Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Old Landmarkism In The New South: A Historical Perspective

.


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.

9 comments:

  1. Steve,


    As a Southern Baptist pastor living in Graves County, Kentucky, I thought I would take the time to reply to some of the points in your article on Old Landmarkism in the New South. As a historian, it is always best to check the primary sources and not quote secondary sources. The primary sources will demonstrate that you have made a number of historical inaccuracies. For example:


    1. You claim that Charles Spurgeon was opposed to Baptist successionism. However referring to Baptists, Spurgeon wrote, "“We are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers . . . present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life.” Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613


    This is exactly what J.M. Carroll, John T. Christian, W.A. Jarrell, and other landmark Baptist historians believe.



    2. You claim that the Philadelphia Baptist Association accepted alien immersion. However time and time again the association declared that proper authority was necessary for baptism - http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/phila.assoc.auth.in.bptsm.html


    3. You will find that many of the leading Baptist in America rejected alien immersion before the days of J.R. Graves or Alexander Campbell. In 1811 Jesse Mercer wrote, "Our reasons, therefore for rejecting baptism by immersion when administered by Pedobaptist ministers are: 1. That they are connected with churches clearly out of the apostolic succession, and therefore clearly out of the apostolic commission"


    Many other things could be said about R.B.C. Howell, William Kiffin, John Broadus, and the Philadelphia Baptist Association.


    However let me say a word about Baptist associations and "ecclesiastical control." You will find that several Southern Baptist associations in Virginia and the Carolinas disfellowshipped churches in the 1960's-1980's for accepting sprinkling as valid baptism. However other Southern Baptist associations allowed their churches to accept these baptisms. Was this right or wrong? In the same way, some associations have disfellowshipped churches for speaking in tongues and ordaining women, while others have not. Again which is right? Is it right for associations to have doctrinal standards?


    The fact is associations are autonomous, just like churches. Associations have a right to their own doctrinal standards. The churches of Graves County Baptist Association have historically not accepted alien immersion. Therefore the association has this standard in its bylaws. Baptist churches within Graves County are free to accept alien immersion, but they cannot remain a member of the association and do so. Again it's not about control, it's about doctrinal standards.


    Lastly you claim that "many" Graves County Baptist churches practice pulpit affiliation and open communion. I'm curious how you can make this claim about west Kentucky when you pastor in South Carolina. I will just say as a Graves County pastor myself, this is also inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Ben,

    you will notice that many of my sources were primary, and where either borrowed from or read in place at the Broadus Library at STBS. I served as a pastor in GCBA for six years, from 2002-2008. While I would never accept someone who had been sprinkled into church membership, our church did elect to receive into membership those who had been immersed in Cumberland Presbyterian churches. CP notwithstanding, the churches constitution stated, baptism, post-salvific, and by immersion. I'm sure we would agree that sprinkling and/or pouring is not baptism.

    In 2004-2005 our church was targeted by a few men who decided that we could no longer fellowship with the association because of our stance on alien immersion. The DOM at the time tried to stemm the tide against our removal, but this was not to be. In part because of the hard hardheartedness of these men, in part because of my stubbornness in being dictated to. While I agree that the GRBC is autonomous and that she may fellowship with whom ever she desires, they specifically told us in a general session that we must either change our practice, or be removed from their roles. The church voted, and again affirmed her stance of accepting baptism by immersion. We were dismissed from the GRBC. My point is that if they were to not exercise ecclesiastical control, as the constitution at that time stated, we would still have been members, because we met every criteria. No where was the Landmarkist issues of pulpit affiliation , close communion, or alien immersion mentioned as requirements. I was told, but can not speak to the validity of the fact, that the constitution was changed to reflect that, and had it been there prior to our dismissal, I would not have had a beef with the verbiage of the constitution.
    At any rate, I was called a heretic by the moderator at one meeting, was told by a fellow pastor at another that Methodists and Presbyterians would go to Hell because they were not Baptists, that John the Baptiser was the first Baptist (presumably Southern Baptist because he went to the South [Judea]), and that only baptisms preformed in a SBC church were acceptable, by a third pastor. All in meetings. All in front of witnesses. All should be in the minutes, although I doubt it!

    While I will not name my fellow pastors in the GCBA that practiced pulpit affiliation and open communion, for to do so might cause some to refer to them as heretics, I was close, personal friends with no less than ten pastor's whose churches did. I will mention one name, because he was a defender of our church during that ordeal and I know he no longer serves as pastor, but Don Embry said in the meeting that while his church would not accept alien immersion, he did not see why that should be an issue of discord and non-fellowship. Even though Don and I were on separate ends of the issue, he acted as a friend and wise counselor for me during those days.

    What really drove me into research on the subject was that these same men who would not even speak to me, literally, they turned their back on me when I went to speak, in some Amishesque shunning. Yet they had no problem associating themselves with the KBC and the SBC, neither of which shunned me, called me names, or asked our church to leave their conventions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I say all of that in response to your quarry about my being in SC. God moved us to a new work, as He often does, and I can tell you that few here even know what Old Landmarkism is.

    I will dispute some of your claims that I did not properly research. as you may find much of my citations above. While Secondary sources are not the best, they are all properly notated and referenced so that the discerning reader can make up there own mind. I do not, in anyway, diminish your sources, or your right to Old Landmarkism, Baptist succession, or refusal of alien immersion, although I would take much debate with idea that non-Baptist are going to Hell, that I am a heretic because I welcome any Christ Follower to the Lord's table, or occasionally allow a non-SBC person to speak from my pulpit, (as I do at least once a year. Unless the Gideon in question is a Baptist. I never ask)

    If my statement that at least 10 out of the 44 or so churches in the GCBA is many is an overstatement, so be it. But I think that while alien immersion was a hot topic, no one seemed to care that we practiced Open Communion. In fact, the Pastor Search committee that affirmed our call to Graves County told me in the first interview that they practiced open communion.

    I hope that clarifies some of the issues for you Brother.

    Blessings

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,


    Since you are now a South Carolina pastor, I would have never guessed you had previously pastored in west Kentucky. I apologize for my false assumption. Are you originally from that area or just a transplanted Kentuckian? I pastored in Graves County in the late 1990's and have been back for the past six years. In-between that time I was pastoring in the West Kentucky Baptist Association, so I missed out on all the conflict concerning the Clarks River Baptist Church. I am sorry things worked out the way they did while you were there and people acted rudely to you. I can also assure you that I know of no churches or preachers in west Kentucky who believe that only Baptists are saved.


    Having said that I still do not believe this incident was an example of ecclesiastical control. Your church could do whatever it wanted to do. It just could not have done those things and remained a member of the association. Just change the issue from baptism to women's ordination. (As happened at another association further east in Kentucky in the 1990's.) A Baptist church can ordain a woman (that's local church autonomy), but they can not ordain a woman and remain a member of (many) Baptist associations. (that's associational autonomy)


    As far as Cumberland Presbyterian baptism, I would have told you to look at the symbolism of those immersions as well. Much of my family was Cumberland Presbyterian and in their Confession of Faith they state that baptism is a symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas Baptists believe it is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Regardless of your view of the administer of baptism, I would have advised you to reject those immersions, because the symbolism was wrong.


    As you know, Clark's River Baptist Church had rejected alien immersions for years. I do think it is wrong to go into a church and secretly seek to change their beliefs on this subject, when there are many other churches one would pastor that already accept alien immersion. One needs to be open and honest about their beliefs. whether on ecclesiology or soteriology. Now, knowing what the interim pastor before you believed, it is possible that he or the pastor before him had already lead the church to change their membership requirements.


    The views of GCBA on open communion and pulpit affiliation would depend on how you define your terms. Very few churches would be willing to swap pulpits with a Methodist pastor or invite a Pentecostal pastor to preach a revival for them. However others wouldn't have a problem with a non-Baptist Gideon speaker. The same is true with communion. Very few churches would disagree with the Baptist Faith and Message on the Lord's Supper (which supports both closed and close communion), but its not practiced consistently by the pastor or deacons.


    In regard to the historical citations, I have studied Hugh Wamble and Bob Ross , in addition to many others who wrote against Landmarkism. I have also studied the primary sources of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, and I believe these men got a lot of historical things wrong. I will be glad to share some of these things with you, if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ben,

    Thanks for the advice. I’ll be sure to heed it if I ever serve as pastor in a Landmarkist church.
    Obviously, your understanding of Clark’s River’s history is incredibly flawed. As is your view of me. I agree that it is shameful to go to a church with the idea of making radical change against the congregation’s will. Dr Hurt was a fine man and loved by the church as a whole. He was dedicated to the CBF, but otherwise we got along well. He was interim before and after me. Not sure if by former pastor you are referring to Cowboy Don or Lyman Blaylock. But let us discuss CRBC’s history, shall we. I have no qualms about saying she was historically Landmarkist, being birthed in West KY in 1865, no doubt she would have rejected the advancement of Campbellism and shunned pulpit affiliation, open communion, and alien immersion. But to present me as some sneak who met with the church in hopes of wooing her into heresy is a fallacy of the greatest order. First, as previously mentioned, the search committee that affirmed my call to CRBC told me directly in our first meeting that they practiced open communion, and wanted to insure that I did not have any intentions of making them close, let alone closed. As for pulpit affiliation, the church had been practicing that all through Blaylock’s 28 years of leadership, and I do believe that it extended beyond that time frame. Again, after I came to CRBC in September of ’02, I was told that next Spring of the practice of a community wide Sunrise service where Symsonia Methodist and CRBC swapped preachers each year. That Easter ’03 I spoke at Symsonia Methodist for the first time, and Jamie spoke in our church in’04. I brought in Symnsonia Baptist the next year (The church that came from CBRC’s split) and they were a member of the much more Landmarkist association Blood River. I know Jamie spoke at their church at least once. I intentionally asked to re-orient the schedule so Rick would preach at my church. If I was a sneak at anything it was forcing those hard-headed Symonians to reconcile with each other. Neither Rick nor I were part of the split or community, so we managed to make some headway in that area. Now if you don’t call that pulpit affiliation, then maybe they did shy away from that practice. I would not ask a Pentecostal or Presbyterian to do revival, obviously.

    As to alien immersion, the church already had the practice of accepting based on a “statement of faith” anyone seeking membership. All I did was tell the church they should define that a little more clearly. We changed the verbiage of the by-laws to reflect the practice that was well established. That one small partial sentence is what caused the whole dang hubbaloo with GCBA. I simply stated that we would accept someone who had been “scripturally baptized.” And I defined scriptural baptism as “by immersion, post-salvific.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ben,

    In which church do you serve as pastor?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,


    I am glad you that agree that "it is shameful to go to a church with the idea of making radical change against the congregation’s will." The question is at what point did Clark's River Baptist Church change their practice of rejecting alien (non-Baptist) immersions. These immersions were rejected when Gary Frizzell was the pastor in the 1970's and CRBC was the largest church in the county. Obviously at some point they changed. All I was doing is asking when. Also keep in mind just because they accepted people on "statement of faith," doesn't mean they accepted alien immersion. All that means is a church letter wasn't available.


    Did Bro. Blaylock lead the church to begin accepting alien immersion? It seems very doubtful to me, but I don't know for sure. Did interim pastor Billy Hurt lead them to do this? I don't know, although the fact that he was CBF tells us much about his theology. The question is when you went there as pastor in 2002 had the church already accepted alien immersion? Had they ever before accepted Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or Campbellite immersions? That's all I was asking.


    As to Graves County, the association has had the same bylaws since the early 1970's when the cause against alien immersion was voted in unanimously. Since then the GCBA bylaws have always stated that any church that accepts alien immersion is subject to being voted out of the association by majority vote.


    I was also curious what you thought about the symbolism of baptism. Do you really believe that even if an immersion didn't symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus it should be accepted?


    I pastor the Farmington Baptist church. If you don't mind me asking how did you end up in South Carolina? Is that your home state?


    - Ben

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess it was Leman. I don't think it was Dr Hurt, as he was iterim. It's possible Cowboy Don, but that seems unlikely because he was more conservative and was only pastor about 9 months. During my six years we never had the issue. We had one lady who joined by statement from a CP church (before my time) and this was the issue. Her husband joined while I was there by letter from a Baptist church in IL. After he joined, I found out he was baptised in a CP by affusion, unlike his wife who was immersed. I spoke with him about our doctrine and he agreed to be immersed at our church. So I really couldn't say when they changed.

    You know Leman was from TX, and they're middle of the road with the issue. So Icoyldn't say. I understand, but could be wrong to say, that Gary practiced open communion and the Easter swap I mentioned. He had a wonderful reputation with the church, but I never met him or Cowboy. I did know his brother, he was the coroner in Marshall county where we lived.

    To your point about symbolism and baptism, no I never thought about that with CP. What I know about them, I would not have thought that. I would figure that about Pentecostals. Anyway, my debate in GCBA was about being baptised into the church. In other words, baptism was about the church membership. There was debate about New Life baptising in a swimming pool, and that not being acceptable because it wasn't IN the church. And as I mentioned, talk about only accepting SBC baptism, which is radical localism in my opinion.
    My view of baptism is of it being symbolic, an outward sign of an inward reality, as best illustrated by the wedding ring illustration. Because it is symbolic and not salvific, while the mode is vital, the act itself is less important than other issues as far as membership is concerned. Again, I would not allow membership for those not scripturally baptised, as I define it above.
    I am a native of GA and served as pastor in GA, TN, KY, and SC. I am a graduate of Southern (Mdiv) and I am currently about to receive my D-Min from Luther Rice in Atlanta.

    One last thing, you asked about fellowship and homosexuality and women pastors along with alien immersion... I think you confuse sin, biblical mandates, and dictrinal distintives. In other words, homosexuality and abortion are moral reason to disfellowship, and women preachers are a violoation of a biblical reasons to disfellowship, while baptism, soteriology, and other doctrinal distinctive issue are not, in my opinion. I don't think we should split our fellowship over baptism, Traditionalism vs Calvinism, worship styles etc.
    Also, listen, I wrote this post on my phone, with out the assitance of spell check, so don't hold spelling against me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I guess it was Leman. I don't think it was Dr Hurt, as he was iterim. It's possible Cowboy Don, but that seems unlikely because he was more conservative and was only pastor about 9 months. During my six years we never had the issue. We had one lady who joined by statement from a CP church (before my time) and this was the issue. Her husband joined while I was there by letter from a Baptist church in IL. After he joined, I found out he was baptised in a CP by affusion, unlike his wife who was immersed. I spoke with him about our doctrine and he agreed to be immersed at our church. So I really couldn't say when they changed.

    You know Leman was from TX, and they're middle of the road with the issue. So Icoyldn't say. I understand, but could be wrong to say, that Gary practiced open communion and the Easter swap I mentioned. He had a wonderful reputation with the church, but I never met him or Cowboy. I did know his brother, he was the coroner in Marshall county where we lived.

    To your point about symbolism and baptism, no I never thought about that with CP. What I know about them, I would not have thought that. I would figure that about Pentecostals. Anyway, my debate in GCBA was about being baptised into the church. In other words, baptism was about the church membership. There was debate about New Life baptising in a swimming pool, and that not being acceptable because it wasn't IN the church. And as I mentioned, talk about only accepting SBC baptism, which is radical localism in my opinion.
    My view of baptism is of it being symbolic, an outward sign of an inward reality, as best illustrated by the wedding ring illustration. Because it is symbolic and not salvific, while the mode is vital, the act itself is less important than other issues as far as membership is concerned. Again, I would not allow membership for those not scripturally baptised, as I define it above.
    I am a native of GA and served as pastor in GA, TN, KY, and SC. I am a graduate of Southern (Mdiv) and I am currently about to receive my D-Min from Luther Rice in Atlanta.

    One last thing, you asked about fellowship and homosexuality and women pastors along with alien immersion... I think you confuse sin, biblical mandates, and dictrinal distintives. In other words, homosexuality and abortion are moral reason to disfellowship, and women preachers are a violoation of a biblical reasons to disfellowship, while baptism, soteriology, and other doctrinal distinctive issue are not, in my opinion. I don't think we should split our fellowship over baptism, Traditionalism vs Calvinism, worship styles etc.
    Also, listen, I wrote this post on my phone, with out the assitance of spell check, so don't hold spelling against me.

    ReplyDelete