The Southern Baptist Convention is,
by its very nature, an eclectic group. There have been, from the beginning,
various beliefs of church polity and ecclesiology. Even in recent years different factions have
battled for control of the Convention’s direction—namely that of Conservatism versus
Modernism, and Calvinism versus Traditionalism. There has been, however, a
battle raging that started prior to the first meeting of the Southern Baptists in
Augusta, Georgia in 1845. This struggle is one that centers on the autonomy of
the church and the centralization of denominational control. It is the movement
known as Old Landmarkism.
Today, this
battle over Old Landmarkism still trudges on with its defenders and detractors
waging a war of words, pamphlets, and repetitious articles. The Landmarkists
write on subjects from close communion to pulpit affiliation and fire most of
the salvos. The rallying point, however, is the subject of alien immersion. For
this, cry the Landmarkists, is the line of demarcation between Baptist and “the
rest.”
In the history of
the people called Baptists, there has always been a separation from the
main-line protestant denominations. Baptists have kept a separate existence
from the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant churches, and at various times,
this has caused persecution for Baptists. This said, Baptist have attempted to
live peaceably with their fellow Christians. While doctrinal differences were
most certainly a factor, most Baptists recognized the Reformed Churches as just
that—churches.
However, in the middle
nineteenth century, a movement known as Old Landmarkism began[1].
This movement had its beginning at Cotton Groves, Tennessee on June 24, 1851. In the
Cotton Groves Resolutions, the Landmarkists wrote out five statements defining
their beliefs. These resolutions were actually questions; nevertheless, they
were decisive about the Old Landmark movement’s values[2]. The
answers set the basis for Landmarkist doctrine, namely that Baptist ought not
to share their pulpits with Pedobaptists, ought not to except into membership
those individuals immersed by Pedobaptists, and should practice close
communion.
The movement has had
an astounding effect on the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention,
especially those in the southwestern portion of the then young nation. The
doctrinal distinctives of Old Landmarkism has had an impact for the good of the
convention, as well as for the detriment. It served as a rallying point against
the major gains of the Campbellites. Even today, Old Landmarkism has it
greatest prominence in the geographic region of the country where the Church of
Christ is also strongest. This push of Old Landmarkism for doctrinal integrity
helped to steady a denomination racked by Alexander Campbell’s intentional
assault on Baptist membership[3].
To be certain, this
caused denominational infighting, underhanded scheming, and, perhaps worst of
all, a sense of radical localism. Do to this radical localism, the Landmarkists
denied the right of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint missionaries;
they viewed any agency beyond the local church as unbiblical[4].
Because of this stance, many Southern Baptist churches refused to support the
fledgling work of the new agencies. Most of these churches were from the old
southwest, particularly in the Mississippi Valley, Missouri ‘boot heel” and the
western parts of Tennessee and Kentucky. In fact, Ammerman suggested that, a
century after the Cotton Groves Resolutions, half of the Southern Baptist
churches in Tennessee and Arkansas still gave no financial support to
denominational missions.[5]
The effect,
certain and far reaching, was primarily the work of three men, all of great
reputation and skill. James R. Graves, James M. Pendleton, and Amos C. Dayton
formed the movement. The three, known as the “Great Triumvirate,”[6] based
their new movement on the scriptural text of Proverbs 22:28. The text speaks of
not removing the ancient landmarks which were set by the fathers of the faith. Pendleton
coined the termed “Old Landmarkism” in an article written in the Tennessee Baptist in 1854. Graves would
later publish this article as book titled An
Old Landmark Reset[7]. The
ancient landmarks being interpreted as the fact that Baptist churches were the
only true Christian churches, and the Baptist tradition alone had succession
from the Apostolic church[8].
In Pendleton’s article,
he set forth the premise that Pedobaptist ministers were not true ministers of
the gospel, because Pedobaptist churches were not true churches. Therefore,
there could be no pulpit affiliation, or sharing of pulpits with non-Baptist
preachers. Secondly, that Pedobaptist baptism in any form, infant sprinkling, affusion
of adults, or even immersion of professing believers was invalid, or as
Pendleton put it, “alien.” The only true baptism was by immersion, post
salvific, and at the hands of a properly baptized minister, i.e. a Baptist
minister. Obviously, in the minds of Graves, Dayton, and Pendleton, because
Pedobaptists were not ministers, they could not perform baptisms. Lastly, Pendleton
put forth that there could be no open table of communion.[9] Most
Baptists of the day would only open the Lord’s Table to fellow Baptists. Graves
and Pendleton disagreed on this point. Graves saw the Communion as a closed
fellowship for the local membership only, while Pendleton believed it
acceptable for Baptists to take communion at a church outside of their
membership. Pendleton’s only prerequisite, however, was that the individual must
be invited to the table, and could not demand inclusion[10].
The
original 1854 essay that Pendleton wrote, dealt with the idea of pulpit
affiliation. The original title, Ought Baptists to Invite Pedobaptists to
Preach in Their Pulpits?, gives some indication of the feelings of the day.
It had been common practice to share pulpits with other denominations. The
appendix to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, advocates the
acceptance of other ministers, calling them “our brethren who are Pedobaptists”
and that they were “called to the ministry of the word.”[11]
The Landmarkists though denied the existence of any church outside of the
Baptist Church. In contradiction to the Philadelphia confessions, Pendleton
explained:
The doctrine of landmarkism is that
baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they
precede communion at the Lord's table. The argument is that Scriptural
authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as "a
visible church is a congregation of baptized believers," etc., it follows
that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the
term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from
such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who
are not interfered with, but simply let alone.[12]
Therefore, Graves and Pendleton refused to
call other denominations churches at all. They preferred to call them “religious
societies.” So a Methodist minister was not a minister of a local Methodist church,
but a rabbi of the local Methodist society. They argued that if indeed they
were not ministers, they could not share the pulpit. To a more practical
degree, Pendleton contended
that to give recognition to them in the pulpit disavowed any claim that their
baptism was invalid. In rebuttal to this thought, A.H. Strong contended
that baptism was an act of obedience for the believer, not an act of
administration for a minister.[13]
Nevertheless, most of the Landmark ideas on
this came from their belief of apostolic succession. This is certainly nothing
new among Baptist, and the logic seems simple enough. God did not bestow
authority on individuals to baptize, but upon the church. If Baptists alone
posses the only apostolic church, they alone have the authority to baptize[14].
In addition, Graves used his powerful position as the
editor of the Tennessee Baptist to put forth these ideas. However, while
radical to most Southern Baptists ministers, the majority of Baptist
membership, lacking proper theological training, received the new ideology well.
Graves was a dynamic speaker, and perhaps his strongest characteristic was his
ability to connect with the masses. He painted Old Landmarkism as a battle of
autonomy verses denominational hierarchy. In 1859, the issue came full-bore on
the Convention floor. A motion, backed by Graves, to move the mission’s
representation from denominational control to local church control failed
ratification.[15]
Graves, for his part, considered
the centralization of the denomination as a way for eastern elitists to wrest
control away from the local church. This idea found fresh soil in the
Jacksonian Southwest. The “can do attitude” of the Southwesterners helped along
the notion of an autonomous local congregation, separated from the control of
the bureaucratic aristocrats.[16]
Meanwhile, the Easterners resented the lack of cooperation from the independent
minded Southwest. This tension led to a near schism in the convention, and more
than one church to divide. The classic church split scenario came in Grave’s
own home church, First Baptist Church of Nashville, Tennessee. Graves and
R.B.C. Howell, the pastor of First, Nashville, began what seemed a friendly and
mutual advantageous relationship. Soon after arriving at First Baptist, Graves
took over the editing duties of Howell’s paper, The Baptist. Quickly though,
animosity overtook amicability. In an apparent attempt to save his
pastorate, Howell brought a vote to the congregation, effectively
excommunicating Graves from membership. Graves would start his own church in
Nashville, and attempt his own coup at the Concord Baptist Association.[17]
In
a move that infuriate Howell, Graves set up a meeting through the Concord
Association to discuss the Southern Baptist Sunday School Convention. Graves
attempted to take over the organization, and Howell accused Graves of an
attempt to gain control for personal financial gain[18].
Obviously, the bitter feelings intensified.
In a letter to John A. Broadus, Howell asked
that Broadus would, “critically and thoroughly examine ‘The Old Landmark Reset,’
and write me the results.”[19]
In a second letter, Howell again asked a reluctant Broadus to comply with his
request. Saying that Broadus was well versed in the Landmark controversy, and
that there were no “cultivated brothers” in the West that he could rely on, his
only assistance in the struggle would come from Broadus.
This does give
some validity to Grave’s claim of the layman versus the authoritarian bureaucrat.
It seemed as though Howell espoused a feeling that only a “cultivated brother”,
one of high class and education, could understand the finer nuances of doctrine
and church polity. This thought carries into the New South and the Landmark
issue to the present day.
Old Landmarkism has had an effect on
the South Baptist Convention, and it still wields a powerful sword in the Twenty-First
Century as well. The major concern of the movement has always been doctrinal
purity. Landmarkist place the focus of the movement on local church autonomy
and de-centralized control of the church. However, in the New South a strange
turn of events has taken place. The Old Landmark movement has become its own
worst enemy. Because of the aggressiveness of it adherents to keep Landmark
churches Landmarkist, they have started exercising ecclesiastical control.
Baptist associations in the old west, filled with Landmarkist pastors, drew and
re-drew the boundaries for inclusion.
An example is seen in the Green
River Associations Articles of Faith, circa 1800. An emphasis is placed upon
the two ordinances of the Lord—baptism by dipping and the Lord’s Table for
regularly baptized believers only.[20]
In the twenty-first century, the Graves County Baptist Association has placed
emphasis on only the baptism, stating emphatically the Old Landmarkist belief
that the only true baptism is one preformed, “at the hands of a Baptist
Minister.”[21] While
the Graves County Association makes much ado about the proper mode of baptism,
it says nothing of the practices of pulpit affiliation or open communion, which
many of her churches practice. Furthermore, the constitution takes great pain
to enforce the prohibition of alien immersion, even to the point of exclusion
of churches that except alien immersion. Yet at the same time, it states that
the association lacks the ecclesiastical control to enforce upon member
churches any rules, as said churches are completely autonomous. This illustration shows that Old Landmark
churches in the New South in truth only practice a watered-down version of
Grave and Pendleton’s original landmarks. In some cases, Landmarkist pastors recognize
this as the only normal mode of Baptist life.[22]
To answer the questions of
Cotton Grove and Landmarkism, history is the best guide. Have Baptists always
been Landmarkers? Graves suggested as much, citing William Kiffin as a
“consistent Landmarker.”[23]
However, Kiffin was an original signer of the first London Confession of
Faith in 1644, which states in article forty-one that a proper
administrator of baptism be, “no where tied to a particular Church.”[24]
The Philadelphia Baptist
Association, the oldest Baptist Association in America, took up the alien
immersion question in the eighteenth century. A question, sent to this “mother”
of all associations, asked if it were proper to receive into communion an
individual immersed by a minister of the Church of England. The reply was
positive.[25]
As to succession of the
Baptist church, history shows that the great “Prince of Preachers,” Charles
Haddon Spurgeon, to be against Landmark inclinations. In his Sword and
Trowel magazine, Spurgeon assailed the notion of a historical Baptist
succession. Spurgeon, commenting on Thomas Armatige’s History of Baptists
stated:
“No claim is set up for a continuous church
of Baptists after the manner of Roman and Anglican communities; yet it is shown
that the true and only baptism in water has always had someone to practice it.”[26]
In summary, while Old Landmarkism has had a proper place in defining
Southern Baptists, it is an ecclesiological fallacy to take a literal,
historical position of succession and church authority as belonging to Baptists
only. Contrary to the claims of leading Landmarkers, this ecclesiology has not
always been a Baptist tradition. Great men of the faith, such as William Kiffin
and C. H. Spurgeon have, through their writings and actions shown a great
respect for ministers of other practices. With this in mind, it is best to keep
with the Baptist ideal of autonomy and democracy. With such rancor, churches
should decide for themselves what is right for their congregation.
[1]
Ashcraft, Robert. Landmarkism Revisited,
(Mabelvale: Ashcraft Publications, 2003), 105.
[2]
Spencer, J.H. Old Landmarkism, A History of Kentucky Baptist, Complied 1886,
available at http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/landmarkism.spencer.html,
(accessed November 17, 2013).
[3]
Bell, Marty G. James Robinson Graves and
the Rhetoric of Demagogy: Primitivism and Democracy in Old Landmarkism Th.D.
Diss. (Vanderbilt University School of Divinity, 1997), 23, 173.
[4] Ammerman. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Conflict
Resolution in the Southern Baptist Convention, 2nd ed. (New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1995), 34.
[5] Ammerman. Baptist
Battles, 36.
[6] Bell, Marty G. James
Robinson Graves and the Rhetoric of Demagogy, 17.
[7] Ibid. 25
[8]
Pendleton, J. M. An Old Landmark Reset.
2nd ed, (Fulton: National Baptist
Publishing House, 1899), available at http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/1.google.books.links.html
(accessed November 17, 2013) 23.
[9] Pendleton, J. M. An
Old Landmark Reset. 16.
[10] Wamble, Hugh. “Landmarkism: Doctrinaire Ecclesiology Among Baptists,” Church History 33 (1964): 429.
[11] Ross, Bob L. Old
Landmarkism and the Baptists, (West Monroe: Pilgrim Publishing, 1979), 119.
[12] Pendleton, J. M. “Old-Landmarkism,” The Baptist Encyclopedia (online), http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/landmarkism.bapt.encyclo.html.
[13] Ross, Bob L.
Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, 77.
[14]
Ray, David B. Ray’s Baptist Succession Of
1912. 27th ed. (Parsons: Foley Railway Printing, 1912. Reprint,
St. John: Harrison, 2001), 64-65.
[15]
Torbet, Robert G. A History of the
Baptists. 3rd ed. (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1973), 281-282.
[16] Bell, Marty G. James
Robinson Graves and the Rhetoric of Demagogy: Primitivism and Democracy in Old
Landmarkism, 67-68.
[17] Bell, Marty G. James
Robinson Graves and the Rhetoric of Demagogy: Primitivism and Democracy in Old
Landmarkism, 194.
[18] Bell, Marty G. James
Robinson Graves and the Rhetoric of Demagogy. 194-196.
[19]
Howell, R. B. C., Letter to John A.
Broadus. October 11, 1857, Special Collections, James P. Boyce Centennial
Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville.
[20] Green River Baptist Association. Articles of Faith of the Green River
Association Adopted at Her Constitution at the Sinking Creek
Meeting House, Bowling Green, KY. 1800 Available at http://www.geocities.com/green.river.assoc.1800.html
(accessed November 15, 2013)
[21]
Graves County Baptist Association. Graves
County Baptist Association Constitution, As Amended on October 24, 1998, Mayfield, KY, Graves County Baptist
Association, 2004.
[22] Clark, Jennifer. “The Nature, Origin, and Influence
of Landmarkism,” The Journal of Religious
History 27 (2003): 122.
[23]
Graves James R. Old Landmarkism: What Is
It?. Edited by John R. Gilpin. 3rd ed. (Ashland: Calvary Baptist
Church Book Shop, 1968), 176.
[24] Ross, Bob L. Old
Landmarkism and the Baptists. 112.
[25] Ross, Bob L. Old
Landmarkism and the Baptist, 120.
[26] Rice, John R. “Landmark Baptists, Hyper-Calvinists,
Misuse Spurgeon,” Murfreesboro The Sword
of the Lord, 16 March 1973, sec. A, p. 1.
