Underlying all the recent kerfuffle over Norm Miller, Ed Stetzer, “treason,” and who said this and who said that, was a discussion between Rick Patrick and myself over the value of denominational loyalty within the SBC. Let’s leave the “treason” comment to the side here. I have no interest in pursuing that any further. Rick’s post Ten Traits of a Southern Baptist president over at SBC Today, however, got me to thinking again about an issue that, from my perspective, may well be one of the most significant issues facing us in the SBC today (no pun intended): the relative degree of loyalty we ought to show to the SBC and to the Body of Christ at large. From another post Rick wrote several months ago, he believes this issue may indeed be more deeply rooted and critical to different approaches within the SBC than the Calvinism debates. Though I am on the other side of Rick with regard to the approach we ought to take, I agree with his assessment of the importance and relevance of this issue.
With regard to what Rick said in his post, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and SBC Today is certainly entitled to publish it. I have no problem with that. And many of the traits Rick mentions are traits that I agree would be good for an SBC president to have. It is trait number one on his list, however, that points to what appears to me to be a major sticking point and dividing line within our convention of churches:
1. DENOMINATIONAL LOYALTY: His loyalties are with the SBC, not with the broader evangelical community.
Let me make perfectly clear from the start that I do not have any problem with the idea of denominational loyalty in and of itself. Indeed, common sense presupposes that an organizational leader ought to an enthusiastic supporter of the programs and distinctives of the organization in which he/she exercises that leadership. What causes me concern, and, indeed, sadness, when I see the visceral response of some, is the idea that loyalty to the SBC somehow precludes or is in tension with loyalty to the broader Body of Christ.
Over the years, I have written on this topic (or sub-topics related to it) perhaps more than any other on the various blogs in which I have participated. It is an issue I feel strongly about, not just because I have a personal agenda, but because I feel, from my understanding of Scripture, this is one of the main issues we as Southern Baptists need to work on.
As I see it, our bottom-line loyalty as gospel-centered Christians of any denomination ought to lie with the Body of Christ at large. To the degree our understanding of the term evangelical coincides with a biblical focus on and commitment to the gospel, I have no problem in saying that this loyalty should be directed specifically toward evangelical Christians. Since, unfortunately, however, the term evangelical itself has become enmeshed in controversy, and there is much confusion related to its use, I think perhaps it is best to say that this group is comprised of all those who we consider to have saving faith, and with whom, on the basis of our understanding of Scripture, we might expect to spend eternity in heaven. Though I certainly agree with those who would want to stress that the implications of the gospel extend beyond just our eternal state, I believe this is a good way to specify those whom I am talking about here.
Although our bottom-line loyalty ought to lie with this broader group, I do not believe this precludes our active participation in and enthusiastic support of the projects of certain subgroups of the Body of Christ, such as associations, conventions, denominations, or even so-called parachurch organizations. But, as I see it, these subgroups do not have validity or value in and of themselves. They each exist as tools for us as members of the broader Body of Christ to more effectively channel our time, efforts, and resources into the fulfillment of the task that our Lord has given to the Church at large: the Great Commission. Indeed, though, as a means to be more effective and efficient in the task to which He has called us, we may choose to focus our ministry efforts and resources largely through one particular subgroup or set of projects, we are ultimately not in competition with, but in partnership with, all those who, together with us, are called to the fulfillment of this same task. At the bottom line, we are not on different teams competing against each other, but are all members of the same team: the Body of Christ.
As Paul told the believers in Corinth, as members of the Body of Christ, we cannot say that we do not need each other. “The body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body.” “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’” I am aware that, traditionally, this passage has been used primarily to teach unity and mutual dependence within the local congregation. And I believe that is indeed a valid application of the principle that Paul was teaching. However, I also believe that, when Paul uses the metaphor of the Body, he is not referring only to the local church but to the Universal Church as well.
If anything, the context of 1 Corinthians should lead us to question the mere existence of denominations within the Body of Christ. In chapter 3, Paul specifically mentions those who form factions, or subgroups, around the leadership of certain individuals in the Body of Christ, such as Apollos, or Cephas (Peter), or Paul himself. Personally, I do not think this passage necessarily precludes denominations, but it certainly precludes denominationalism, (i.e. a party spirit that sees the importance of one’s own subgroup as superior to that of other subgroups within the Body, rather than seeing all us as fellow players on the same team).
None of this means that denominational distinctives have no value or that we should just sweep our doctrinal differences with fellow evangelicals under the rug. But it does have to do with the mindset we adopt when we discuss these differences. They are in-house discussions. At the bottom-line, we are brothers and sisters in Christ with our fellow evangelicals, and that should mean more than just saying “brother” or “sister” as a polite gesture. Jesus said that, just as He laid down His life for us, we too ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
My hope for a prospective candidate for the presidency of the SBC is that he would take this approach. My hope for all of us, as members of SBC-affiliated churches, is that we would take this approach. My hope for all of us in the Body of Christ is that more and more we would recognize each other, and honor and love each other, for being just that: fellow members of the Body of Christ.
Indeed, for me, this is not just a stimulating theological debate. It is a matter of heartfelt conviction. I do not merely suggest that you think carefully through these issues. I urge you to search the Scripture and search your heart on this matter. I sincerely believe this is one of the key issues on the heart of our Savior today. And I hope and pray that more and more of those within the Southern Baptist Convention will come to understand and enthusiastically embrace our bottom-line loyalty to the Body of Christ.
———————————
*For an excellent discussion on Christian unity and denominations, read the following article by Sydney Anglican John Woodhouse (and, for further context, the other two articles he mentions and links to in the first paragraph):
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2002/05/christian-unity-and-denominations/
thanks for that Anglican link, DAVID ROGERS
Christiane,
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Sydney Anglicans or not, but they are a particularly Evangelical-oriented movement with some unique emphases within the worldwide Anglican community.
I cannot recommend highly enough that particular article by Woodhouse. I really believe that a careful and prayerful consideration of what he has to say would go a long way toward helping us as Southern Baptists to come to a more biblical understanding of this important and often divisive issue.
Love the differentiation between denomination and denominationalism. Excellent.
There is so much insight in this. I hope people read it.
David,
Very good post. I agree and am thankful for you and I’m sure man others who feel the same way.
Les
David,
Yours is a worthy post. Your interaction is thoughtful and helpful. In fact, I do not really disagree with what you have said regarding our cooperation and affiliation with the entire Body of Christ across denominational lines. I might go so far as to say that I disagree that we disagree. I am certainly not arguing for any kind of “head in the sand” isolationism. It never occurred to me that it would be understood that way. Perhaps I could have been more clear.
When I say that I want the SBC President to possess denominational loyalty, what I’m really talking about is his active involvement in conferences, associations and partnerships. If he’s serving a congregation as pastor, meeting the needs of his family, attending his local association and state convention meetings, and gathering with Southern Baptists in conferences, conventions and committee meetings, as a practical matter, he really does not have much time left over for the evangelical counterparts to all of our Southern Baptist organizations.
I want him to prioritize the SBC organizations. I want to know, if he absolutely had to choose, he would pick the SBC Pastors Conference over Together For the Gospel, NAMB over Acts 29, IMB over Christ For the Nations, Baptist Campus Ministries over Cru, and so on.
Yes, our loyalty is to the Body of Christ. The SBC is not the only game in town. It is, however, the “home” team. I just want to be sure the Captain shows up for practice wearing the team colors and cheering our efforts onward with great enthusiasm. Thanks again for your excellent insights, and the reminder that we are partners with the entire Body of Christ.
Rick,
Thank you for being willing to listen and dialogue about this with an open mind. Your comment here encourages me, both with regard to blogging, as well as with regard to the future of the SBC.
David Rogers,
Very well written post, that is the only good thing I can say about it.
We should not partner with any one, sub-groups, or denominations.
There is a push in the SBC that partnering with other groups that don’t hold to the BFM2000 is ok. It is not ok, it is flat out wrong.
David, I respect you. I’ll be the first to say I don’t have all the answers
only most of them. LOL. I do know folks cannot walk together unless they are in agreement. Baptists should do their own work, and while we are reaching out for Christ let’s not forget the USA.
Jess,
Well, you are at least above board regarding what you believe. I am curious; I can’t remember from our past interaction on other posts: Would you identify yourself as sympathetic to the Landmark movement?
David,
I am somewhat sympathetic to the Landmark movement. I would have been a poor excuse for a Landmarker. I believe you cannot be a genuine Baptist and not be saved. You can be saved without being part of the Baptist denomination but only by fire. This is when all the wood, hay, and stubble are burned away. Many non-Baptist will get
to Heaven but they will have the smell of smoke when they get there.
David, I find myself defending non-Baptist when the rubber meets the highway. I also find myself defending Baptist doctrine with every fiber of my being and ready to go to war for it. I’m not a Baptist because I
think it’s close to the Faith. I am Baptist because it is the Faith.
I also have some Calvinist blood flowing through my veins. (I said some.) Just enough to make me stubborn.
I am curious how you reconcile Landmark teaching with the passages from 1 Corinthians I mention in my post.
David Rogers,
It’s simple, Paul was addressing the church at Corinth, even though it’s good doctrine for all the churches of like faith.
Actually, the text tells us that Paul was addressing “the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, TOGETHER WITH ALL THOSE EVERYWHERE who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NIV)
And notice that Paul said, “We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.” (1 Cor 12:13)
Paul was not baptized into or by the church of Corinth. He was baptized into the BODY – the universal church of Jesus Christ. One Lord. One faith. One baptism.
Landmarkism fails the test of scripture.
David Miller: Careful, Brother, don’t you know we have state conventions that are marked by Landmarkism. Besides, though I use to be one, I do realize that God raised them up for a purpose. Indeed, old J.R. Graves made a definite contribution to the study of the ekklesia in my opinion, when he identified the fact that the ekklesia of Acts 19 was not the same as the group of rioters called the oklos (sp), the Mob, I suppose. When I read K. Schmidt’s article on the ekklesia in Kittel’s I realized that his article was lacking in perspective, because he had never seen Graves’ exegesis in his Intercommunion.
Now to add to the discussion, the Universal church doctrine can also be used against the local church. They are really to be used in a both/and sense. Each has its place and influence and purposes, and neither does well without the other. Some folks contribute to the preachers they hear on tv and radio alone, forgetting the local church and ministry. Trouble is when sick or dying, the folks need a living body to minister to them….and they find themselves wanting.
My state convention is pretty much anything but Landmark. If Iowa Baptists have a fault it is likely to be a disinterest in denominational things rather than the elitism and exclusionary attitudes some demonstrate.
Dave Miller,
If you go by the BFM2000, and in one of the other blogs you were defending it, doesn’t that make you a Landmarker? You have corrected other bloggers in doctrine. Sir, how can you hold a yes sign in one hand, and a no sign in the other? You have to be an unknowing
Landmarker. You may not adhere to the BFM2000 as close as I thought. An inquiring mind want’s to know.
Jess,
Adhering to the BFM2k does not make someone a Landmarker. C’mon, Dude.
David
Jess, the BFM can hardly be called Landmark. I get the sense that you’re just trying to goad Dave.
What does “marked by landmarkism” mean?
“Elitism” and “exclusionary,” or “concerned about sound doctrine and practice;” Dave? I dont think it’s elitism to be concerned about our Churches having sound doctrine, and not wanting to be a partner of errors and heresies, which other denominations and networks are invovled in. I’ve said before, I love my Brothers and Sisters in Christ in other denominations. I can fellowhsip with them. I can pray with them. And, we support a benevolent ministry in our area that’s not affiliated with any, one Church. But, not I would not want to start Churches with other groups…have them teaching in our Seminaries….going out as our missionaries, etc.
Now, is that elitism and exclusionary; Dave, David, and Dwight?
David
Dave,
Donald asked the question above what a Landmarkists was. I was waiting for someone to answer it so I would know, too.
Bruce,
This post should bring you up to speed on that question:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist.html
Thanks, Dave.
I do not see me as a Landmarkist.
The threading has broken down and comments are assigning themselves random positions, Bruce. My comment was in response to David Worley’s, not to yours. No telling where this comment will go.
I grew up under what I would term “mild” Landmark theology. My dad still holds to some understanding of Landmarkism, though he isn’t nearly as stuck in it as he used to be.
Landmarkism holds to a “heritage theology”; that is, they believe that only local Baptist churches are the true church of Christ. They also believe that their “heritage” is seen in a direct lineage or “succession” from John the Baptist. The only church is the local Baptist church. There is no universal church. They do not accept “alien” immersion. Such immersion is any baptism that is performed outside the authority of the local Baptist church. In some cases a local church will accept the baptism of an individual from a non-Landmark Baptist church, but many times a person seeking membership in the local Landmark church will be required to be re-baptized. A particularly interesting belief of strict Landmarkists is that they will be the Bride of Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Other Christians will be the servants or guests at the supper and are referred to as the “family of God.” But the Landmark Baptists see themselves a special category in eternity. Church membership is a high priority for the Landmark Baptists; church membership follows very quickly upon the individual’s profession of faith. Closed communion is strictly enforced. A person can only take communion at the church where he or she is a member.
The Landmark Baptists get their name from Proverbs 22:28 and Leviticus 25:23-34. Their understanding of these passages is that God set ancient boundaries of doctrine which are not to be moved by man’s theological systems. This is the “faith which was once delivered to the saints” according to Jude 3.
Landmark Baptists are King James Version only churches, for the most part. Some will use the New King James Version. The KJV is considered to be not only preferrable, but is itself “the” inspired Word of God, infallible and inerrant as it is the only accurate translation of the original languages.
J. R. Graves was the main founder of this movement. It was seen as a theology opposed to liberalism and a response to the Campbellites–the Church of Christ. The Campbellites would claim to have “restored” the New Testament church, but Graves claimed that Landmark Baptists “are” the New Testament Church of Christ. Thus, if a Baptist attended a Church of Christ (or any other denomination) meeting, he or she would be excluded from the fellowship of the Baptist church on charges of heresy.
While many Landmark Baptists hold to Calvinist doctrines of grace, they would strongly deny that they are connected to the Reformation in any way. They consider themselves to be the successors of the New Testament church.
J. M. Carroll wrote “The Trail of Blood” which was published in 1931. He is the younger brother of B. H. Carroll, Baptist theologian, founder and first president of Southwestern Seminary. J. M. Carroll maintained that a succession of Baptist theology is present throughout church history. B. H. Carroll, while not as staunch in his view, seems to have held some of his younger brother’s opinions on the matter.
Sorry for the long response.
Thanks, Dale.
I am better informed now. I have been to Peter Ruckman’s church and have experienced the KJV1611 only push. True salvation resist that type of preaching. I left that kind of preaching, however, I still have a desire to focus on what I know to be true within Baptist culture. I will continue to work with our people to establish the doctrine that changed my life. I will also have a small fellowship with other believers of different names but will not live in their camps.
Dale Pugh,
Your Dad is a smart man, you ought to listen to him.
He is. I do. But that doesn’t mean he has it exactly right all the time. Neither do you. Neither do I.
The elitism and exclusionary comment was not directed at you, Dr. Worley, so there is no need to defend yourself against it.
Nor has anyone in my memory advocated that we abandon sound doctrine it join other denominations in planting churches. Straw men all.
But the idea that we are doing something shameful to quote them, interact with them, learn from them or engage in ministry projects with them – positions that have been made, tho perhaps not by you – is elitist and exclusionary. That was the focus of my comment.
Ie. Landmarkists and those with Landmarkist traits – a group I believe to be real, but small, in the SBC.
The worst excesses of the Landmarkist view have to do with using the sacred comment that God always has a remnant to project an unbroken tie between the 19th century phenomenon called “Southern Baptists” and the pre-apostolic namesake of ALL Baptists named “John the”. It is ludicrously, embarrassingly bad history.
The discussions Landmarkists supported regarding the authority and autonomy of the local church are generally more helpful except to the extent that the discussion of autonomy unhelpfully overlooks our unfortunate propensity to sin continuing into our redeemed lives. That is both the source of pride and the blindness that leads to factionalism.
We should all look forward to the refiner’s fire because our own betrayals and traitorous acts will be laid open with no malice and then consumed like wood, hay, stubble, and–this fire is so hot–the irredeemable alloys that make “dross”. We ought to rejoice today that the venom we hold in our hearts for brothers and sisters will then be permanently gone. True fights against heresy will then be rewarded and the rest of the political noise forgotten.
If we could courageously practice that kind of thought today and not let the personalities cloud our judgment, we might avoid some of the presumed pain of the refiner’s fire consuming things that seem important to us now and our love for each other would replace the judicial evidence that the Adversary currently is cataloging against each if us in his futile efforts to convince th Judge to condemn us to hell alongside him. It is futile because of Christ’s righteousness and not because if ours we need to remember…
“We should all look forward to the refiner’s fire because our own betrayals and traitorous acts will be laid open with no malice and then consumed like wood, hay, stubble, and–this fire is so hot–the irredeemable alloys that make “dross”. We ought to rejoice today that the venom we hold in our hearts for brothers and sisters will then be permanently gone. ”
that Holy Fire works in this life, too . . . it is possible to ‘let go’ of a natural response of anger, and to replant it with patience and concern for the good of the ‘other’ in this life
the power to do that doesn’t come from ‘self’, but from grace, and when it happens to you, you will know it profoundly: I once remember a lady in our lake club who made fun of my bowling team . . . four parents, each couple with disabled children . . . I confronted her privately, but harbored resentment towards her after the incident . . . then one day, I saw her driving by, and I was filled with the most sincere feeling of compassion for her . . . trust me, it didn’t come from me . . . I knew it was a gift, and I was thankful for it . . . it freed me from something that I didn’t want to harbor and replaced it with compassion for someone’s lack of understanding.
Talk about ‘assurance’ of the grace of God. . . you just KNOW when these blessings come, because there is no other explanation possible
They have churches that follow Landmark Practices, no immersions even on professions of faith. Only a Southern Baptist, Landmark Baptist has the authority to baptize. Closed communion (though I would argue that there is a strong biblical basis for this practice). No universal church recognized or acknowledged.
“state conventions that are marked by Landmarkism”
What does this look like, what form does it take?
David and Dave,
I was once trapped in the bondage of Landmarkism. Thank you so much for bringing up the passages of 1 Corinthians. The 1 Corithians 12:13 passage in particular opened my eyes and set me free. I absolutely love the Universal church doctrine because it speaks of a wonderful, divine, heavenly equality we have in Christ. I told my wife that if I die before the Lord returns I want on my tombstone “You can ascend no higher than in Christ”.
David,
Doesn’t our local church’s doctrine create a certain Landmark mentality? We do not encourage speaking in tongues, we use musical instruments, we require baptism for true membership, we do not baptize babies, etc. However, all of us do not use the elders, anoint with oil for healing or have a discipleship catechism for children and new believers. When we set a pattern, or a foundation, like this in our churches we influence people in such a way that anything is has a certain offence. A broader view of things seems to me to weaken what we have been taught to be vital to the Body of Christ. I have been in churches recently that have that broad view and there is a sense a weakness. I know I am not the perfect judge but it can get pretty loose when adding so many options. I can cross lines by myself but for the body to do so is perilous to me.
Bruce,
I’m not sure I totally understand what you are asking. Could you maybe word it a little differently?
David,
Sorry for the confusion. I am referring to our individual spiritual paradigm. I was raised a certain way doctrinally. That affects the way we deal with things that go against our basic belief system. Even though I would attend a Presbyterian church I would have a twinge of non-acceptance. Not that I didn’t have a brotherly acceptance of the person but that they are different doctrinally. I could talk and simi-fellowship with them, but it would be different than dealing with those who are like me. That is where I choose to draw the line. I can talk and simi-fellowship, but not totally embrace them.
Bruce,
I hesitate to post this lest it give the idea that I think that somehow I have arrived and you haven’t. Let me assure you, I haven’t. But when I first read the quote i reference here, it challenged me, but it speaks to the concern you have raised, and I think there may be something of benefit to you here, and even to others who may come across this comment:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/07/ray-ortlund-emotional-tilt-of-your.html
David,
Knowing a little about your missions background and feeling the passion you have for the Body of Christ is very inspiring. I think I understand where you are coming from. It carries the influence of grace upon the soul and the drive of unity among true believers. I am in unison in part only. I see so much needed within our own community and struggle reaching across the isle when many are needy here at home. It is not my calling and only can accept it as a calling for others. I love the whole Body of Christ but I must stay home and work with those at home.
Great post.
Bruce,
Indeed, on the “mission field” I have grown and come to appreciate in a greater way the meaning of unity with the entire Body of Christ. However, I do not think this approach to our Christian life is only for the “mission field.” I believe it is a core value and attitude that should define each of us, no matter where the Lord chooses to plant and use us for the advance of His Kingdom.
Amen
Denominations, in part, I think, are due to the freedom from a state church and the freedom of religion. It was one way to ensure support for what ministers and members perceived to be the truths taught in Scripture. Another aspect of it is that there are pre-reformation origins to this matter, groups that owed no loyalty to the State Church or to the state churches which followed in the wake of the Reformation. We think of the Lollards, Waldensians, and some other groups. In my researches, I found individuals in these groups experienced a discomfort in the new Christian groups that formed with the break from Rome. Some were very much use to going it alone, the solitary faithful group under the pressure of danger, and they could not adjust to it very well. Some of our loyalties as Baptists were evidently prerefomation loyalties. There was a concept of the ekklesia as the only method of God’s work in this world, a view that adhered to the Baptists in the South and among the Primitive Baptists and the Landmarkers. It is interesting to think of the connections of Welsh Tract Primitive Baptist Church. It was organized in Wales before coming to America, having secured its baptism from the Rhydwyllum (sp) Baptist Church which went to the Mountains of Olchon and the Olchon Baptist Church in Wales for its baptism, and that church was supposedly established circa 800 a.d. and had connections with the Lollards of Europe and with the Waldensians, the latter group in the 1200s had churches in Constantinople and in Philadelphia (as in Rev.3), according to the Catholic Inquisitor Reinarius Saccho. Also in the 1400s there are indications that the Waldensians sent a committee to check on the church in South India!!!. You all might be interested to know that the last Roman Garrison of Great Britain was commanded by the son of the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople, and after he returned with his unit of troops to Constantinople in the withdrawal of the Legions he became the successor to his father as Bishop of the Novatian church of Constantinople. Also the Novatians are said to have fled to the Alps, along with the Donatists, and the Montanists (sp), circa 6-8th century. The Paulicians from Thrace and Eastern Turkey also spread to the Alps after the 8th century along with the Arnoldists and Petrobrussians. the church of Philadelphia in Rev.3 is mentioned by the Historian Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as still existing in the 16-1700s. A lady told of a friend visiting Al a Sehr (sp. city of God) taking a photograph and he was told by his guide that they were Christians but would have nothing to do with any one else, the result of persecution, likely, along with second class citizenship, etc.).
James,
Thank you for the history lesson. You make some very interesting observations I had never considered before. Indeed it would seem that the historical circumstances you mention have played into the somewhat unique approach Baptists have traditionally taken toward denominations, denominationalism, and their interaction with the rest of the Body of Christ. It is my hope that we may be able to recognize the influence these circumstances have had on us, and interpret this influence in the light of the Word of God.
Thank you,David. I think I could teach a course on the subject. Consider, for a moment where our Federal structures came from, the SBC, the State Conventions, the entities of the SBC, the entities of the State Conventions, the assns., the local churches. Only the assns. and the local churches can be clearly identified in Scripture. However, obviously we need training, even with the gift of illumination. God’s teaching on the doctrine of ministerial qualifications is a both/and proposition of illumination and/or education, really more both/and than either/or. Only the latter, when the former cannot be had as does sometimes happen as when Baptists had no opportunities for education. As to quoting others, the removal of such would be the utter impoverishment of what ever position taken. God has a spiritual body that is the church, composed of all of God’s people in Christ; He also has a local body, more or less scriptural in its organization, the ekklesia, locally, if you please. Obviously, a bigger group must be involved and the baptism must be spiritual, when Paul says in I Cors.12:13, “wherefore as by one spirit were we baptized into one body.” Since he was baptized at Damascus, some were baptized at Corinth, and all who call upon the name of Jesus in every place (I Cors.1:2), the body of which he speaks is spiritual and greater by far than the local church at Corinth. There is also the issue of the practices and the doctrines taught. I was once a landmarker, and I Cors.12:13 duly exegeted got me out of that, but there are some aspects of Landmarkism which God allowed for a reason. There is a continuing stream of more biblical Christianity than that practiced by old Rome which for a while, at least, was the AntiChrist (the Waldensians started the name calling before the Reformation, and the Reformers picked it up. The Waldensians did because the kept getting the short end of the stick in the inquisition, you know, the end that burned. Burnt at stake..along with the Lollards…which might explain why one Lollard use to take the host home and feed it to rats, because he despised the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and why Lollards thought that Free Will and the Papacy came out of the Universities, evidently forgetting that one of the biggest encouragers to Lollardy was John Wycliffe, a University professor). Life is really funny when you get into it it and start to note the absurdities. The loyalists of Southern Baptists could be the folks who quote other Christians, whereas the most disloyal can be those who declaim the loudest about such disloyalty as quoting others. If everyone knew how absurd the whole scene is, because God loves humility, humility that would be embarrassed to try and claim to be such a follower of Jesus with so much authority that he or she could boot out or expose the rascals who were not. All the original Apostles were worried, when Jesus said, one of you shall betray me, worried that it might be them, never suspecting Judas, “”Lord, it is not me, is it?” They asked.
And Peter spoke highly of Paul who spoke about opposing Peter because he was wrong….hardly papal like language. Now we have a Pope who is friends with one of our leading evangelists of South America. I think I will write the Pope and ask him, if I can preach in the Vatican, in St. Peter’s Cathedral on I Cors.13, dedicating my sermon to the Unknown Black man who gave his life to save his Marine buddy in Vietnam who sat and held him and cried like a baby while he died.
Our son went to Kenya back in ’97 with his wife, and he taught Sunday School in a Catholic Mission!!! and He and his wife went out in the bush calling on Kenyans to win them to Christ. I think he said the total number of converts was about 41-2, about 2 times the number I had for a trip to Jamaica back in Jan-’80. Tomorrow, I take my invalid wife and with the help of my daughter, we will attend our Son’s church to see him baptize our Grand daughter who made a profession of faith at a State Convention Youth meeting, then made it public at our son’s church. He is also scheduled to baptize three others tomorrow. Praise God.
the only thing I would add to the discussion concerns the Body of Christ . . . that it functions organically at its deepest level
Christiane,
I think I agree with your statement here. I am curious, though, as to how you think it squares with the Catholic emphasis on the visible and institutional nature of the Church.
David,
Great post. You certainly express the sentiments of my heart here. If the SBC does not turn from the spirit of “Landmarkism,” elitism, and factionalism that currently engulfs us–we will continue down the path of decreasing baptisms, SS and worship attendance, seminary enrollment, IMB missionaries and cooperative program percentage giving.
To make an issue out of whether or not Ed Stetzer identified the theological & denominational belief systems of all the persons quoted outside of the SBC camp is simply straining at a gnat. Paul warned believers to avoid this party mentality versus a Kingdom mentality in I Corinthians 3: 4-10. Paul concluded that, “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building”(1Cor. 4: 9). This certainly suggest that God has servants that are gifted & equipped to speak into the lives of SBC people who don’t minister under the SBC brand. The important matter is that the persons quoted are authentic believers and their quote is consistent with biblical truth. Even if Stetzer had limited quotes in the TGP to Southern Baptists, one could still find areas of serious theological disagreement with that person, just as one might find with non-SBC commentators quotes. May God deliver us from this party, Landmarkish, and factionalism spirit.
Very well said, my friend.
Dwight,
Great point on 1 Cor. 3:9 and its relevance for the Gospel Project. And thanks for the encouragement, and your kingdom-centered leadership.
Well said, Dwight.
Mark,
First time in history that I believe we agreed on anything. Behold how good & how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.
Well, I’d say it’s at least the second time since you commented approvingly on my post that gay is not the new black. 🙂
Thanks, brother.
“As I see it, our bottom-line loyalty as gospel-centered Christians of any denomination ought to lie with the Body of Christ at large.”
“A local church is not merely a part of the body of Christ, it is the local manifestation of the body of Christ.” – Dr. Ken Keathley, SEBTS
Why would the “Body of Christ at large” have more bottom-line gospel-centered loyalty than the Body of Christ (i.e. my local church)?
Donald,
I agree with Dr. Keathley’s quote. As I see it, there should be no competition or tension between our loyalty to our local congregation and our loyalty to the Body if Christ at large. They should each feed into and encourage the other.
“I agree with Dr. Keathley’s quote. As I see it, there should be no competition or tension between our loyalty to our local congregation and our loyalty to the Body if Christ at large. They should each feed into and encourage the other.”
I, likewise, am not for tension. I wondered about the use of the term “…at large…” as a qualifer in the original post. It seems to emphasize the global visible church over the local church.
Donald,
The term “visible church” is subject to different interpretations. By “the Body of Christ at large,” I am referring to the conglomerate of born-again believers across time, cultural barriers, and denominational barriers, even non-denominational barriers. Like I say in the post, “this group is comprised of all those who we consider to have saving faith, and with whom, on the basis of our understanding of Scripture, we might expect to spend eternity in heaven.” That doesn’t mean that the members of the Universal Church should not gather together in local congregations. I believe they should. But when I say “the Body of Christ at large,” I am not talking about a single organization, with a human governing structure, such as the RCC.
Another post of mine here at SBC Voices lays out in more detail my thoughts on the Universal Church, and the biblical justification for this idea:
https://sbcvoices.com/the-present-day-relevance-of-the-universal-church-2/
Thanks, David, I appreciate your link. I do disagree for some of the very reasons stated in the article, a sign of a well written piece (e.g. Most often ekklesia refers to a local assembly of baptized believers who meet for the purpose of fulfilling the functions and ordinances of a church–local and visible).
On the current subject, I do seem to be noticing a trend. Those of us who would like the SBC president to be focused on the SBC are likely to be of the “primarily local and visible” group.
Those who are less concerned with our SBC president being focused on the SBC tend to be of the “primarily universal and invisible” group.
What do you think?
Donald,
Yes, I believe you are likely correct that there is some statistical correlation between the two positions.
At the same time I believe it is important to point out that those of us who share my beliefs on this would plead innocent to the charge of de-emphasizing the local church. See especially the last paragraph of my “Universal Church” post.
A local congregation is not a denomination. Denominations are a structural layer we have added, not something found in Scripture. That they are not Scriptural doesn’t make them wrong, but it does mean there is no biblical framework to point to and argue for denominational tribalism. Faithful to the local church, faithful to the body of Christ. Denominations help with the cooperation of like-minded believers, but are not manifestations of the church in any biblical sense. I am Southern Baptist as a means of facilitating my cooperation with those who believe more or less as I do and as a means of ensuring my money goes to those believing and doing more or less as I do (ie, I am (hopefully) not funding gay bishops, women priests, supporting missionaries who do not believe the Bible, etc – and, less seriously, not funding those who baptize babies, etc). There remain lots of questionable churches and practices in the SBC, things I wish my money wasn’t funding, but it is impossible to avoid all negative entanglements while remaining associated with a group of humans.
Chris,
What i wanted to say but better put.
Parsonsmike,
Are you, by chance, from Parsons, TN? My in-laws live and go to church there.
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis wrote that at the center of each denomination are people who are closest to Christ and who are therefore closest to each other. Another very important point he raises there is that what separates the denominations is really high theology, business that ought to be left to the experts. Unfortunately, we often wish to take it on.
David, Dave,
You guys were right, I was wrong. It still don’t do away with the fact that Paul taught all the churches the same doctrine. Look at what we have today. Some believe in eternal life when saved. Some believe in eternal life after death only, and that is only if one endures. Some believe in works only, some believe in Jesus only while denying the Godhead.
With this in mind, you guys are wrong. Religous treason comes in many forms.
I know what I wouldn’t be and that is a non-denominational preacher.
My son was speaking to one the other day, the preacher said it is hard
pastoring a non-denominational church. He said you have Methodists,
Pentecostal, and Baptist sitting under one roof. The preacher said he leans toward the Pentecostal beliefs, and when he preaches his belief the Baptist are waiting for him at the door. They were not Baptist to begin with in my book.
The only way we should work together is to elect a Godly President, Senate, and Congress. A friend of mine said he is in the running to be an Elder of his church. I told him he is running on the wrong ticket. (He is not Baptist.)
I remember pastoring in Mo. back in the 60s in one assn. and a friend came into that assn. after I left. He said they kicked out a church for open communion or receiving immersion by another denomination. I can’t remember which at this distance in time. Any way, Ark., Ky, parts of Mo., Louisiana Tennessee, and Texas were noted for a lot of Landmark churches…even still in fellowship with the State Conventions and the SBC. I don’t know how much they have changed, since. But I am aware that there are some with those inclinations still. Understandable in a way, due to J.R. Graves influence. What he contributed was a sense of denominational loyalty; it was just a bit too tight, however, because his exegesis on the church did not allow for a universal spiritual body and fell apart on those verses where that reality is clearly stated or implied. One can run a comparison of Grave, the Carrolls, Gilpin, and other Landmarkers to see how they varied in their efforts to explain away verses that would not fit their demand that the church be only a local body. Admittedly, come on the universal side can undo denominational loyalty to a degree hard to be believed. The two sided doctrine of the ekklesia, presented in Scripture, is intended to make the members of Christ balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant people, God’s best advertisement of His cause.
I’ve heard it said that the SBC wasnt a denomination, but a “convention” of “associations”. Strict congregationalists gathering to make decisions that dont make it much further than the convention halls. If true, can we say that the SBC as a “denomination” only exists just for a few days a year?
We are a convention for 2 days in June and a denomination the rest of the time.
From the SBC website:
Why a Convention?
Isn’t a convention a meeting and not a denomination? Technically, the Southern Baptist convention exists for only two days a year, at the annual gathering.
The rest of the year, denominational entities carry out the instructions of the messengers to the Convention. The authority, then, resides with the messengers elected by churches and participating in the two-day meeting. Still, those churches and individuals who identify with this enterprise typically call themselves Southern Baptist.
OK. I get what you guys are saying. My emphasis was more toward the premise of topics discussed at the convention not making it much further than the convention halls.
I guess it just rang my bell when this was told to me because I personally have never heard any mention (in all my life) of any goings on at the yearly convention at any church gathering that I personally attended.
“Landmarkism is a Southern Baptist phenomenon that grew out of the changing religious environment of the South in the early 1850s. The landmark movement is a system of beliefs, biblical interpretation, and a way of perceiving religious truth. The basic beliefs of the system follow: “There can be no visible church without baptism”; baptism is “immersion in water, by a proper administrator”; the administrator must be recognized by a true church; only Baptists can trace their history in an unbroken chain of ministers from the present to Jesus; all other groups are not churches but are religious societies.” [http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/itl01]
David Tuten,
Good stuff.
Thanks for the info on Landmarkism. A couple of times there have been comments on this thread about associations that are Landmarkist, and a strong “mark of Landmarkism” in the SBC. Where is this, and what form does it take?
BTW, I did glance through a copy of The Trail of Blood and did not see a lot of what has been attributed to Landmarkism, such as tracing the church to John the Baptist (it says Jesus Christ established the church and it was first called Christian, not Baptist. It gives 5 marks of a true church (which might be where some of this comes from), but I really didn’t have a problem with those five marks. Are any of them way off?
I did not mind the idea of a long broken chain of “Baptistish” churches, as this makes some sense. If we are right, then surely we are not the first to be right. Reading Balthasar Hubmaier, I am pretty comfortable with most of his theology and would think that his Anabaptism would have been one link in this chain of free-churches.
Bruce, as to John the Baptist, he would be considered a doctrinal successor to Jesus, not a predecessor. Strange way of thinking, I know. Go to http://www.trailofblood.org for a better understanding than I can give you.
Oops! Donald, not Bruce.
I visited a non-denominal church today by the name of Believer’s Fellowship in Spring, Tx. The message was on Jesus’ miracle in John 5 at the pool of Bethesda. As the pastor read John 5:3 which said, “In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water.”. His next statement was, “Sounds like a bunch of Baptist”. I have heard such statements within our own denomination regarding other denominations. We seldom realize what the influence of such statements have on the Universal Body of Christ.
Non-denominational, that is.
Sounds like it may have been a Charismatic from a Baptist background, to me. Sometimes those who leave one group for another are the most critical of anyone of the group they left behind.
Just out of curiosity, I decided to Google this church, and on their website, I found this:
“We are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, The Southern Baptists of Texas, and the South Texas Baptist Association, for the primary purpose of local, state and world wide missions.”
Turns out they are not non-denominational after all. They just have a name that doesn’t identify their denomination. From this perspective, the “sounds like a bunch of Baptists” comment must be taken in a different light.
David,
I looked it up and was surprised. The church was set up very charismatic with praise songs led by three (3) women and a band. The people raised their hands more than most Baptist. They have elders, too. Maybe it was toward other Baptist who do not have an emphasis on Spiritual gifts or a spiritual emphasis. Interesting, thanks.
David,
You are right about that. I am probably the most critical guy around of Landmark Baptists. And I will be honest with you, I would much rather cooperate with a Charismatic believer before I would a Landmarker.
I was born and raised in a most strict sect of Landmarkism.
When I made the decision to leave the Landmark work and join the SBC I was labeled as having committed treason by many…including my own mother. She refused to even come and hear me preach for over a decade.
MUCH of the “Traditional Statement” rhetoric and the reaction to TGP by the Trad camp is disconcertingly similar to the elitist and exclusionary bias of the Landmark sect from which I defected.
I could write a book on it, and most would not be able to differentiate between the Landmarkism of my formative years and the Trad movement that is now developing in the SBC.
If they gain ascendancy I shall yet again be displaced.
Randall,
Seriously? You’re gonna compare Trads to Landmarkers? Wow….just, wow….
smh
David
volfan007
MUCH of the “Traditional Statement” rhetoric and the reaction to TGP by the Trad camp is disconcertingly similar to the elitist and exclusionary bias of the Landmark sect from which I defected.
Seriously.
Randall,
I join with David is expressing my shock and surprise in seeing someone actually write suggesting that Trads are the new Landmarkers.
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong!
Plus …and respectfully … how can a group that is so focused on an “individual election” where God so loved a small minority of pre-selected people from eternity past and sent His Son to die and make His atonement effectual for them while deliberately choosing to pass over the multitude of sinners that he declared that He came to seek and to save — charge another group of being …exclusionary?
Hi Ron,
Please note that I didn’t say Trads were “the new Landmarkers.” I simply noted some startling (for me, once a strict Landmarker) similarities.
It’s really not that difficult, Ron, when it is God who is making exclusions. 🙂 Wouldn’t you agree He has every “right” to do what He wisely deems best with His creatures? Or does libertarian free will trump the Divine will? 😉
Conversely, when “denominations” turn inward and become exclusionary to the point of contending that Christians of other denominations cannot instruct or edify them…and that only Southern Baptists should be cited in SS literature…well, that’s exclusionary well beyond the truth laid down in the Word of God–and in the BF&M.
This idea that SBs should only be exposed to a tiny slice (1845-2013) of 2000 years of Christian thought seems very condescending to me. And very elitist.
This does NOT need to become another discussion of Calvinism, gentlemen.
I disagree with much that was in the Traditionalist document, but the connection to Landmarkism is not clear to me. Might some traditionalists have Landmark tendencies? Perhaps. But so do some Calvinists.
Dave,
In no particular order, a few similarities between the sect of Landmarkism from which I came and the TS (and its accompanying defense):
1) Denial of Original Sin
2) Faith preceding regeneration
3) Denial of unconditional election
4) Children “safe” until the “age of accountability”
5) Extreme anti-Calvinism
6) Rejection of predestination
7) Libertarian Freewillism
8) Corporate election (to the exclusion of individual election)
9) Denial of effectual calling
10) Denial of total depravity (total inability)
That’s just a handful off the top of my head. Wouldn’t be difficult to expand the list significantly given time.
In addition, the denominational elitism and exclusivism that has been recently exposed in relation to TGP was rampant in the Landmarkism of my formative years. I could produce another lengthy list of strong similarities on that point alone.
I’m not, as Ron seemed to think, labeling the Trads “the New Landmarkers.” I’m simply pointing to some similarities that would bear watching. This stuff is denominational poison, and any denomination that embraces such will die. I’ve witnessed it first-hand.
Dave,
I didn’t see your post above about not making this a discussion of Calvinism until after I posted this.
I don’t want to debate Calvinism here any more than you do, but I’m not sure how I could respond to your question without listing some of those issues.
My apologies. I’ll drop it unless you wish to explore this further.
Randall–Interesting. The 10 points you state here don’t sound anything like the Landmark churches I was associated with. The ones I know about would hold to #4 to some extent and would definitely adhere to #5 because of their belief that the Reformation was bogus to begin with and that they could trace a direct line back to the New Testament. I’m wondering if there are varieties of doctrine within Landmark churches. Appears so.
Landmark doctrine isn’t the topic here and possibly we need to have such a conversation elsewhere, but I was just curious as to the differences. As I said below it’s my understanding that they hold to Calvinist doctrines of grace but reject any connection to Reformation theologies. (I definitely agree with the “denominational poison” comment as it applies to exclusionary attitudes and approaches.)
Randall,
Ummmm…I dont deny original sin.
I’m not anti Calvinist. I’m anti extreme, aggressive Calvinist.
I dont reject predestination.
David
Dale,
The Landmarkers I came from is probably the strictest group of such that I have ever encountered. Their association of churches were more closed on issues of doctrine and ecclesiology than any I’ve ever seen. They are comprised almost exclusively of churches in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.
Mixed their own hemlock cocktail and drank it down lustily. They are dying a slow and torturous death even as we speak.
randall’s list:
1) Denial of Original Sin
2) Faith preceding regeneration
3) Denial of unconditional election
4) Children “safe” until the “age of accountability”
5) Extreme anti-Calvinism
6) Rejection of predestination
7) Libertarian Freewillism
8) Corporate election (to the exclusion of individual election)
9) Denial of effectual calling
10) Denial of total depravity (total inability)
If I make certain assumptions as to what you actually intend with some of the above verbiage, then you would certainly consider me a Landmarker. I guess it’s time to glue the map from Trail of Blood in the back of my Bible…
Lol.
The “mark” of a true Landmarker indeed…
Donald,
Some of the list I agree with and some I dont, I suppose I’m part Landmarker, part Calvinist, part Traditionalist, and all
Baptist. If I didn’t believe the Baptist church was not the true church I would not be a Baptist.
2nd Tim. 3rd Chapter talking about the last days. Having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof, I think we are turning the Baptist church into a powerless church.
If the BF&M was a Landmark document, I would not be Southern Baptist.
Cooperation is not opposed to denominational loyalty. As I noted back in 2008, Southern Baptists have publicly partnered with those in other denominations.
I would think that interacting with those of other denominations, as noted in my article, has a greater possibility of influencing Southern Baptists who work with them over quoting someone of another denomination in a lesson.
I say that because people can be influenced by another person’s attitude and actions. A SB may work with a group of Methodists who display a great deal of gentleness, love and grace. Such an experience may lead them to look into Methodism to see if they are missing something in their own denomination.
Just a thought….
any time Southern Baptists have reached out to help those in crisis in the Name of Christ, they HAVE been ‘in cooperation with’ the whole Church, whether or not they knew that, or whether or not they were acknowledge as such by others . . .
the acts of bringing aid and comfort to suffering people by Christians can’t be ‘separated’ from Christ Himself, as those acts are the expression of Christ’s love active in this world for the sake of suffering people,
and it is as though He Himself were working along side of His followers and through His grace, IN HIS FOLLOWERS
in their mission of mercy to bring aid and comfort to the suffering.
Any act of compassionate love done in Christ’s Name must be credited directly TO HIM by those who are privileged enough to serve Him .
Thought I might add some fuel to the fire. R.G. Lee was a landmarker, along with George W. Truett. There are calvinistic landmarkers and arminian landmakers. Landmarker views on baptism can get so extreme that only one baptized by a Landmarker has any hope of Heaven. No one is consistent in the practice of Landmarkism. When J.R. Graves began, only a few churches held his position. Near the end of his career nearly 90% of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention practice Landmarkism to some degree.
I don’t quite understand the aversion to Landmark Baptists by some. I’m not Landmark, but I have great respect for many of them. I believe they are right on some issues, wrong on others. I imagine some who criticize them would be surprised to find they agree with them on several points.
It should also be remembered that there are many varieties of Landmark doctrine, from strong to mild. Anyway, I like the Landmarkers I’ve known.
David R. Brumbelow