James Slatton has just published what is perhaps one of the most important books on Baptist history in decades.  His W. H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy (Mercer Press, 2009) provides a candid look at the infamous third president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  William Heth Whitsitt’s presidency lasted only a few short years (1895-1899) due to his involvement in a bitter controversy within the Southern Baptist denomination regarding the question of Landmarkism, the belief that Baptists did not originate after the Protestant Reformation but that Baptist origins can be traced through an unbroken chain all the way back to the New Testament era.  Whitsitt opposed the landmark interpretation, suggesting that the Baptist practice of believer’s baptism by immersion did not originate until 1641.  Pro-landmark Baptists attacked both his book, A Question in Baptist History, and the man himself, eventually resulting in his resignation from the seminary presidency in 1899.

Moderate and liberal Baptists have long referenced Whitsitt as an academic martyr who suffered for his convictions concerning academic freedom and Baptist individualism.  Slatton’s book finally brings selections from Whitsitt’s private diaries to light.  These revelations shed an entirely new light upon Whtisitt’s temperment.

Michael Haykin provides a concise but insightful review of Whitsitt’s character as reflected in his diary entries:

I had always believed that the major reason for [Whitsitt's] departure from the Seminary presidency in 1899 was simply tied to his convictions about Particular Baptist origins in the seventeenth century that ran counter to the beliefs of prominent Landmarkists at the time in the Southern Baptist Convention.  But what [Slatton's] book reveals is that although Whitsitt made public statements of devotion to the Baptist cause, he had significant doubts about Christianity and Baptist polity and doctrine that he kept private . . .

Whitsitt has become something of a poster boy for freedom in scholarship. . . . But my impression in the end was not along these lines. Rather, I came away from the reading of this biography with the impression that Whitsitt was habitually critical of pretty well everyone he met, and arrogant and petty in the way he put them down privately.

Whitsitt’s heretical doctrinal leanings are a bit of a surprise to me.  However, from my own work on seminary presidential administrations, I learned firsthand how spiteful and arrogant Whitsitt could be in his dealing with both enemies and supposed friends.  It is my opinion that he was simply not fit to be president of a denominational seminary.  In the history of the seminary, many good men experienced heartbreak and mistreatment due to various factors, but the best men of character were those who could forgive personal transgressions and move on with life without holding grudges.  Whitsitt does not appear to have been such a man.

The last pages of Slatton’s book reveal that Whitsitt remained defiant even in his last years before his death in 1911:

At the 1909 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, a brochure was circulated among the delegates promoting an offering in behalf of Southern Seminary. It bore the pictures of Boyce, Broadus, and Mullines [past seminary presidents], but not of Whitsitt.  When he saw the brochure, Whitsitt felt the sting of omission but resolved to take no outward notice: “I am proud of the ommission and shall be glad if my name shall never be restored.  It is a distinction that no other President of the Seminary can boast of …. I hope no member of the Whitsitt family will ever commit the blunder of striving to get my name restored to the list of the Seminary Presidents.” (p.325-326)

Today, Whitsitt’s picture hangs in Heritage Hall along Boyce, Broadus, Mullins, and all the rest of the nine men who have been entrusted with the office of SBTS President for a time.  I find great irony in this fact, regardless of whether Whitsitt would have approved of being honored alongside these other great men. All of the other eight presidents had particular strengths and weaknesses (sometimes, glaringly so!).   But whenever I look at Whitsitt’s picture, I am reminded of what a godly man does not look like.

I highly recommend students of Baptist history invest in a copy of Slatton’s new study of Whitsitt, and I advise reading it carefully while seeking to gain a clear picture of Whitsitt in his own words.

This author finds himself in the unique position of having been reared in twentieth century churches built upon the nineteenth century model here described by J.M. Pendleton in his Baptist Church Manual. Sadly, many of those sister churches employed only the letter of this magnificent document, forgetting the vibrant spirit that at first drove Landmarkism. Furthermore, having served for over a decade in such churches, this author easily sees past what many less experienced churchmen might see as legalism to Pendleton’s pious faith that willingly restricts itself of liberties for the good of the body and of the world.

Pendleton lays out this simple yet profound work in seven sections. The first of these regards the nature of a church. It is important that he refers to a church for though he affirms the use of church to refer to “the redeemed in the aggragate” (5), he rightly recognizes that its primary meaning is for “a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, united in the belief of what he said and covenanting to do what he has commanded” (7). A candidate for membership must meet moral and ceremonial qualifications to be eligible for membership. Morally, he must display repentance and faith. In contrast to the seeker-sensitive movement prevalent in twenty-first century churches, Pendleton upholds the purity of the body, writing, “There is no place more inappropriate for the impenitent than a church of Christ” (9). Ceremonially, he must be baptized. Pendleton takes one more logical step that many Baptists today are not willing to venture: “In the absence of… baptized believers in Christ, there cannot be a New Testament church” (15).

His second section regards church officers of which there are four; two Scriptural and two legally necessary (and therefore having no authority within the church.) The first office is of pastor, and his supreme qualification is love for Christ (24). Pendleton equates the offices of pastor, bishop, and elder in the New Testament and argues for pastoral authority only to preach divine truth and enforce divine commands (29). The second office is of deacon, who is still responsible for service to tables of 1) the poor, 2) the Lord, and 3) the pastor. The legal offices recommended are clerk and trustees (which Pendleton argues ought to be the deacons, 39).

The third section deals with the doctrines of a church, which are defined as what a church believes the Bible to teach (40). Rather than engage in a systematic theology, he here includes J. Newton Brown’s declaration of faith, the common church covenant, and a church prayer.

In his fourth section, Pendleton launches into a healthy explanation of the ordinances of a church, which are two. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of a believer by a church-authorized administrator. On this latter point, he posits that churches were entrusted with the command to baptize, not individuals (65). In his argument against paedobaptism, he affirms that “a commission to do a thing authorizes only the doing of the thing specified” (81), showing that the commission by Christ must follow a certain order. His main reference to Christology comes in his exposition of the Lord’s Supper: “If ever the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of the Christian to the exclusion of every other topic, it is when he sits at the table of the Lord” (89). Against the Anabaptists, he sees horizontal communion as merely incidental to the vertical fellowship with Christ. Pendleton defends close communion as logical since baptism is prior to observance of the Lord’s Supper. Here, he quotes several Presbyterians and Methodists who recognize that Baptists must practice close communion not as an issue of communion but as an issue of baptism (96-8). Ultimately, because it is the Lord’s table and not the church’s, it must be guarded as close as can be (99).

Pendleton’s fifth section reflects upon the government of a church as congregationalism contra episcopacy or Presbyterianism. He posits that members have the right to receive (Rom. 14:1), exclude (I Cor. 5:1-5), and discipline members (II Cor. 2:6-8).

On discipline, Pendleton builds a whole section. How many Baptist churches today respect the honor of Christ enough to devote one seventh of a church manual to upholding it? Pendleton outlines two forms of discipline: formative and corrective. The former is action that keeps a Christian in a constant state of spiritual growth (118). The latter is broken down into personal and general offenses. Pendleton takes care to note that both the offended and the offender have a responsibility to make the transgression right. (For this, he cites Matthew 5:23-4; 18:15.) Using II Thessalonians 3:14-15, Pendleton takes care to explain just how excluded members ought to be treated (141-2). Finally, he urges churches to keep in view the glory of God, the purity of the churches, and the spiritual good of the disciplined party.

Pendleton’s final section is on the duties of a church individually (the members to one another) and corporately (the congregation to the world). Christian love is our main due to each other, while encouraging ministerial gifts – including monetary support for Christian education (151) – are also essential. Corporately, a church owes the world evangelism, Bibles and literature, missions, and Sunday Schools. This latter point may seem outdated to (post)modern Christians, but on further inspection, Pendleton teaches that Sunday Schools are designed to aid – not supersede – family instruction (154). Furthermore, the method he outlines looks strangely like the small group method being employed for evangelistic purposes all across America.

In conclusion, hundreds of thousands of Pendleton’s Church Manual have been printed and distributed. Though it was first published in 1867, he makes no reference to cultural topics such as the Civil War not yet two years finished or Darwinism, burgeoning since 1859. Is it possible that the aloofness of Landmarkism led its seminal theologian to this sophomoric mistake? This might well be the consensus, but this author disagrees. It is this: at their core, the fundamental beliefs and practices of a local church do not depend in any whit on the culture around it. The things we owe the world are not conditional to the state of our culture. Said Pendleton, “Earth’s wretched millions are starving for the bread of life, and this bread is in the custody of the churches” (162).

In the last post, I quoted passages from the first volume of Alexander Campbell’s The Christian Baptist in which he describes how we planned to unite all Christendom. Over and over, Campbell and Walter Scott, the Restoration Movement’s first missionary, declared their plan, being that –

this peerless fact, that “Jesus is the Christ,” forms the sole bond of union among the holy brethren, and is also the means through faith for increasing the body of Christ in the earth

This is the same principle we find in Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration and Address” from 1809 –

Nay, it would be adopting the very means, by which the bewildered church has, for hundreds of years past, been rending and dividing herself into fractions; for Christ’s sake, and for the truth’s sake; though the first and foundation truth of our christianity is union with him, and the very next to it in order, union with each other in him–”that we receive each other, as Christ has also received us, to the glory of God.” For this is his commandment that we believe in his son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him–and hereby we know that he dwelleth in us, by the spirit which he hath given us”–even the spirit of faith, and of love, and of a sound mind. And surely this should suffice us. But how to love, and receive our brother; as we believe and hope Christ has received both him and us, and yet refuse to hold communion with him, is, we confess, a mystery too deep for us.

This story is from the Autobiography of Barton W. Stone. It’s his last sermon, in which he quotes Paul to explain his understanding of Christianity –

He opens the New Testament, and reads from the 20th of Acts, commencing with the 17th verse, to the 21st, inclusive:–”And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility, and many tears, and temptations which befell me, by the lying in wait of the Jews. And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Perhaps I do not exaggerate when I say that in reading these few verses his utterance was obstructed by his feelings a dozen times. Tears started in his aged eyes and flowed plentifully down his furrowed cheeks. The effect was overwhelming. His tears spoke volumes–they spoke to every heart and were responded to in tears from every eye, eloquent of the deep feeling of every heart. Who that considers the circumstances of this parting scene can wonder at the deep feeling manifested upon the occasion.

pp. 114-115 (1847). Stone summarizes his teaching, as did Paul, as faith in Jesus and repentance toward God.

Early on, the boundary markers were set wide — wide enough that the founders of the Restoration Movement genuinely thought they might draw in all Christendom. They required only faith in Jesus and repentance. Period.

You see, the Restoration Movement was not about instrumental or a cappella music. It wasn’t about weekly communion. It was about unity.

The Restorers rejected denominational creeds and confessions, not because they didn’t think we should write down what we believe,  but because in those days creeds and confessions were barriers to fellowship. A Calvinist could not even take communion until he confirmed belief in the confession of his denomination.

And it wasn’t that the creeds or confessions were necessarily wrong. It was that they were something other than faith and repentance. Therefore, making a creed or confession a fellowship issue separated brother from brother.

However, things changed.

Alexander Campbell learned that First Century baptism was by immersion, and had himself and his family immersed by a Baptist pastor. Years later, while working on a debate, he concluded that baptism is for remission of sins, and began to teach this within the new movement.

However, as the Lunenburg correspondence shows, Campbell did not see baptism as a barrier to salvation. And he accepted Baptist baptism, despite its misunderstanding of its purpose, as shown in the Richmond correspondence.

Therefore, while baptism became a central doctrine of the Movement, it did not move the boundary markers.

In fact, we don’t see any real movement until the second and third generation of editor-bishops — preachers of influence due to editing periodicals. What happened, I think, is the Movement absorbed a great number of Baptists from the same cultural pool that produce the Landmark Baptist movement in the 1850s — but with roots going back to the 17th Century.

This is from the Wikipedia –

Scholars have offered several proposed definitions of Landmarkism, most of which agree on several fundamental aspects of the movement, but nevertheless differ at significant points.

Points of consensus

Most theologians and historians who have dealt with Landmarkism have agreed that the following ecclesiological convictions were inherent to the system:

The exclusive validity of Baptist churches

Although different champions of the Landmark Baptist cause have identified different required characteristics, or “marks,” that validate a legitimate Baptist church, all varieties of Landmarkism stipulate that legitimate Baptist churches are the only legitimate churches. According to Landmarkism, congregations of other denominational varieties are merely religious gatherings, or “societies,” with no claim to the title “church.”

The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church. Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received “pedobaptism” or “alien immersion” to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership.

Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:

Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.
Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.
Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms.

Disputed points

Beyond this basic argument, scholars have proposed other elements as inherent to Landmarkism, but these do not enjoy the same scholarly consensus as the foregoing ecclesiological kernel.

Church succession

Baptist successionism is a theological theory concerning Baptist history prior to 1609. Many prominent Baptist historians up through the nineteenth century emphasized in some manner the antiquity of Baptist ideas. This was an exercise in apologetics, designed to debunk criticisms of Baptist thought as a more contemporary innovation. In particular, Baptist historians labored to demonstrate the antiquity of believer’s baptism and, to some degree, of congregationalist church governance.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, most Landmark Baptists adopted English Baptist pastor G. H. Orchard’s assertion in his book, A Concise of the Baptists (1838), that actual organized Baptist congregations had existed at all times throughout the preceding centuries all the way back to the New Testament era. Orchard wrote:

“During the first three centuries, Christian congregations, all over the East, subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were Baptist churches…” —G. H. Orchard

Believing that their origins predate those even of Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy (having both been one before the East-West Schism in 1054 AD), Landmark Baptists have generally refused to refer to themselves as Protestants (Note that Church Succession has no connection with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession to which Landmarkists do not ascribe). Not all Landmark Baptists subscribed to this particular concept of Baptist history, but it did come to dominate Landmark Baptist thinking about Baptist origins.

Does any of this sound familiar? It seems clear that the Restoration Movement absorbed adherents of Landmarkism and so absorbed much of its doctrine. In fact, I suspect that early debates between Restoration and Landmark preachers were about who had the right marks, who really was founded on Pentecost, with the Restoration preachers buying the general arguments and trying to steal the Landmark claim to be the first and only church. Hence, Acts 2:38 gained its legendary importance in part because both groups claimed to have been founded on Pentecost.

I should add that the idea of a particular God-given number of “acts of worship” has deep roots in Baptist theology. The Separate Baptists and General Baptists remained separate denominations for many years because they disagreed on the right number of acts of worship.

One distinction was in the number of ordinances or rites observed by the Separates. The nine rites were baptism, the Lord’s supper, love feasts, laying on of hands, washing feet, anointing the sick, the right hand of fellowship, kiss of charity, and devoting children. Not all the churches practiced all nine of these, but most churches practiced more than the two ordinances generally held by the Regular Baptists — baptism and the Lord’s supper.

The Landmark Baptists had their own list as well.

By the way, the center of Landmark teaching and influence was Nashville, Tennessee.

As I’ve noted on several occasions, the Regulative Principle, the teaching that Biblical silences are prohibitions, is a teaching of John Calvin and his disciples. The Baptists in that part of the world were Calvinists.

At the same time we were absorbing Baptist theology (which they later rejected), we also had some editor-bishops who introduced much of the legalism we suffer from today –

Moses Lard began his editing career in 1864. He insisted that all Christians must agree on every single point–

For if both of these men be true Christians neither more nor less, evidently there cannot exist between them even a nominal, to say nothing of a real difference. … Consequently they are now, be it supposed, Christians strictly according to the Bible; that is, they mentally accept and in heart hold, as the matter of their faith, precisely and only what the Bible certainly teaches; they do and practice what, and only what, it either expressly or by precedent enjoins; in spirit, temper, and disposition, they are exactly what it requires; and as to names, they wear none save those which it imposes.

Here we see the idea of “tests of fellowship” greatly expanded beyond the teachings of Stone and Campbell, already going to the opposite extreme. The Campbells counseled that the church’s practice be only what is commanded or established by example, but this was no test of fellowship. In Lard’s writings, however, having the right name and practices establishes who is saved.

A similar approach to fellowship is found in the writings of Benjamin Franklin. In 1877 he wrote about the difference between moral and positive commands in “Positive Divine Laws.” Franklin reasoned that commands that are not based on standards of moral behavior are “positive” commands, that is, they are the law solely because God says so, whereas moral law does not require any special revelation.

God’s grace covers mistakes in obedience to the moral law–no one is perfect–but the positive commands are a test of faith and must be obeyed perfectly on threat of condemnation.

In a 1868 article, Franklin teaches, perhaps for the first time in Restoration Movement history, the notion that the one true church is defined by certain marks:

I. A body, or community, not built on the foundation which God laid, is not the community which the Lord calls “my Church.”

II. A community not founded and established in the right place, is not the Church of Christ.

III. A community not founded at the right time, is not the kingdom of Christ.

IV. No church can be the true Church not founded by the proper persons, Christ and the apostles.

V. A kingdom, with any other law than the one given by the head of the Church, is not the kingdom of Christ.

VI. Any community labeled with a foreign name, or a name not found to designate the body of Christ, in the New Testament, is not the kingdom of God.

Here we see a particularly radical departure from the teachings of Stone and the Campbells, who taught that the only marks of the church were faith in Jesus and baptism. Indeed, we find here the truly repugnant teaching that God cares more about arbitrary rules than moral rules, more about sacrifice than mercy.

The Movement’s history would quickly show the fruit produced by these teachings.

Instruments were first introduced into worship in 1851. But it wasn’t until after the death of Alexander Campbell that the second-generation editor-bishops began to craft a theology that would damn those who practiced any error in worship. And it wasn’t until 1889 that emotions became so strong that actual separation occurred.

You see, it took that long for the editor-bishops to convert a part of the Movement to new kind of unity — a unity based on the creeds of the editor-bishops. By 1889, we’d become what we’d been founded to oppose.

I’m quite happy being a part of the Restoration Movement. It’s just that a great many Churches of Christ are not.

The topic of “Baptist Identity” has been hotly debated among Southern Baptists in recent years, and there is no one more competent to bring historical acumen with contemporary application than Dr. Tom Nettles (see his three volume series Baptists (vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3) for instance).  Tom Ascol, director of Founders Ministries, recently sat down with Dr. Nettles for a lengthy conversation about Baptist Identity, and the audio has now been made available via the Founders Podcast.

Interview with Tom Nettles Part 1 (MP3)
– Inerrancy Controversy, Baptists and the Bible, personal account

Interview with Tom Nettles Part 2 (MP3)
– History of Landmarkism, Baptists vs. Presbyterians

Interview with Tom Nettles Part 3 (MP3)
– Examples of Keatch, Booth, outline for defining Baptist Identity

You can catch more audio from the Founders Podcast by subscribing (iTunes :: RSS).  Previous audio includes interviews of Tom Ascol, Donald Whitney, Andy Davis, and Voddie Baucham.

[Editor's note: We, at chadwickivester, are not Landmark Baptists.]

For what it’s worth:

The  SBC’s Founding Fathers differed on the Landmark issue. They considered “alien emersion” to be a local church issue rather than a denominational issue.

Here is an interesting quote from an SBC history book:

“An attack was made on the Southern Seminary because one of its first professors, Dr. William Williams, was in favor of the acceptance of alien immersions. Dr. [James] Boyce was against such acceptance, but he was unwilling to make the question a test of fellowship. From the beginning of the Seminary, he was unwilling to have the institutions committed to either side of the question.”
(Page 108; The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953: The First History of a Great Denomination by: W.W. Barnes; Broadman Press; 1954 )

Questions (based upon the cited quote) that must be asked:

• According to James Boyce, who should handle the Landmark issue?
• Was Boyce willing to force his Landmark beliefs upon SBTS?
• Should Southern Baptists make the Landmark issue a test of fellowship?
• According to the cited quote, would Boyce sign the Time to Change statement?

Selah,

chadwick

Many of the second generation of the Restoration Movement misunderstood the Campbells. In particular, Moses Lard and Benjamin Franklin (great nephew of the Revolutionary War Benjamin Franklin) taught a much narrower doctrine of salvation (soterology), sometimes insisting on near-perfect doctrine as a test of fellowship.

I’ve not come to a fully satisfactory explanation for why this generation so severely departed from the teachings of the first generation. But I think it’s a combination of the difficulty of understanding much of the Campbells’ writings (they liked really long sentences) and the influence of the Landmark movement among the Baptists, centered around Nashville.

Alexander Campbell famously debated the leader of the Landmark movement, James R. Graves, late in his career, with Graves trying to prove that the Restoration churches are all lost due to not bearing the true marks of the church and not being founded at Pentecost.

Consider these quotations taken from the Wikipedia article on Landmarkism –

Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church. Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received “pedobaptism” or “alien immersion” to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership. Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:

Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.

Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.

Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms.

… In the latter half of the nineteenth century, most Landmark Baptists adopted English Baptist pastor G. H. Orchard’s assertion in his book, A Concise of the Baptists (1838), that actual organized Baptist congregations had existed at all times throughout the preceding centuries all the way back to the New Testament era. Orchard wrote:

During the first three centuries, Christian congregations, all over the East, subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were Baptist churches. …

Believing that their origins predate those even of Roman Catholicism, Landmark Baptists have generally refused to refer to themselves as Protestants. …

Gospel missions

Baptist missionary Tarleton Perry Crawford proposed in the late nineteenth century a theory of missiology that criticized at several points the missionary structures and methodologies of Baptist conventions and societies. Crawford’s theories were popular among Landmark Baptists. …

James Robinson Graves

Through his Tennessee Baptist newspaper, James Robinson Graves popularized Landmarkism, building for it a virtual hegemony among Southern Baptists west of the Appalachians. … In 1851, Graves called a meeting of likeminded Southern Baptists at the Cotton Grove Baptist Church near Jackson, Tennessee to address five questions:

1. Can Baptists with their principles on the Scriptures, consistently recognize those societies not organized according to the Jerusalem church, but possessing different government, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices as churches of Christ?
2. Ought they to be called gospel churches or churches in a religious sense?
3. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?
4. Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits or by any other act that would or could be construed as such recognition?
5. Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?

The majority of the gathered Baptists resolved these questions to the disparagement of non-Baptist congregations, and then published their findings as the Cotton Grove Resolutions. The Cotton Grove Resolutions essentially comprise the organizational document of the Landmark Baptist movement.

And it’s not just this article. If you read the writings of these men, you can’t help but be struck by how much the 20th Century Churches of Christ sound like the 19th Century Landmark Baptist Churches. They insisted on certain “acts of worship” as “tests of fellowship.” They claimed to be the one, true church of Christ, even predating Catholicism, and identified themselves by certain “marks of the church.” They refused to be called “Protestants.”

If you can believe it, the fact is — we’re Baptists! Landmark Baptists, that is. The conservative Churches of Christ are much more like 19th Century Landmark Baptists than the 19th Century Restoration churches.

As argued by Bill J. Leonard in Baptists in America (2005), p. 25,

Baptists responded [to the Restoration Movement] by insisting that they did not need to restore anything, since they had kept the true church alive since the time of the apostles.

Imagine this conversation –

Restoration Movement preacher to Baptist preacher: Come out of your denominationalism and return to pure, simple, First Century Christianity!

Baptist preacher: But we already practice pure, simple, First Century Christianity.

RMP: The “Baptist Church” is a name not even found in the Bible. Your origins are recent.

BP: We have the true marks of the church. Only we practice the love feast, the laying on of hands, which you’ve willfully omitted, trying to please the world by your compromise and adoption of worldly philosophies!

RMP: No, we have the true marks of the church …

BP: Only a church with the 9 marks is the one true church. And the correct founder. We were founded by Peter on Pentecost. You were founded by Thomas Campbell.

RMP: No, WE were founded on Pentecost because we’re part of the church-universal …

BP: No, you were founded about 50 years ago when Thomas Campbell published his “Declaration and Address.”

RMP: Well, you were founded in 17th Century …

And on it goes. Rather than pointing out the underlying error of the argument (the church is all who are saved, not all who bear certain “marks”), we bought the arguments and tried to turn them against the Baptists. It was a horrible blunder.

Around the end of the 19th Century, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected Landmarkism as creedalism (and they were quite right). The Landmark churches became a separate fellowship of about 250,000, which is how about how many there are today, over 100 years later.

I’m persuaded that much of the 20th Century growth of the Churches of Christ was from (a) buying the Landmark arguments and trying to turn them against the Baptists and (b) from absorbing many members from among Landmark Baptists — who came to find the Churches of Christ more like themselves than the Southern Baptists.

Somehow or other, in all the debates with the Landmark Baptists and the frequent conversions of Landmark Baptists to the Churches of Christ, we became Landmarkers! We began to use the very arguments — even the vocabulary — that was invented to prove us to be heretics!

In fact, by 1906, our preachers were quoting the “Declaration and Address” — severely out of context — to prove that we must consider as damned those who disagree with us over instrumental music, located preachers, and missionary societies. We claimed to stand in the shoes of the great Restoration Movement leaders, when in fact we’d adopted the very arguments that they’d dedicated their lives to oppose.

We became the very people trying to prove us damned, which is why that our 20th Century theology actually treats the Campbells and the other founders of the Movement as lost! It’s an amazing story.

As I perused my daily blogs, I came across an interesting article here. Dr. Tony Cartledge, outgoing Editor of our state paper, links to this article. It is an article that Dr. Bill Leonard, Dean of Divnity School at Wake Forest University, appears to have originally authored in 1993 where he reviews Landmarkism in the SBC. In Dr. Leonard’s article he seems to advocate a quasi-societal form of denominational governance. This quasi-societal method would allow everyone to choose whatever fit their fancy. I will not address here the flaws and strengths of such a form. However, I would like to turn my attention to the definitions of a Society and a Convention in order to make a comparison.

The following definitions come from Dr. Leon McBeth’s, book The Baptist Heritage.

Society

The society…requires no extensive denominational machinery or approval for its work, maintains more local control, and has the advantage of a committed membership. Those not interested in the society’s cause simply do not join. To its adherents, it also seems to protect the autonomy of the churches. However, the society plan does not enlist the involvement of churches, seldom builds denominational identity and loyalty, and makes overall denominational planning and correlation difficult.

Convention

The convention plan tends to enlist the churches, build denominational identity and loyalty, and allows correlation and balance between the various causes sponsored. Its adherents feel it preserves the autonomy of the churches, though it does call for a degree of centralization. However, at times the convention plan proves cumbersome since the whole body must deliberate and decide on all kinds of work. Problems arise when some voting members have greater interest in one cause, like foreign missions, and lesser commitment to others. This sometimes leads to rivalry as leaders seek to enlist support for the causes they represented. In general, the convention plan calls for more denominational machinery. The convention plan emphasizes the denomination more, and it creates more denomination to emphasize. (p.348)

Dr. McBeth also spoke of the characteristics of each and made a clear point to say that while conventions were made up of churches, usually from a selected geographical region, societies were made up of individuals.

Dr. Bill Leonard, in his above referenced article, held for his premise that the SBC had a center. Those controlling the center were the ones controlling the convention. Dr. Leonard goes on to state that the SBC center had always been tolerant of factions as long as it was not extreme factions. He used for his example the faction caused by Crawford Toy and contrasted it with J Frank Norris. It is interesting to note that while Toy was removed Dr. E.Y Mullins hired Dr. W.O Carver, who according to Dr. Leonard, held views on Scripture similar to that of Toy.

While Dr. Leonard and I will not be together on many theological issues I do commend him on something he apparently could see back in 1993. He wrote;

it appears that the real problem of the American denominational future involves the issue of identity. The denominational mechanisms that shaped identity and enabled traditions to be passed on to succeeding generations are fast breaking apart or addressing only one of the multiple subgroups. Perhaps the most essential questions for Southern Baptists are: When all is said and done, what will remain that is discernibly, historically Baptist?

I agree! If Dr. Leonard’s thesis of a center is correct, and I suspect it is, and if that center is what keeps us from wandering too far left or too far right, then I suspect the major problem within the SBC would be one of Baptist Identity. This identity within the context of the SBC is an identity rooted in Scripture and actualized through a convention form of governance. For an example of a convention form of government moving to a society form, notice the CBF and other splinters that have formed since the Conservative Resurgence. They say they cooperate but they have taken on a form that allows for everyone to pick their pet projects and support that themselves. I do commend the CBF on their cooperation but everyone knows if there is something they do not like they just stop sending money to support it. Also, that is the reason they are able to report the churches as they do. They are looking at this from a societal method instead of a convention form of governance. They report churches as their supporters that clearly are not supporting the CBF. They do this because one member of that church has given funds to them and listed their church. They do not see the church supporting them they see the individual giving the money. Remember a society is made up of individuals not churches. Is this a fair reporting of the numbers? It depends on who you ask.

Notice how the society form has crept into the SBC. Many in the current debate have spoken of forming something that will enable support of missionaries with a PPL. Then the individual pastors may lead their churches to re-direct some of their IMB support to support those Missionaries with a PPL. We have had a statement from the EC adopted that some say is a maximum and others say is a minimum guide for agencies establishing doctrine. Those that advocate it being a maximum insist this vague statement says something it never was intended to say. Thus they find a cause that individuals can rally around. This screams society over convention.

Conclusion

What does all of this mean for the SBC? For me, it reveals where I may differ with others. That disagreement is embeded in the understanding of how the SBC operates. I disagree somewhat with Dr. Leonard about the center of the SBC when he says; “That center was grounded in southern culture, denominational programs and a theology specific enough to be identifiably Baptist but general enough to permit the presence of various sectarian subgroups.” While the southern culture and denominational programs are recognized in the convention, I believe the denominational program did more to projecting the convention forward to what she is today than southern charm. However, I agree with Dr. Leonard that specific theology is something that kept the center glued together. But, I would go further and say it was the main issue that kept the center glued together. This Baptist specific theology is what I believe to be somewhat missing in our SBC center today. We appear to focus more on a general theology that allows for the various sectarian subgroups.

Our center needs the glue of specific Baptist Identity which keeps us moving in a convention form of government. If we continue to loose the specifics of Baptist theology the glue of our center will change from super glue to the glue on the back of sticky notes. Once this happens we then acquiesce to a society form of government–something we came out of when we left the Triennial Convention in 1845.

I recently ducked out of going to the national meeting for the national work that my Church works with. With health, vehicle and school concerns, not to mention I thought the Church could use the money better toward local outreach, I did not go. Boy howdy, did I miss some interesting things.

At some point during the business sessions, a gentleman from southern state (not Texas) asked for a motion to be entertained. The motion he presented was that “for the sake of unity, all speakers use the Authorized Version only!” “for the sake of unity” is the part that drives me crazy. In his mind, if everyone that uses his preferred translation, we can be unified. in his mind, conformity is unity. It seems to me that in his “unifying” motion he actually was causing division as he making a translation preference a test of fellowship.

For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. (Php 3:18-19 NASB)

Later this same gentleman made an additional motion of the same spirit. This time he asked that only “Baptist” be allowed to present. He apparently had an issue that someone that was brought in to do special music was at Church that did not have “Baptist” in the name. The woman that sang was from a “Baptistic” community church and had been at a Baptist Church, and is Baptist at heart. The woman had only come to celebrate the Sovereignty of Christ and His Glory in Song. I wonder if at any point in her preparing to minister in song did she realize that she would be possible banned for not being “Baptist.”

Not only would this limit those who sing to being Baptist, but also the preaching, leadership conference and breakout sessions. In truth, even the great Charles Spurgeon would not be able to preach at our convention/association because he was never ordained by a Baptist Church (by his choice he was never ordained) nor did he ever pastor a Church with Baptist in the name.

The out come of this all was that wise people saw that these motions were tabled. And we will have to wait till next year when they meet in Waco, Tx to see what will happen.
A few more thoughts …
Who authorized this Bible? The best reason to use the King James Bible is the precedent that it has be widely and predominately used for 400 years. Yet the KJVO crowd that presses that we must used the Bible that was used back at the 1611 time mark fail to realize that they would be dragging the Apocrypha back into the Church. Additionally, if we must use this Authorized Bible, then should not use the same Hymnody and play the same style of music. Why do we not dress the same, maybe we should bring back the wigs and robes!

One last thought …
When the man who proposed these motions began, he made sure to mention that he knew nothing of the Biblical languages, that he was ignorant of such. Why would you ever begin a charge with telling those you want to persuade to your view point with a statement that basically says “I have no clue what I am talking about?”