Primitive
QUESTION
Are Primitive Baptist doctrine believing assemblies required to put “Primitive” in their name? Stated another way, is a church “out of the way” if they believe the proper doctrine of the bible but do not maintain “Primitive” or “Old School” in their church name?
ANSWER - WHAT IS PRIMITIVE?
This is an interesting question. I feel certain that a proper answer is apt to ruffle a few feathers. In my pastoring efforts, I have often held up the word of God and said, “You want Primitive? THIS is Primitive.” The point being, “Primitive” is just short-hand for “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). If we are going to rally around the notion that we are “Primitive” (i.e., originalists in faith and practice) our definition of “Primitive” must arise from the word of God and nowhere else. It is the “and nowhere else” part of that statement that causes fur to fly. “Primitive” cannot be merely a list of traditional practices performed by the so-called “Primitive Baptists.” There have been and still are MANY practices of the Old Baptists that have NOTHING to do with being true to the “Primitive” practice codified in the bible. To make that more clear, Primitive is not:
Meeting at 10:30 am on Sunday morning.
Following Robert’s Rules of Order in conference.
Having communion once a year.
Meeting once a month.
Belonging to a formal Association.
Each of these practices has had some measure of expression among the Primitive Baptist people over the past century. Some of them are pretty deeply engrained in PB culture. NONE of them are the Primitive practice of the church formally codified in the New Testament. Consider this…
A SOUL WHOSE INTENTIONS ARE GOOD
Lest I be misunderstood, I want to point out that I’m not launching out against any of these practices (save one). Many of them have been adopted by Primitive Baptists as a means of being orderly. For example, if we are to have church, it seems orderly to establish a time to do so, and to adhere to that schedule as much as possible. If we picked a different time for assembling each Sunday, it might tend to chaos, disorder, and non-attendance. It makes sense to follow some orderly guidelines as we go about the business of the Kingdom. I know that in the early days, Harmony church only met once a month. There are a lot of reasons given for this practice related to farming and whatnot. I believe this was fairly common among many churches a hundred or so years ago. Nevertheless, it is unbiblical. (So, I suppose I do have an axe to grind regarding the practice of once-a-month church services.) I have often pointed out that the notion of a formal “Association” is not found in the bible as it is practiced among our people. I believe that the Lord’s churches are free to “associate” (lower-case “a”) with one another as a function of fellowship among those of like-precious faith. What’s more, I believe it is within the bounds of Christian liberty for churches to “Associate” (upper-case “A”) with one another, provided that “Association” is merely a means of being orderly in the facilitation of that fellowship. That said, “Associations” have at times been unable to resist the temptation to function as an hierarchical church government, wherein “cock of the walk” ministers seek to “rule the roost” of churches they do not pastor. This is a cautionary word about “Associationalism.” Thankfully, it seems that many of our churches have been able to “Associate” with each other without experiencing that problem.
The point remains that we must be clear about what is “Primitive” (required, unchangeable, and non-negotiable) and what is merely “traditional” (optional, changeable, and negotiable). I believe this clarification might prove beneficial in avoiding unnecessary strife among those who take notice. When I speak of “Primitive,” I intend, “the doctrine and practice of the New Testament church as codified in the bible.” Nothing more. Nothing less. That is important for us to bear in mind.
Things most surely believed among us
As we consider the utility of the “Primitive” moniker, I believe there are a few things that should be embraced by all bible believing Christians:
1. The “naming” of churches, as is commonly practiced today, is not found in the bible. The churches in the bible are “named” based upon their location: “the church at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:27), “churches of Galatia” (I Corinthians 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (I Corinthians 16:19), “church of the Ephesians” (II Timothy 4:22). If we are to get technical about it, the church I pastor is “the church at Donaldson.” “Harmony Primitive Baptist Church” is essentially a nickname. That may shock some Old Baptists by disturbing a few traditions. Nevertheless I believe it is impossible to refute. Remember, “Primitive is what they did in the bible” not “whatever the local PB assembly has always done.” As a matter of Christian culture, it has become common to exalt the nicknames of our churches to the forefront and set its location in repose. As to whether or not this is right, I’ll leave that for others to debate. I, for one, am not terribly moved by the controversy. I am interested in making sure that God’s people are clear about what was done in the bible and what we do today. I will point out that there is some precedent for the use of nicknames in the bible (Mark 3:17) and that those who might become very hostile over church nicknames would find it ponderous if every time we “Called the Hogs” someone felt it necessary to say, “Technically, brother, you’re calling the Razorbacks.” I’ll leave it at that.
2. There is no biblical mandate that the Lord's New Testament church must have the word "Primitive" in their name. One will look in vain to find the word “Primitive” in the bible, let alone as part of a church’s name. Once again, that observation is irrefutable, but I suspect it is still at least moderately controversial. The term “Primitive” was applied to us, not invented by us. We have adopted it because we regard it as a badge of honor and an accurate representation of our theological convictions as well as an insightful editorial commentary on the nature of the Baptist split of 1832 and our continuance in the original position of the church. Thus far it may seem as if I am building a case for why we should drop the “Primitive” moniker and perhaps other terms like “Old School” as well. I have had conversations with several Elders on this subject and there is a wide range of strong opinions on the matter, but hear me out…
3. The term "Primitive" has become somewhat of a distinguishing mark among our people. While I can see reasons why some might want to discard it, I believe they should consider the degree to which doing so might create problems where other PB assemblies are concerned and in so doing visit distress into the flock of God. I believe that some would react to the change by saying "I have no problem with that as long as you’re of the same doctrine and practice" while others would say, "You're out of order and we want nothing to do with you." Without commentary on those positions, I will simply state that I would not be quick to dispense with the term “Primitive” because I believe it maintains some utility in the broader world of Christendom.
BURDENSOME BAGGAGE OR DISTINCT DECLARATION?
I know some good Elders here who say, "We should probably ditch the term PRIMITIVE altogether" and they have good reasons in that regard, some of which have I have previously mentioned. In addition to that, many point out the vain-traditionalism that has some of our people rallying around traditional practices over and above biblical practices. In its worst expressions, it seems that some are more interested in being “Primitive Baptists” than they are in being disciples of Jesus Christ. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
On the other hand, a term that clearly identifies our churches is pretty handy. Perhaps the term is a hedge against fading into the fog of non-denominationalism, where our distinctives might be completely obscured by other groups that seem similarly situated on matters election, and predestination. As one who was not raised a Primitive Baptist, I’m quite fond of the name and prefer to keep it, though I am well aware of the problems with vain-traditionalism and how that moniker can work against us in some respects. I don’t think a name change is the way out of the woods and would prefer instead that we be more diligent about teaching our people against the dangers of vain traditionalism.
Removing “Primitive” from the name of one or more of our churches would likely result in some PBs distancing themselves or perhaps even disfellowshipping. I don’t believe they would be right to do so provided there has been no change in doctrine but it seems inevitable that some would. This would generate a lot of discomfort and friction without much tangible benefit so far as I can see.
Is the term “primitive” problematic?
To me it comes down to a couple of questions:
1. Is the term PRIMITIVE problematic? If so why? Is it an impediment to ministry? I don’t really think so. Ministry requires that we define our terms all the time. This is part and parcel of gospel ministry. We should teach folks what we mean by “Primitive” and warn them about the dangers of vain-traditionalism. Some might suggest that the term “Primitive” is off-putting and prevents some people from wanting to be involved. There might be some merit to this objection, but no more so than a host of other silly, carnal objections that keep carnally minded people from seeking the Kingdom of God. Years ago my barber was off-put by any church that did not have a bingo night. Do we regard that as a legitimate impediment for a spiritual seeker? Should we modify our practice to accommodate? Off-putting observations could be multiplied but it seems obvious to me that this name does not represent a major impediment to instruction or discipleship.
2. Is the change worth the potential suffering that might result? Is the juice worth the squeeze? I don’t think that it is. Like it or not, pastors have numerous challenges thrust upon us that we MUST confront and we do well to consider how many additional battles we can take up. Most of the ministers I know are already at 100% capacity. Should we take on a terminology battle that will increase the load by another 20% when the best case scenario results of winning don't amount to much of anything?
THE BOTTOM LINE
I like the term Primitive Baptist. When properly defined, I believe it is an apt description of the Lord’s New Testament church and a north-star principle that helps us stay oriented around biblical truth. I’d like to see us keep the name while doing a better job of teaching people what it ought to mean rather than what vain-traditionalism has told them it means.
- Elder Daniel Samons