
Evangelical Baptist Church – as Baptists. However, in these cases, usually
neither the Baptists, nor these groups themselves, recognize them as Baptists
in the traditional sense. For example, the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church
is “Free Will Baptist” in origin. However, they look to other Pentecostal
groups for like-minded fellowship rather than towards the Baptists. For this
reason, I have created a separate List of Holiness and Pentecostal Baptists.
Explanation
of the Framework.
I.
Black Baptists. The thread that binds this group
together is their African-American heritage. They otherwise exhibit a wide
range of belief. The largest number of Black Baptists are in the South. During
the existence of slavery, they were members of the same churches as Southern
whites. Gaining freedom after the War Between the States, they organized their
own churches and associations. They have for the most part operated separately
and distinctly from the predominantly white organizations. This justifies a
distinct grouping for Black Baptists.[iii]
II.
General Baptists. The thread that binds this group
together is either a heritage related to the English General Baptists (some
Free Will Baptists), or the adoption of beliefs that are like the English
General Baptists, and eventual separation from the Regular Baptists on account
of those beliefs (e.g., General Association of General Baptists). These groups teach
free will and falling from grace, hold open communion, or, at the least, do not
break fellowship over those issues.
III.
Primitivist and Patternist Baptists. The thread that binds
this group together is the rejection of most or all church auxiliaries (mission
boards, seminaries, Sunday schools, women’s societies, etc.) and/or having
Primitive Baptist historical roots.[iv] Some of the more
“progressive” among them have adopted some of the church auxiliaries. Soteriologically
and theologically, Primitivist Baptists run the gamut from absolute
predestinarian to mildly Calvinistic (holding general atonement in combination with
total depravity and eternal security). These churches usually unite in following
older worship patterns, including a cappella singing, extemporaneous preaching,
and the practice of feet washing.
IV.
Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists. This grouping represents
a move in the latter half of the 20th century returning to the Calvinistic heritage
of their 17th and 18th century Particular and Regular Baptist ancestors. They
tend to adopt the 1646 or 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith, reject
modern evangelistic techniques, and some may even feel a stronger bond with
other Reformed churches than to “non-Reformed” Baptists (especially those who
are dispensational, revivalist, and anti-Calvinism).
V.
Regular Baptists (Northern-oriented). The
thread that binds this group together is historical and cultural. These
churches are descendants of the Particular Baptists from England, becoming
known in the U.S. primarily as “Regular” Baptists. Through years of mergers and
changes, most became moderately Calvinistic (holding general atonement in
combination with total depravity and eternal security). The Baptists in the
North – due to various backgrounds in origin, in addition to separation from
the Baptists in the South over slavery and other regional issues, developed
along different lines from the brethren in the Southern United States.
VI.
Regular Baptists (Southern-oriented). The
thread that binds this group together is historical and cultural. These
churches are descendants of the Particular Baptists from England, becoming
known in the U.S. primarily as “Regular” Baptists. Through years of mergers and
changes, most became moderately Calvinistic (holding general atonement in
combination with total depravity and eternal security). The Baptists in the South
– due to various backgrounds in origin, in addition to separation from the
Baptists in the North over slavery and other regional issues, developed along
different lines from the brethren in the Northern United States.
VII.
Ethnic Baptist Bodies. The thread that binds this group
together is separation from the larger bodies of Baptists (primarily of English
language and heritage) due to cultural and, especially, language differences. These
associations, conferences, and conventions exist either distinctly from or
within general conventions. Nevertheless, these groups often relate in some way
to larger national bodies. Therefore, some may not be distinct groups of
Baptists in the same way as those in the first six groupings. It is not always
clear whether some of the bodies are autonomous or semi-autonomous. They are
here divided into three categories: (1) those that partner with or through the
American Baptist Churches; (2) those that partner with or through the Southern
Baptist Convention; and (3) those who are autonomous or whose status in this
regard is unknown to the author. Notably, two of the Baptist bodies in Group V, Converge and North American Baptist Conference, began as ethnic Baptists (Swedish and German, respectively) though they are no longer considered so, having assimilated into the broader culture of American Baptists.
The ethnic Baptist bodies in Group VII exist (at least initially) because they speak a different language from the main body of Baptists. The Black Baptists, however, are and have always been English-speaking churches. I do not list the Black Baptists with these linguistically diverse ethnic bodies. They exist distinctly mostly because of historical social and racial separation. Their Baptist origins can be traced (usually, initially) to either the General or Particular Baptist churches that came from the United Kingdom (since they came out of the predominantly white organizations).
Various
notes and explanations.
Apples
and oranges. It is hard to produce a valid comparison
of different types of Baptist bodies. It is possible to categorize them in
various ways. One outline does not cover all the ground or answer all questions.
Bodies that stand in the same place in the outline often differ vastly in
makeup. The Southern Baptist Convention is a distinct body made up of churches
that support some or all of its programs. In contrast, the Foundations Baptist
Fellowship is a fellowship of individuals who agree to the Statement of Faith
and purposes of the FBFI. Others, however, may operate more like an autonomous
mission board. There is a new “networking” model that may not correspond well
with previous understandings of Baptist operations. Placing Baptist bodies at
an equal level does not consistently offer comparing apples to apples, but
often apples to oranges instead. Such, however, is the “nature” of the “Baptist
beast” – independent churches with no higher governing authority will organize
as they wish!
Each “equivalent” listing generally
recognizes the highest level at which participating churches affiliate.
Churches in groups such as American Baptist, National Baptist, Southern Baptist, etc.
usually participate in local, regional, and/or state associations or
conventions in addition to the general organization. In contrast, independent
Landmark Missionary Baptist churches, for example, have no formal affiliation beyond
the local church level.
Overlapping
membership. Each listing in Baptist Groups in
the United States does not represent a “clean break” with
no overlap. Some of the groups tend to be exclusive, that is, members affiliate
only with one distinct body. However, others are not. Quite a few Black Baptist
churches affiliate with more than one of the National Conventions, and some dually-align
with the ABCUSA or the SBC. A number of churches that identify as “Reformed
Baptist” also participate in the SBC. Within the fundamentalist fellowships –
many of whose membership is by individuals rather than churches – there can be
much overlap. Preachers who participate in the Southwide Baptist Fellowship
might also participate in the BBFI and/or the WBF. The new networking model likely
creates new areas of overlap.
Difficulties.
How to “name” a particular group presents its own difficulties. Obviously, many
are straightforward. The name of the entity will be the name in the list –
American Baptist Association, National Primitive Baptist Convention, New
England Baptist Fellowship, Western Presbytery of the Council of Evangelical
Christian-Baptists. However, other categorizations present the need to create a
distinguishing name under which to classify similar bodies.
I use “Birdwood College Related Churches”
to distinguish a group of Progressive Primitive Baptists from another group of
Primitives who are progressive – because
they started Birdwood College in Thomasville, Georgia in 1950.[v] The wording is outdated
though, because the college officially severed relations with the Progressive
Primitive Baptists several years ago, and is now Thomas College. The other body
is the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. They no longer
correspond with any other Primitive Baptist associations, no longer hold
limited atonement, and have adopted other more progressive stances (such as
Sunday school and other auxiliaries). However, they still identify themselves
Primitive Baptists. They are progressive. Therefore, they are included as “Progressive
Primitive Baptists.” “Progressive Old Line” is another problematic naming
choice. It describes a certain faction of the Old Line Primitive Baptists who
have adopted some form of mission work and have Bible study somewhat like
Sunday school. They are not progressive to the degree of the “Progressive
Primitive Baptists,” – and do not consider themselves progressive. However,
other Old Line Primitive Baptists have disfellowshipped them because they
consider them progressive.
Classifying the “United Baptists” exposes
another difficulty. The name developed out of the union of Regular and Separate
Baptist Associations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. They adopted
the name “United” to express their unity. Therefore, many Baptists who are now
Missionary Baptists, Southern Baptists, and even Primitive Baptists may have
once called themselves United Baptists. For this reason also, those churches
and associations that still use the name “United Baptist” represent a wide
variety of belief and practice. Because of the variety, I have placed them in
three different categorizations, and created a “distinguishing” name for each –
United Baptists, Landmarkist; National Association of United Baptists and
Related Associations; and United Baptist, Regular. Landmarkist United Baptists
are closely allied with the Old Time Missionary Baptists. The National
Association of United Baptists and related associations is an assortment of
similar associations. Some participate in the National Association and some do
not. However, those who do not correspond with those who do. Open communion is
practiced in these churches, and some teach falling from grace. Those who do
not are willing to fellowship with those who do. Regular United Baptists
maintain a primitivist approach, rejecting modern church auxiliary societies. These
three sub-groups of United Baptists reflect differences in benevolences (e.g.
Sunday school), historical affiliations (e.g. Landmark), and worship styles (e.g.
a cappella vs. musical instruments).
Finally, “Regular Baptist,” though not
fraught with as many problems, is nevertheless a name that may crop up over a
wide range of Baptists that are quite different. In certain areas of the
country, Primitive Baptist churches prefer the name Regular Baptist. The GARBC,
very different from Primitive Baptists, also use the name. Many missionary
Baptist associations in the South, though not prominently displayed on their church
names or signs, often have the terminology in their Constitutions, such as “membership
is composed of Regular Baptist Churches.”
Trends.
A trend, perhaps found most among Conservative Evangelicals, is the move toward
generic operational names that remove the word “Baptist.” The Baptist General Conference is now
Converge, American Baptists of the West becomes Growing Healthy Churches,
American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest is Transformation
Ministries, and the Conservative Baptist Association (which had already removed
Conservative and Baptist to become CB America) has become the Venture Church
Network. Less pronounced, but moving in the same direction, in 2017 the board
of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International voted to change their name
to Foundations Baptist Fellowship International (removing Fundamental). While
retaining their official and legal name, in 2012 messengers of the Southern
Baptist Convention approved the use of “Great Commission Baptists” as an
alternative name (stressing purpose over geography).[vi]
Words like “network” and “networking” are
finding favor over words like association and convention – even though a
network is an association of individuals or entities having a common interest,
formed to provide mutual assistance, etc. In the trendy world of name changes,
it is not always clear when “network” is simply a replacement name for
association or convention, and when it is a new concept of operation. Perhaps
when it most diverges from the old way of operation, networking may be seen as
operating more horizontally that vertically.
Information
on the web. In the online version of Baptist Groups in the United States, posted at Seeking the Old Paths, I am including
links. Preferably, the link is to the official web site of the Baptist body
listed. In lieu of that, I am posting links to other sites that give some kind
of information about the groups. I have learned that many groups that do not
have any official website (and even some who do) have some kind of presence on
Facebook. When that is the only source available, I include that link.
Unfortunately, many of the smaller bodies have no web presence. Books about the
Baptist denomination overlook them. In addition, it is also frustrating that
many of the websites created do not remain functional sources of information.
Changes.
I have made some changes from previous iterations of Baptist Groups in the United States. Most are minor. Of
course, Baptist bodies that are known to be extinct are removed. However, it is
often uncertain whether a Baptist is,
in fact, extinct. A prime example of the need for caution can be seen in The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volumes I-IV, from 1958-1982, listing a number of Baptist associations as
extinct that still exist in 2022! New Baptist bodies are added. Some bodies have
changed their names. I have changed the ordering of the main divisions to
alphabetical – except for the “Ethnic Bodies.” The listing remains last because
it is the least efficient. It is clearly incomplete and probably somewhat
inaccurate by my not having sufficient information on and understanding of these bodies, and their relationships (or lack thereof) to conventions such as ABCUSA and SBC. I have changed the numbering system, partly for my own convenience
– but hopefully helpful to others. Rather than sequential numbers from beginning to end (e.g. 1 through 75), each main division is renumbered. Division I (Black
Baptists) is 1.1 through 1.15. Division II (General Baptists) is 2.1 through
2.8, and so on.
Conclusion.
Such lists are beneficial, yet soon
outdated. It is challenging to keep up with the changes that take place among
Baptists. Groups merge, split, and expire. They may change practice or theology
and realign in a new direction. In 1963 Richard L. Greaves, addressing primarily a British readership, wrote, “The bewildering disarray which the flourishing Baptists of the United States manifest is as confusing to the average American as it is to the on-looking Englishman.” (“The Baptist Scene Today in the U.S.A.,” The Baptist Quarterly, Volume 20, No. 4, October 1963, pp. 170-175). It is no less bewildering nearly 60 years later, both to the outsider looking in and the insider looking around.
I highly recommend that anyone interested
in this subject also read Albert W. Wardin’s books, Baptist Atlas, Baptists
around the World, and The Twelve
Tribes of Baptists in the USA: a Historical and Statistical Analysis. The
details supplied there will exponentially increase one’s knowledge of the
subject of Baptist taxonomy, or classification.
Endnotes.
[i]
The earliest publication of Wardin’s work may be found in “A Baptist Geography
of the United States,” Search Volume 7,
No. 2 (Winter 1977), pp. 46-66; and “A Classification of Baptist Bodies in
the United States,” Search Volume 7, No.
4 (Summer 1977), pp. 25-46. Over a period of some 30 years, Wardin refined
his categorizations from four main groups and five sub-groupings, to twelve
main “tribes” of Baptists in the USA.
[ii]
In stating this, however, it is not clear that all continue to maintain even this
limited list of distinctives.
[iii]
However, another way of grouping the Black Baptists would order the National
Baptist bodies with the Southern-oriented Conservative Evangelical (VI.A), the
Black Free Will Baptists with the General Baptists (II.A), the Black Primitive
Baptists with the Primitivist Baptists (III.A), and the Fundamental Baptist
Fellowship with the Northern-oriented Separatist Fundamentalist (V.C).
[iv] Primitivism
is broad descriptor that transcends different associations or fellowships. It
is in that sense comparable to words like fundamentalism, landmarkism, etc. The
“primitive” idea is in its meaning as “original,” the strain of Baptist that
best represents what Baptists or biblical Christians originally were – the
primitive or original Baptists. The desire of primitivism is to recreate and
live New Testament Christianity, not just in theology but also in practice.
Martin Marty calls it “the dream of restoration of a purer order” (though most
primitivist Baptists likely believe they have it preserved without need of
restoration). Patternism stresses following the patterns or practices observed
in the early New Testament churches.
[v] In
this context, the word “progressive” refers to things like using musical
instruments, Bible studies, youth camps, and other auxiliary organizations that
are rejected by other Primitive Baptists.
[vi] By
a vote of 53 percent for to 46 percent against. Marshall Blalock, a Baptist
pastor who served on the name change task force, wrote that they recommended
and approved it “for the sake of mission, to break down barriers, and to
describe our purpose.” The SBC’s North American Mission Board appears to
operate under the name “Send Network.”
