Who are the Missionary Baptists?

In the Call for a little more honesty thread, loDebar asked:

I posted a response there, but am starting a topic here in the “Baptist History” forum. Someone might wish to discuss it further.

During the 19th century in the United States (roughly 1820-1840), there was a controversy – and finally a split – among Baptists over the nature of “missions.” The development of a national missionary society and other types of church auxiliaries gradually became a sore spot. The “General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions” (more commonly called the Triennial Convention) was formed in 1814. Within a few years some Baptists were writing treatises questioning the propriety of and authority for such an organization. In more recent times, this has often been incorrectly framed as a controversy over preaching the gospel. Most, if not all, of the Baptists believed in preaching the gospel to those who had not heard. The primary objection to the formation of missionary societies was ecclesiological rather than soteriological. One of the early treatises, Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society...on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, clearly shows the ecclesiological argumentation.

Once the churches divided into camps favoring or opposing missionary societies, mission boards, and some other church auxiliaries, those who favored the formalized missionary efforts were classed as “Missionary Baptists.” They referred to the other side as “anti-missionary.” Those “anti-missionaries” used Regular, Old School, Primitive, etc. for self-identification. Due to this background, the name “Missionary Baptist” is usually applied to those with historical origins that trace back to the Regular Baptists in the United States and the Particular Baptists in England (i.e., the Baptist among who this split occurred). The name is seldom applied to churches with a background rooted in the General Baptist movement (historically). For example, most Freewill Baptists and General Baptists in the United States favor some type of organized missionary effort but would not normally use “Missionary Baptist” in any kind of official or descriptive way.

The name “Missionary Baptist” still falls in the realm of those churches from the “missionary” side of the 19th century U.S. Baptist split. Any of them may be “missionary Baptists” while it is a minority that officially uses “Missionary Baptist” in church and organizational names. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th, the “Missionary Baptists” split over the way to do missions. Some favored missionary societies or mission boards, while others favored Gospel missions or direct missions. Therefore, today there are independent churches and associations who are “Missionary Baptists” who would have greater ecclesiological agreement on the matter of missions with Daniel Parker, for example, rather than J. M. Peck.

Actually seeing “Missionary Baptist” in a church name will not tell the same story in different regions of the country. In East Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi – and probably Tennessee and Missouri – “Missionary Baptist” likely means one of two things: (1) a predominantly white church that is not affiliated with the SBC, or (2) a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had “Missionary Baptist” in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.

In my now-outdated list of Baptist Groups in the United States (from 2006), I believe you will find churches in the following groups who use in some official way the name “Missionary Baptist.”

• American Baptist Association
• Baptist Missionary Association of America
• Independent Missionary Baptist Churches
• Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of America
• National Baptist Convention of America
• National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
• Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
• Some (probably a small minority) Southern Baptist Convention

For the most part it seems that fundamentalists have moved away from using “Missionary Baptist.” Nevertheless, J. Frank Norris’s World Baptist Fellowship was once called the World Premillennial Missionary Baptist Fellowship.

 

The ABA mission work is sort of nuanced compared to the SBC. Rather than a "mission board" they have a "missionary committee." In theory, at the national meeting the missionary committee only recommends missionaries for support of the churches. In practice, whichever missionaries are recommended are the ones who receive a salary through the undesignated funds sent to the Secretary of Missions office. In addition to this, some churches send funds designated for specific missionaries, and other churches do a lot of mission work separate and apart from the Secretary of Missions office. This reflects their history of participation in the SBC and also being strongly influenced by the Gospel Missions movement. Those who disagreed with some convention ways modified them in ways they felt were acceptable, and those who didn't like that much organization do a more direct type of mission work. Hope that makes sense.

Due to years of separation, the black and white churches have developed along somewhat different lines. Probably the majority of difference is in practice -- at least on paper their beliefs probably read much the same. Also, I'd say the black missionary Baptists have stronger denominational organizations (at the association and convention levels).

 

When I am writing carefully, I intentionally reserve the capital “M” Missionary Baptists usage for those who use it as a proper name. For the others I try to use lower case “m” missionary Baptists. But, yes, you are correct that ABCUSA, Bible Baptists, Baptist General Conference, CBAmerica, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, GARBC, Fundamental Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Southern Baptists, and so on are all missionary Baptists in the broad sense. So are Free Will Baptists and General Baptists, though I don’t use the term in reference to them, neither do I think they do so.

Old Regular Baptists, some Regular Baptists, some United Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists and some others would fall outside the missionary Baptist camp historically.

IMO, the middle is somewhat murky, in that some missionary Baptists oppose the very thing that originally split the Baptists into “missionary” and “anti-missionary” camps – organized mission boards and societies.

 

I’m not too familiar with the Conservative Baptist Association – only by reading, no personal experience. I see them as being the less “militant” conservative/fundamentalists who left the American Baptist Convention. The ABA statement on communion is: “The Lord’s Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance.” This is the official and dominant viewpoint, though I am aware of some churches that practice “close communion” (restricted to baptized believers). I doubt you would find many that practice open communion, but since the denominational structure is loose such a church could actually represent in the national associational meeting. They probably wouldn’t be accepted at the local level. There was a church in Oklahoma that went charismatic that continued to be listed in the annual yearbook for years, much to the chagrin of the other churches in that vicinity of Oklahoma.

 

In this I was thinking of churches that are completely independent of and unaffiliated with any type of organized body. Quite a few “independent” local associations call themselves “Missionary Baptist.” These churches organize at the local level as an association, but remain aloof from state and national organizations.

There is also a state Missionary Baptist association in California that has 3 local associations and organizes for fellowship at the state level, but does not affiliate with any national organization.

 

I can’t speak specifically for your area, but what you say is something that happened in various locations and that many people don’t realize. Often 1832 is given as the year of the split over missions, based on the Black Rock Address being formulated at Black Rock, Maryland in 1832. Though this was an important meeting with a wide impact, it was not something that immediately settled the issue. We have to look at different regions to see what happened in them to determine when “they” split. Here in East Texas things were still being sorted out into the 1850s. For example, the first Baptist association organized in Texas (Union, 1840, but not Daniel Parker’s Union Association) had leaders who were oriented to Missionary, Primitive, and even Campbellite viewpoints. The Sabine Baptist Association in the mid-1840s excluded the missionary Baptists. Yet several of the churches in it, after it imploded, formed a “United Baptist” association in 1852 that eventually became known as missionary Baptist. A daughter missionary Baptist association and the Little Hope Primitive Baptist Association tried to work out their differences as late as 1868! (They were not successful.)

Most things never are as simple as we’ll like them to be.