Summary
Preceding analyses have ascertained that the Landmark movement which arose within the Baptist denomination in mid-nineteenth century focused on various aspects of ecclesiology. Study of early Landmarkism in chapter two determined that the Landmark ecclesiologies of J. R. Graves, J. M. Pendleton, and A. C. Dayton developed historically within the framework of five major tenets: "I. Ministry and 'Non-Pulpit Affiliation,'" "II. Baptism and 'Anti-Alien Immersion,'" "III. Church and Government," "IV. Succession," and "V. Non-Intercommunion." These particular tenets did not originate with the Landmarkers, but they first were crystallized into a tight logical system within Landmark ecclesiology. Although early Landmark theologians differed from one another on the finer points of interpretation of these tenets, enough mutual agreement and understanding were present to characterize all of the "Great Triumvirate" as Landmarkers. Indeed, no two of these three men agreed on all of the tenets.
In chapter three analysis of two Baptist writers of the later portion of the nineteenth century discovered that proponents of later Landmarkism were in essential agreement with the ecclesiology of early Landmarkism. S. H. Ford denied that he was a Landmarker, but his beliefs logically necessitate such a classification of him. While Ford might be classified as a "moderate" Landmarker, J. N. Hall was a "full-fledged" Landmarker of the J. R. Graves type. Even he, however, did not agree in all points with Graves, particularly in the areas of church-kingdom relationships and baptism-church/or-kingdom relationships. Hall emphasized what was ascertained to be another Landmark tenet, "VI. Gospel Missions." Hall's influential articles on this tenet in the American Baptist Flag made him in many respects a pivotal figure historically in the rise of the Associational Baptist movement. He served as a bridge between later Landmarkism and early Associational Baptists. Hall was indeed an early Associational Baptist himself, although he died less than one month after the Baptist General Association was organized in November, 1905.
In chapter four the rise of the Associational Baptist movement into various state and national associations was described. Beginning with the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas in 1900 and the General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches in 1902, the summary included also state associations in Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, as well as the national associations: Baptist General Association (1905), American Baptist Association (1924), and North American Baptist Association (1950). Analysis again ascertained that Landmark ecclesiology was the basis of the controversies leading to the establishment of these associations, although tenet number "VI" was the primary doctrine involved. This tenet is logically dependent upon the other tenets in the belief that to the church (local only) alone has been given the authority and responsibility for the "Great Commission," i.e., all aspects of mission work. A tentative hypothesis, moreover, was given to explain the twenty-four year period between the establishment of the first state association and the unification of Landmark Baptists into a national association and also the schism which developed among Associational Baptists twenty-six years later (1950). Further conclusions are made in this area in the next section of this chapter.
Official Associational Baptist documents, including doctrinal statements, articles of agreement, and resolutions, were analyzed in chapter five. Structured according to the associations described historically in chapter four and according to the six Landmark ecclesiological tenets set forth earlier, this analysis showed that Associational Baptists have expressed themselves officially to believe the six Landmark tenets. Some of the statements about these tenets were discovered to be ambiguous, but not any more ambiguous than many of the statements made by the proponents of both early and later Landmarkism (i.e., in chapters two and three). These associations have been structured organizationally in line with Landmark tenets also.
Detailed analysis of other Associational Baptist literature in chapter six showed also that unofficially Associational Baptists have shown themselves to hold Landmark tenets and to have produced quite a body of literature on the subject of ecclesiology. Patterns and variations of thought as well as ambiguities, discovered in earlier analyses in chapters two, three, and five, appear here also.
Conclusion
Proposed Solution to the Problem
Some suggested answers to the questions asked in chapter one, "Questions in Need of an Answer," constitute the conclusion of the present study, i.e., the "Proposed Solution to the Problem."(1) The questions and answers follow.
(1) Did Landmark scriptural interpretation during the "post-Graves" era (1875-1900) move away from the ecclesiological positions set forth by the early Landmarkers (i.e., Graves, Pendleton, and Dayton)? The answer to this question is negative. The tenet on missions was added, but Hall claimed with some justification that Graves had believed it also. Indeed, probably the Civil War kept this from being a very controversial issue during Graves' active ministry.
(2) To what degree do Associational Baptists agree and/or disagree with the respective ecclesiological tenets of Graves, Dayton, and Pendleton; and (3) How does Associational Baptist ecclesiology compare with that of later Landmarkism? Relative to these questions, preceding discussion in this chapter has explained that Associational Baptists have agreed essentially with biblical interpretations of both early and later Landmarkism, although basically the same variations in thought and interpretation appear among all these groups.
(4) Was Landmark ecclesiology indeed the major factor in the rise of the Associational Baptist movement? The answer is affirmative. This is true even though many Landmarkers did not identify with the Associational Baptists; they were even major opponents in the missions controversies.(2) Associational Baptists, however, apparently were more consistent in their Landmarkism, especially in the belief in tenet number "VI." The clash of personalities was probably heightened in intensity because of these differences in opinion in ecclesiology.
(5) Was the 1950 split among Associational Baptists the result of a Landmarker versus non-Landmarker conflict or was it primarily the result of a clash of personalities? (6) What role did ecclesiological differences in interpretation play in the delay of Associational Baptists until 1924 in affecting apparent union among the various Landmark associations and churches? (7) How did ecclesiological presuppositions and differences enter into the 1950 formation of the North American Baptist Association? The answers to these questions are closely related. The schism in 1950 has been described in chapter four as basically a difference in philosophy and interpretation of scripture, as well as a clash of personalities. Instead of a Landmarker versus non-Landmarker conflict, the conflict was among variations within the framework of Landmarkism itself. As to the role ecclesiological differences had in the delay until 1924 of a union of Associational Baptists in a national association, the answer is again related primarily to a difference in missions philosophy. The same is true relative to the seventh question. Ecclesiological presuppositions and differences indeed were the real force leading to the 1950 formation of the North American Baptist Association.
Observations by Herman B. Pender and W. M. Barker and Mrs. J. N. Hall provide a good background for explaining the answer to these three questions. Pender stated that both "so-called 'Gospel Mission' churches at one extreme and the Super-Conventionists at the other . . . meet and constructively deny that the Kingdom of our Lord is composed of church units."(3) Pender's classification was clearly determined by his beliefs on the relationship of church and kingdom. Following Pender's analysis for convenience, one might classify Missionary Baptists(4) graphically from left to right, with Convention Baptists on the extreme left, and independent gospel missions Baptists on the extreme right, and Associational Baptists in the center.(5) Associational Baptists would be placed in the center in this approach because, in Associational Baptist thought,
individual Christian cooperation is a church duty, but collective Christian or church cooperation is a kingdom obligation. The individual is a unit of the church. The church is the unit of the Kingdom.(6)
Associational Baptists, therefore, could not logically fit into either of the extremes in the graph. Barker and Hall emphasized, however, that the Associational Baptists who formed the General Association in 1905 were not in strict agreement concerning the role of associations in mission work. The General Association itself was a compromise between "every shade of conviction from the anti-organization man to the zealous convention man . . . , between the extreme board and the extreme gospel mission ideas."(7)
The use of "extreme" may be hyperbolical, but the statement illustrates that from the very beginning of a national organization, two elements among Associational Baptists were in tension, with one group pulling toward the left and the other toward the right. This suggests strongly that the 1950 split would have happened eventually--even if Bogard and Jackson had not become embroiled in controversy as a result of the C. A. Gilbert affair.
That this hypothesis is correct is corroborated by several other facts. First, the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas had been reluctant to join the General Association and did so only when the latter was reorganized into the American Baptist Association. The Texas association had what Kirkland and Bogard called a "Convention element," i.e., a group with a philosophy of missions different from theirs. Secondly, some of the underlying philosophies of the American Baptist Association and the North American Baptist Association are markedly different. Since the split, the North American Baptist Association has moved toward a stronger association-oriented position and the American Baptist Association more toward gospel missionism. The North American association and state affiliates own and operate institutions (such as colleges and a seminary), whereas in the American Baptist Association, schools are owned directly by local churches.(8) The North American Baptist Association elects missionaries; the American Baptist Association recommends them to the churches. The North American Association has almost ceased to promote "direct missions," relying primarily upon local, state, and national association-elected missionaries. The American Baptist Association leans toward the other direction. Thirdly, even Ben M. Bogard's views were fluid. He began as an advocate of the convention system.(9) By 1894 he was advocating both gospel missions and convention methods.(10) Although he did not become a full-fledged gospel missioner,(11) he described the work of the American Baptist Association as "Gospel Missions ORGANIZED."(12) His later views on church-owned schools and institutions, as opposed to association-owned, were also a movement in direction toward the right.(13)
Therefore the 1950 schism was inevitable, resulting from an unfortunate union of opposing ecclesiological ideas, but still within the framework of Landmarkism.
(8) What assessment can one make of the validity of hermeneutical and exegetical principles used by Associational Baptists as proposed solutions to the controversial issues involving Landmarkist ecclesiology? Here, one must conclude that strong convictions that their beliefs were rooted in biblical teaching accounted for much of the severity with which Associational Baptists and Convention Baptists have fought. Evidence derived from the study in this dissertation would suggest that Associational Baptists have had no reservations about the validity of their hermeneutical and exegetical methodologies and have by and large been consistent in practical application of their interpretations.
For Further Study
The present inquiry has achieved, evidently, what it sought to achieve. Further theological study and reflection, however, need to be done in the areas of the six Landmark tenets. Detailed study of the hermeneutical and exegetical techniques of certain representative Associational Baptists--for example, D. N. Jackson and Ben M. Bogard--would be helpful. On the surface, one might be critical of the extremely rationalistic reasoning of such men, but perhaps further study might discover that in their methodologies, they were products of their age, utilizing the same techniques that non-Associational Baptist exegetes used.
Clearly, Landmarkism has influenced Baptist polity and ecclesiology. Perhaps one should study this influence from the standpoint of determining what other contributions Landmarkers and Associational Baptists have to make to the total Baptist and Christian communities.(14)
Notes
1. Above, pp. 6-8 [chapter one].
2. Tull, pp. 620, 627-28.
3. Pender, "Kingdom-Church Cooperation," p. 1. See above, p. 365 [chapter VI, n. 390.]
4. The term "Missionary Baptists" is used here in contradistinction to "General Baptists," "Freewill Baptists," "Primitive Baptists," "Seventh-Day Baptists," and "Separate Baptists." See Austin Crouch, How Southern Baptists Do Their Work (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951), p. 1, for this classification of Baptists. D. N. Jackson preferred this term. Relative to "Landmark Baptists," he wrote in Are We Missionary Baptists? p. 23, "we lay no claim to the name itself, and think it unwise for our people to use it as a 'name,' as we are Missionary Baptists."
5. The terms "extreme left," "extreme right," and "center" here are not intended to represent any value judgment but only to show comparative relationships.
6. Pender, "Kingdom-Church Cooperation," p. 1.
7. Barker and Hall, p. 342.
8. See Foreman and Payne, I, 427-511, for a full discussion of Bogard's philosophy and its development.
9. See Foreman and Payne, II, 310, where Bogard explained that he had once been "an ardent convention man." Bogard also wrote a book in which he stated that "the New Testament settles the question of Missions, Salaries, Conventions, etc." See Bogard, Christian Union; or the Problem Solved (Louisville: Baptist Book Concern, 1899). p. 63.
10. Foreman and Payne, II, 304-305.
11. Ibid., pp. 253, 310-11, 377-78.
12. Ibid., p. 311.
13. See ibid., I, 527-51, for a full discussion of Bogard's change in position.
14. The study by Lewis is a step in this direction.
Go to Abstract and Acknowledgements.
Go to Chapter I: Introduction".
Go to Chapter II: "Early Landmarkism: Graves, Pendleton, Dayton."
Go to Chapter III: "Later Landmarkism: Ford and Hall."
Go to Chapter IV: "Historical Survey of the Rise of the Associational Baptist Movement".
Go to Chapter V: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Official Associational Baptist Documents."
Go to Chapter VI: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Non-Official Associational Baptist Documents."