If a stranger were to ask you who you are, how would you respond? You might begin with your name and occupation, but you would turn eventually to history. You would begin to explain where you came from and to whom you are connected biologically, intellectually, and spiritually. History tells us who we are, helps us explain ourselves to others, and gives us guidance.
Our denominational history serves the same function. With a strong identity comes the confidence for us to be ourselves in a culture that is pulling us simultaneously in a thousand directions. Furthermore, knowledge of our history assists us to communicate the truth of the gospel, which we accept by faith and practice daily within the context of the local church. Confident and articulate, we can face the future, trusting that our past will give us wise counsel as we face new challenges.
Not surprisingly, the past is a contested place! Historians have understood the story of Free Will Baptists in many ways. These approaches often overlap and are informed by earlier histories. Consequently, getting a broad understanding of our historiography (how people have understood our history) is helpful. A historiographical essay attempts to summarize that extended historical debate into a simplified chronological conversation. I attempt below to sketch the broad outline of a Free Will Baptist historiography since the formation of the denomination in 1935.[1] This introduction to the subject should serve as a path to further reading, while encouraging us to clarify our identity and prepare for a unified future.[2]
The National Association of Free Will Baptists
Prior to the National Association of Free Will Baptists’ formation, histories about Free Will Baptists focused on the Palmer (Southern) and Randall (Northern) Movements individually. Histories of the Palmer Movement have highlighted their genealogical and doctrinal connection to the English General Baptists who immigrated to North Carolina in the seventeenth century. Narratives of the Randall Movement have focused on their founding in the New England pietistic revivalism of the eighteenth century—especially biographies of important leaders. While both sides were aware of each other and occasionally mentioned one another, they were distinct groups, and their histories reflected their different characteristics.
After 1935, a number of new histories attempted to bring the narratives of the two movements together. Damon Dodd’s The Free Will Baptist Story (1956) was the first major attempt along these lines. Dodd foregrounded the doctrines of Arminianism and believer’s baptism over other teachings to emphasize similarities between the two groups. Dodd recognized the Palmer connection to England, drawing heavily from George Paschal’s masterful History of North Carolina Baptists (1930) to inform his early narrative of North Carolina Free Will Baptists.
Other historians focused on more limited narratives. Some, like Paul Woolsey in A Hundred Years and A Free Will Baptist Family (1949), wedded biography, family history, and associational history. Others focused on regional and state activity, being spurred into action by the Historical Commission of the National Association’s first publication, History of Free Will Baptist Associations (1976), edited by Robert E. Picirilli.[3]
William F. Davidson and Michael Pelt
Still, Free Will Baptists lacked an academic, well-researched treatment of the movement as a whole. William F. Davidson first wrote along these lines in An Early History of Free Will Baptists (1974). By 1985 he had expanded his research to bring the narrative forward to the late twentieth century in The Free Will Baptists in America, 1727–1984.[4] This history engaged myriad sources, including associational minutes, official histories, court records, and broader histories by non-Free Will Baptists.
Like Dodd, Davidson attempted to explain the movement’s history in light of its unification. However, Davidson avoided Dodd’s oversimplification. Instead, Davidson argued that the relationship between the two movements prior to the 1911 Northern Baptist merger was sporadic and largely limited to organizational models and theological terminology. Though the Randall Movement plays a significant role in his narrative, he gave prominence to the Palmer Movement.
Davidson’s work contained two particularly important developments. First, he revealed to the broader denomination the missing connection between English and North Carolina General/Free Will Baptists. Working with the North Carolina State Archivist, George Stevenson, Davidson learned that Palmer’s father-in-law was named Benjamin Laker. Stevenson then traced Laker back to England and narrowed the time frame for his conversion to General Baptist doctrine. Palmer Movement historians and Baptist historians had affirmed this link since the nineteenth century but lacked the necessary sources to outline the connection in full. Thus Davidson’s history placed the deep research of Stevenson within the broader context of Free Will Baptist history.
Second, Davidson made the first attempt to explain the 1962 split. He argued that the denominational polity structure was well known to everyone in 1935 and had been reaffirmed in 1955. Within that context, he argued that the North Carolina State Convention leaders who claimed a connectional form of government during the Edgemont Free Will Baptist Church dispute were knowingly contradicting the denomination’s stance on the matter. Though he attempted an evenhanded treatment, he presented the North Carolina State Convention as the offending party who refused to engage with a patient and conciliatory National Association.
Undoubtedly Michael Pelt authored A History of Original Free Will Baptists (1996), in part, as a response to Davidson’s portrayal of the events leading up to the split. Pelt, who was prominent in the North Carolina State Convention (also known as the Original Free Will Baptists), provided a detailed analysis of the development of Free Will Baptists. Like Dodd and Davidson, he attempted to explain the relationship between the Palmer and Randall Movements prior to the twentieth century. Strongly emphasizing the connection with English General Baptists, Pelt gave less credence to the influence of the Randall Movement but did not dismiss them completely.
More importantly, Pelt argued that the issue of church polity was not settled in 1935. According to him, North Carolina Free Will Baptists had historically practiced a connectional form of church government that they inherited from the English General Baptists. Pelt argues that the issue of church polity was forced on them in 1962. He argues further that the minister of Edgemont Free Will Baptist Church (Ronald Creech), the National Executive Committee, and certain leaders of Free Will Baptist Bible College ousted the connectional North Carolinians in a fit of pique. Pelt’s narrative tends toward an overt partisanship that Davidson at least attempted to mitigate in his account. For those who navigated such troubled waters in person, a balanced narrative may be impossible, though their perspective remains valuable to future historians.
History in the Twenty-first Century
Since 2000 Free Will Baptist history has diverged into three distinct tracks. Two of these approaches expanded on earlier models. State histories continue to be written with increased detail and new information. Microhistories are another prominent historiographical form that continue to emerge. Some of these are largely biographical, but others attempt to address less personal interests.
Picirilli’s Little Known Chapters in Free Will Baptist History (2015) and Free Will Baptist History (2019) represent examples of the most academic approach to microhistory. Both books give detailed attention to various figures who were influential in very specific areas of Free Will Baptist history. Further, Picirilli emphasizes the influence of certain members of the Randall Movement in the South, as well as the historical interplay of some Free Will Baptists with Separate Baptism. While he does not deny the dominant influence of the Palmer Movement, he argues that Free Will Baptist doctrine is “too biblical and too probable to have just one or two beginnings.”[5] Picirilli’s narrative emphasizes pietism and, like Dodd, Arminianism to argue for broader denominational foundations and influences. Most of these essays in microhistory are meant to modify, not fundamentally alter, the dominant historical narratives.
A growing number of scholars have pursued a third approach through historical theology. Though many earlier Free Will Baptist historians have included information on doctrine, their treatments have often lacked depth, focusing instead on summary overviews of doctrine without discussing historical change. J. Matthew Pinson’s A Free Will Baptist Handbook (1998) introduced this discussion to the broader public by highlighting the historic doctrinal and theological statements of Free Will Baptists and their development over time. Intended for clergy and laymen alike, this introductory book also provided printed copies of some important historic statements of faith.
Pinson’s 2015 publication, Arminian and Baptist, delves deeper into the theological and historical tradition of Free Will Baptists, emphasizing the specific Arminianism of the denomination. In the process, he engaged the theology of Picirilli and F. Leroy Forlines in new ways, as well as the history of the English General Baptists, emphasizing their importance for modern Free Will Baptists. Other emerging historians, such as Phillip T. Morgan and Jesse F. Owens, have also worked along these lines, but most of their work is currently limited to academic papers.
Conclusion
Many have given attention, formal and informal, to the future survival of our denomination. Yet historical awareness is deeply important for any movement’s survival. Knowledge of our past clarifies our present identity and offers future direction. We cannot articulate our understanding of Scripture or defend against false doctrine if we do not take seriously the tradition that we have received. We also need more and better histories that address the past century with fresh eyes and more refined historical models. By fully exploring Free Will Baptist interaction with American culture, Evangelical movements, fundamentalism, and the vast social and cultural changes of the past century, we will have the prudence to flourish in the future.
[1]By no means have I mentioned every historical work on Free Will Baptists. Space and clarity have required some omissions. Moreover, I have generally focused on histories about Free Will Baptists rather than including many well-written broader histories that touch on the subject.
[2]Due to the nature of this essay, I have not delved into the historical events themselves but have assumed that the reader has a general familiarity with Free Will Baptist history. For an excellent and quick overview of Free Will Baptist history, see J. Matthew Pinson’s A Free Will Baptist Handbook (1998).
[3]Soon thereafter, historians began writing more detailed accounts of the various state associations that have enhanced our historical understanding significantly.
[4]Davidson expanded on his earlier work again in The Free Will Baptists in History (2001), but his most significant contribution was already present in the earlier books.
[5]Robert E. Picirilli, Little Known Chapters in Free Will Baptists History (Nashville: Randall House, 2015), 27.
Recent Comments