Relationship with Gospel Missions
The "Gospel Missions" movement of the later nineteenth century and the establishment of Associational Baptists into separate associations in the early 1900s "were logical developments of the [Landmark] views [which] Graves sought to implement . . . in 1859."(1) As J. N. Hall claimed, Graves' views on the proper means of conducting mission work were very similar to the gospel missions method.(2) At the 1859 session of the Southern Baptist Convention, Richmond, Virginia, Graves spoke on the subject for several hours. Indeed,"the boards would have . . . [become] useless and the Convention would have had but little to do had he won, but he lost."(3) For more than a year "there was widespread fear that . . . [Graves] would split the Convention and establish a Landmark convention for his followers."(4) The crisis passed, however, probably because of widespread reluctance to experience another division as had transpired in the first half of the century, resulting from controversies involving Alexander Campbell and antimissionary "Hardshell" Baptists.(5) The Civil War and Reconstruction periods, moreover, evidently had much to do with the dissipation of the threat.
Southern Baptist missionary Tarleton Perry Crawford became chief leader of a resurgence of gospel missionism in the latter part of the century. Rallied by this experienced foreign missionary, Landmarkers who were consistent in their presuppositions joined in the struggle to bring changes in the missions system. "From 1885 to 1893 [Homer L. Grice has explained], gospel missionism plagued the [foreign mission] board."(6) In 1892 Crawford was dismissed by the board and several other missionaries resigned soon afterwards; "thereafter, gospel missionism ceased to be an issue [i.e., a major issue] in the Convention."(7) The issue did not die among many Landmark Baptists, however, and the Associational Baptist movement was born.
The present chapter will relate briefly the controversies culminating in and the immediate facts surrounding the beginning of various state and national associations which were established as the logical outcome of Landmarkism. The study will be structured according to state and national associations. State organizations will be considered first because the largest ones were established before the national associations.(8)
State Associations
The two largest and oldest statewide organizations in the Associational Baptist movement were established in Texas and Arkansas. Most of the present attention focuses primarily on these two. In addition, brief historical surveys of state associations in Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, and Oklahoma follow. Associational Baptists have had churches in other states, but the work there has been smaller and more limited. In some of the states local, district Landmark associations were organized apparently before the state associations, but this study is limited to state associations which have had a direct linking with present day Associational Baptists.
Baptist Missionary Association
of Texas
On July 6, 1900, thirty East Texas Baptist churches sent messengers to Troup, Texas, for the purpose of organizing a new Baptist convention, the "East Texas Baptist Convention."(9) The name "Baptist Missionary Association of Texas" was assumed at a subsequent meeting, December 6-8, at Lindale, Texas. The name was changed because other churches throughout the state desired membership in the body. Several years of bitter controversy among the constituency of the Baptist General Convention of Texas had culminated in this new organization.(10) Landmark issues appear to have been the basis of the controversy, although Landmarkers were on both sides of the question.(11)
In 1894 Samuel August Hayden, owner and editor of the Texas Baptist Herald, essentially began the controversy when he proposed certain missions reforms to the Baptist General Convention.(12) These reforms met with divided reaction. This varied reaction produced many accusations and much criticism between Hayden and James Britton Cranfill, owner and editor of the Texas Baptist Standard.(13) Agitated by newspaper competition and personal jealousy, the feud ultimately reached the state courts.(14) As a result of the struggle, Hayden was denied a seat in the 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900 annual meetings of the Baptist General Convention.(15) Consequently, "the issue of church sovereignty was brought into the limelight of the controversy."(16) The question of "sovereignty" was not a new issue, however,
for there had always been mooted problems concerning the make-up and jurisdiction of Convention powers. How to cooperate in missionary and educational endeavor without surrendering any fundamental and educational rights of the Baptist churches had engaged the attention and vigilance of the Baptist people.(17)
Hayden's group (often called "church party") contended that the local church is "the sovereign authority in matters pertaining to the composition of the convention . . . ."(18) They maintained, therefore, that the convention had "no right to refuse eligibility to membership [to Hayden or anyone else] without denying the church a right to send its messengers."(19) The "board party" group, led by James Britton Gambrell, executive secretary of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, took the opposing view. In short,
the issue revolved around this question: Was the convention constituted of churches represented by their messengers [i.e., Hayden's group] or of individuals from the churches without authority from the churches sending them [Gambrell's followers].(20)
According to the Baptist Progress, official paper of the Baptist Missionary Association, several factors contributed to the need for a new organization: "The General Convention had departed from Baptist moorings, had assumed Episcopal powers, had determined that said body was not composed of churches, but of individuals, and had turned itself into a high court and was disciplining members and trying to throttle free speech and free press."(21)
During the period 1897 to 1900 several informal meetings were held for the purpose of considering the possibility and feasibility of organizing a new state body. Meetings were held in San Antonio, 1897; Waco, 1898; Dallas, July and November, 1899;(22) and Appleby, March, 1900.(23) "In all of these preliminary meetings," C. E. Colton has noted, "Hayden vigorously opposed the establishing of another general body of Baptists; however, when the new body was organized, he identified himself with it."(24)
The first officers of the new convention included: George P. Birdwell, president (Herman B. Pender had served as temporary chairman); R. L. McCuistion, recording secretary; C. A. I.awler, treasurer; and J. M. Newburn, corresponding secretary.(25) The constitution committee was composed of J. M. Newburn, A. P. Schofield, W. H. Hendricks, J. H. Lewis, and J. V. Vermillion.(26) Five missionaries served the East Texas Convention during the five month interval before the December meeting in which the Baptist Missionary Association was formed.(27)
At the December meeting at Lindale, forty-five churches were represented.(28) Next year, the "First Annual Session," 244 churches were represented in August at Jack Creek near Mexia. "There were as many churches represented at this meeting of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas," R. C. Vance says, "as were present at the General Convention of Texas which met in Houston, Texas, that same year."(29) The largest number of churches ever to be represented at a Baptist Missionary Association of Texas annual meeting was 563 churches in 1904.(30)
A rather widespread desire to attempt a resolution to the difficulties and to reunite the two bodies occurred in the early 1930s.(31) A joint study committee composed of twenty-five members from each body was appointed in 1933. A. O. Hinkle was chairman of the Baptist Missionary Association representatives,(32) and Franz Marshall McConnell was head of the General Convention members. The committee "worked out a statement of principles which involved a few changes in the constitutions of both bodies."(33) The Baptist General Convention in annual session at San Antonio, 1934, "adopted unanimously the proposed changes in the constitution."(34) The Baptist Missionary Association, however, rejected the proposed merger a week later in their annual meeting in Dallas.(35) According to the association minutes,
only twenty-one voted for the report; a vast majority voted against it. That is, they voted against unification as proposed. A motion lost is not usually recorded, but the nature and importance of this seem to demand that this record be made.(36)
H. L. McKissack, a member of the unification committee, wrote the following letter to R. C. Vance in December, 1952:
"I will give you a few things that I remember about the Unification question. I hope that they will be of some help to you. The B.M.A. committee met with the Convention committee a time or two and discussed the question of unification of the B.M.A. and the Convention. A committee of brethren from both sides were chosen to see about drafting a constitution . . . . This was done but a number of the committee quit before the next meeting of the Baptist Missionary Association. I stayed with the committee unto the end . . . . . The report was brought before the B.M.A. and was voted down by an overwhelming majority, about 15 to 1 . . . The convention adopted the report without a dissenting vote . . . ." (37)
A number of preachers and churches did leave the association to join the Baptist General Convention during the next year.(38) Thereupon, the composition of the association remained virtually the same after the mid-1930s until a rupture connected with the establishment of the North American Baptist Association occurred in the late 1940s.
During the 1948 session a series of events transpired which ultimately led to a division in the association. (1) Over thirty messengers "requested that their names be recorded as being opposed to making the [presidential] election unanimous for brother Gerald D. Kellar."(39) Kellar was also president of the association-owned Jacksonville College, Jacksonville, Texas. (2) Bethel Missionary Baptist Church of Jacksonville was denied membership in the "association until differences . . . [were] settled in the Cherokee Association" where also it had been refused membership.(40) (3) J. A. Branaman of O'Donnell presented an amendment to the constitution which would require messengers to hold membership in the churches they were representing and would permit the association to deny seats to the messengers of any church which was "antagonistic toward the established policies and the cooperative work of all the churches."(41) This amendment failed to receive the "two-thirds majority" required for constitutional amendments.(42) (4) A resolution calling for an apology from Jacksonville College officials relative to the dismissal of two teachers was defeated.(43) Several messengers apologized for statements they had made during the meeting, however.(44) (5) Subsequently, a resolution calling upon the signers of this former resolution "to publicly apologize for their conduct" was adopted.(45)
At the 1949 session the association divided. The following events transpired. (1) A motion by J. W. Harper "to rescind action of the Association . . . [in 1948] and receive the Bethel [Baptist] Church [of Jacksonville] into the Association was lost."(46) (2) J. W. Harper's motion to rescind the 1948 resolution calling for apologies from the messengers who had made accusations(47) against the leadership of Jacksonville College was defeated by "a motion . . . to table."(48) (3) Amendments to the constitution were passed, changing article three, section six, and adding section seven.(49) The pertinent sections were changed to read:
Section 6. Each Church shall be the sole judge of the qualifications of her Messengers. By "her messengers," this body understands that the proper election and authorization of messengers who are members of the church they represent [italics mine].
Section 7. Each new church coming into this Association shall come by petitionary letter stating that they have approved the Constitution of the Baptist Missionary Association in regular conference and when approved by two-thirds majority of the messengers, shall be received.(50)
(4) A resolution read by Harley L. Groom and signed by forty-five other messengers was adopted. "The resolution carried by a vote of 166 to 84. A group walked out of the meeting at this point."(51) The resolution had stated:
BE IT RESOLVED that we . . . reaffirm our desire to work and have fellowship with any regular Missionary Baptist Church believing in the principles and policies of the Baptist Missionary Association on a basis of church, pastor and preacher equality, recognizing our solemn responsibility to our Lord Jesus Christ, and accepting our moral obligations toward each other.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, this Association declare non-fellowship with any church and pastor that shall continue to attack, falsely accuse, and intimidate our churches, pastors, and leaders and that churches and pastor be indefinitely suspended from this Association, or until they prove themselves peacemakers and willing to co-operate with the majority of this Association.(52)
(5) Consequently, a "motion prevailed 'That if the names of any who went out from us appear on the Board of Missions their names be eliminated and that if any are on either Board of Trustees of either of our institutions, their names be removed and the vacancy be filled by the Mission Boad [sic] at the next meeting.'"(53)
Apparently most of the controversies described here were directly related to differences of opinion within the membership of the national association and pertained to the troubles in the 1949 and 1950 sessions of the American Baptist Association.(54) At the 1950 session of the Texas association, a resolution was adopted officially endorsing the North American Baptist Association which had been established the previous May.(55)
Associational Baptists in Arkansas
On April 10-11, 1902, representatives from twenty churches met at the invitation of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of establishing a new state body of Baptists. At this meeting ten articles of agreement were adopted and the "General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches" was formed. This was the second state association which the Landmark Baptists organized.(56)
Benjamin Marcus Bogard (1868-1951) "played a significant role in the division of the Arkansas Baptist Convention and the starting of the Arkansas Baptist Association."(57) As a young minister in Kentucky, Bogard had been converted to Landmark and gospel missions views. In both Missouri and Arkansas, "he continued his efforts to get Southern Baptists to return to what he called scriptural grounds . . . ."(58) For several years he wrote articles advocating his gospel missions views.(59) Bogard took direct steps toward this goal of reformation by offering several
resolutions to abolish the office of State Corresponding Secretary. In 1900 he offered the resolution at the Carolina [sic; i.e., Caroline] Association at the Argenta (North Little Rock) meeting. He attended the Hope session of the Arkansas Baptist Convention and offered the same resolution; however, it failed to carry. The following year, 1901, he attended and participated in the convention at Paragould.(60)
At one of the sessions at Paragould, Bogard spoke nearly two hours against the office of corresponding secretary. His resolution to that effect was again defeated. J. S. Rogers said that "the Paragould fight was really on the whole Convention setup."(61)
The Landmarkers, therefore, decided to form a new state organization. A preliminary meeting was held in April, 1902, at the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. Representing the church at Searcy where he was pastor, Bogard "moved that a committee be appointed to draft a statement of principles by which the organization proposed to be governed."(62) Upon adoption of the motion, Bogard, J. G. Doyle, and L. Quinn were appointed to this committee. When Bogard read the finished report, it was approved unanimously. Thereupon, W. H. Passley and J. A. Smith were elected as moderator and recording secretary, respectively.(63) Leaders of the new organization invited interested churches to join. They also, however, "invited the brethren of the Arkansas State Convention to adjust matters of mission work so all Baptists could work together." (64) W. A. Clark, long-time editor of the Arkansas Baptist, offered this resolution to the State Convention. Clark had also been "a member of the State Mission Board of the Convention as late as October, 1901."(65)
"The first official [i.e., 'Annual Session'] meeting of the new association met October 31-November 3" that year in Searcy where Bogard was pastor.(66) According to Bogard, over 400 messengers and visitors attended the meeting.(67) David 0 [sic] Moore stated that 153 churches were represented at this session.(68) A "peace committee" appointed at this session "met January 2, 1903, . . . [and] drew up the points of contention that were presented to a [similar] committee from the State Convention."(69) According to John E. Steely, "The separation was not yet final, and it was not considered final by those who took this drastic step, for they reappeared in the meetings of the convention and in the associations which had gone on record in opposition to their proposals."(70) Both
committees held separate meetings and corresponded at length [in 1903] but never met jointly. An attitude of suspicion was evident in all their correspondence, and it is not surprising that their work came to nothing.(71)
The General Association committee set forth their "peace terms" in the form of six propositions:
1.The scriptural right of individual churches to commission and send forth missionaries must be recognized.
2. . . . The reports of missionaries shall include only the work actually performed by the missionaries and paid for by missionary contributors. [Ellipsis appears in Steely.]
3. The recognition of each church as a unit and entitled to equal representation with any other church in Association or Convention.
4. The absolute abolition of the office and expense of the corresponding secretary under whatever title.
5. The right of the churches to instruct their messengers on any subject to be recognized.
6. The abolition of the present plan of co-operation with the Home and Foreign Mission Boards of the Southern Baptist Convention.(72)
The Convention committee reluctantly agreed to the demands and brought to the convention that year a report recommending their adoption. One member, however, "brought a minority report at the convention . . . , urging its rejection of the peace terms."(73) The minority report was adopted, marking the final break between the two bodies.(74)
Moore has observed that, although disagreement about a corresponding secretary was the primary "immediate" factor in the establishment of the General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches, the background issues were in reality the same as in the Texas schism: "These were the immediate factors, but the background of dissent in J. R, Graves, whose doctrines these brethren accepted, was the fundamental reason for the split."(75) In corroboration of this assertion, Moore concluded:
First, the date of the Landmark beginnings in Arkansas as a formal body is October 31 to November 3, 1902. Second, the immediate cause of the division at that time was the disagreement over corresponding secretaries and the "direct Gospel Mission" idea. Third, the only real principle that drew these brethren of Landmarkism together was that they opposed the Convention methods. Finally, the leaders in the new organization were men who had for years worked in the Convention and had found no fault with the tried and proved methods which they used.(76)
Throughout its history, this association has held several official names. Originally known in 1902 as "General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches," by 1907 the name had been changed to "State Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches."(77) At the 1922 session, the name was changed again to "State Association of Missionary Baptist Churches of Arkansas."(78) This was the name of the association when Associational Baptists divided in 1950.
Churches in sympathy with the new North American Baptist Association met on November 14-15, 1950, at Temple Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of organizing a new state association.(79) At this meeting messengers from 142 churches voted to establish the "Arkansas Missionary Baptist Association." Sixteen other churches were represented "by letter."(80) William Jennings Burgess was elected "temporary moderator" and J. G. Murry, "temporary clerk." After the "Statement of Principles of Cooperation" had been adopted, Jesse Emaziah Cobb was elected moderator, J. G. Murry and C. C. Bishop, recording secretaries, and Abner R. Reddin, "missionary-treasurer of missions."(81)
Associational Baptists in Mississippi
One of the oldest of the state associations established by Landmark Baptists was the "Mississippi State Association of Regular Missionary Baptists." This association was established at Bay Springs on November 27-28, 1908.(82) Apparently, the original name of this association was "State Association of Baptist Churches of Mississippi."(83) The "Fourth Annual Session" was held with the "Ten Mile [Baptist] Church" of Harrison county, on November 22-23, 1911. M. Walters was elected moderator; E. B. Cox, clerk; and S. F. Thigpen, treasurer.(84) J. E. Glenn and M. Walters were recommended by the "State Missions" committee as missionaries.(85) A special joint-committee with the "Red Creek Association" reported as follows: "We your committees appointed to consider the advisability of dissolving the State Association into two general bodies for the sake of convenience, beg to advise that such a thing is unwise and would be injurious to the cause of Christ."(86) By 1923 the official name had become "Mississippi State Association of Regular Missionary Baptists."(87)
In 1950 this association voted that the phrase "'chosen from the membership' be added to the Statement of Principles number six . . . ."(88) With this amendment, the churches of the Mississippi state association voted to go with the new North American Baptist Association and leave the American Baptist Association. A resolution was also passed, declaring the state association "in harmony with the North American Baptist Association, and . . . heartily recommend[ing] . . . that [the churches] . . . support" its associated work.(89) In 1954 the official name of the association became "Mississippi Baptist Association."(90)
Associational Baptists in Missouri
Associational Baptists established a state association in Missouri in 1928.(91) The organizational meeting was held at Potosi. W. M. Hamlin and A. H. Doermann were elected respectively moderator and clerk. Ben M. Bogard preached the "introductory sermon."(92) According to the 1935 minutes, the association was named "Missouri State Association of Landmark Missionary Baptist Churches."(93) A "Table of Information" listed 47 churches in 1935.(94)
In 1950 this association voted to amend the constitution to stipulate that "each church shall be entitled to three messengers, chosen from her own membership [italics mine]" and adopted a resolution favoring the North American Baptist Association.(95) In 1961 the name of the association was changed to "Missouri Missionary Baptist Association."(96)
In 1957 controversy relative to the adoption of a doctrinal statement ("Our Declaration of Faith") by the Missouri state association caused a number of churches in the Meramec Landmark Baptist Association to sever relations with the state association. Apparently. the immediate controversy related to the adoption of statements declaring a "premillennial" eschatology(97) and the condemnation of "the reception of members from sister churches by statement, and the drawing out of members of a sister church for the purpose of organization without that church's consent."(98) W. R. Speer, seemingly, was leader of the group which ceased cooperating with the state association.(99) Since that time two de facto state associations in Missouri have been affiliated with the North American Baptist Association.(100)
The "Meramec Landmark Baptist Association" is older than the Missouri State Association of Landmark Missionary Baptist Churches. The 1914 session of the "Meramec Baptist Association" was the "Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting."(101) For a number of years the churches cooperated with the mission work of "both the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions."(102) By 1919, however, some dissatisfaction with missions support was being expressed.(103) In November, 1922, several churches left this association and formed the "Meramec Landmark Baptist Association."(104) The "Minutes" of the "First Annual Meeting" indicate that five churches were represented (by messenger) at the session convened at the Bethel Baptist Church, St. Clair, on October 23-26, 1923. Thomas A. Maxwell was elected moderator and G. B. Marsden, clerk. James R. Hamlin, the 1922 moderator, had died during the year.(105) Hamlin had also been moderator of the original Meramec Baptist Association in 1919 at the "Fiftieth Annual Meeting" and at the first session in 1870!(106) At the 1951 session the Meramec Landmark Baptist Association officially endorsed the North American Baptist Association and urged its member churches to affiliate with it.(107)
Associational Baptists in Louisiana
Associational Baptists established, in the mid-1920s, a state association in Louisiana. "The Fourteenth Annual Session" was held with the Union Baptist Church of Bogalusa on November 8-10, 1938. J. M. Stuart was elected moderator and J. W. Passman, clerk.(108) J. W. Sones [sic] preached the introductory sermon. J. A. Rester and G. H. Byrd served as state missionaries in the 1937-38 associational year.(109) Twenty-three churches were listed that year in the "Church Directory."(110) The official name was "Louisiana State Association."(111)
When the schism among Associational Baptists occurred in 1950, the majority of churches in the Louisiana State Association continued their affiliation with the American Baptist Association. A state association of churches affiliated with the North American Baptist Association was organized in 1952. This new association was named the "Baptist Missionary Association of Louisiana."(112) A "History and Directory" in the 1954 "Minutes" relates the following information:
A Committee was asked in 1952 to work out the Articles of Agreement, Statement of Principles, and Doctrinal Statements, etc., for a proposed organization of a Louisiana State Association. This committee was composed of Elders A. J. Smith, Otis Reddin, and Oral J. Owens.
The Association was organized Nov. 5, 1952, at the Banks Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, La. The first annual meeting was with Canaan Baptist Church, Franklinton, La, and the second with the First Baptist Church, Springhill, La.(113)
Otis Reddin was the association's first moderator and Zack Lee preached the first "annual sermon."(114) In the 1959 "Directory" twenty-one churches were listed.(115)
Associational Baptists in Oklahoma
The "Second Session" of the "State Association of Oklahoma Baptist Churches" met at the East Ardmore Baptist Church, Ardmore, Oklahoma, on November 26-27, 1912.(116) G. W. Crawford was elected moderator and T. L. Roberts, clerk.(117) The enrollment committee reported that thirty-four churches were represented by messenger and/or letter.(118)
The "First Annual Session" of "The Baptist General Assembly of Oklahoma" met with the Ninth Street Baptist Church, Chickasha, Oklahoma, October 26-27, 1926. The front cover of the minutes that year explained about its
Being the Unification and Consolidation of the
Baptist Missionary Association of Oklahoma
[ie., SAOBC]
Fifteenth Year--Organized 1911
The Baptist Convention of Oklahoma
Seventh Year--Organized 1919.(119)
P. A. Templeman was elected president, and R. B. Nunnery, secretary-treasurer.(120) Ninety-five churches were listed in the statistical table.(121)
The 1936 minutes state that a "Baptist General Association (of Landmark Baptist Churches) of Indian and Oklahoma Territories" was organized at the "Tulsa Baptist Church, Tulsa, Indian Territory, November 27-28, 1903."(122) A. Carlin was moderator and R. H. Thompson was clerk of the 1903 meeting.(123)
In 1951 the majority of the churches in the Baptist General Assembly of Oklahoma decided to remain affiliated with the American Baptist Association. Messengers from twenty-nine churches, therefore, met at Central Avenue Baptist Church, Oklahoma City, December 10-11, 1951, to make plans for a new association.(124) On July 14-15, 1952, messengers from the churches met again "for the purpose of permanent organization of the Missionary Baptist Association of Oklahoma."(125) Elzie Periman was elected president and L. H. Patterson, recording clerk and corresponding secretary-treasurer.(126) Twenty-three churches were listed in the 1952 "Church Registry."(127)
National Associations
General Association
Ben M. Bogard, as he had in Arkansas, played an important role in the movement which established a national association of Landmark Baptists. On January 29, 1905, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, where Bogard was a member, adopted a letter calling upon "the Landmark Baptist Churches of the United States" to have a special meeting. The letter stated:
To the Landmark Baptist Churches of the United States,
Greeting:
We, the Bethlehem Baptist Church, of Little Rock, Ark., believing that the time has come when there should be organized a General Association of Landmark Baptists for the United States, call for a preliminary meeting for consultation, and if thought best, for organization, in Texarkana, March 22, 1905.
Our reasons for so doing are:
First. We believe in Scriptural church co-operation, and there is no general organization in America composed of churches which has for its object church co-operation in foreign mission work.
Second. We believe that a church of God, however small, is the equal in everything essential to any other church of God, however large or rich; and for that reason we want a General Association for the United States composed of churches, with equal representation by messengers, and we object to either the financial or the numerical basis of representation. We want churches to be represented as such, and we suggest that only one messenger be sent from a church.
Third. We suggest Texarkana as the place because it is near the center of the territory most interested. We suggest as a basis of operation the Constitution of the B.M.A. of Texas, and the Statement of Principles of the Arkansas and Territorial General Associations. The details to be adjusted by the messengers of the churches ln session.
We invite all Baptist churches which are in harmony with the General Associations of Texas, Arkansas, and the Territories, no matter in what State or Territory they may be located to elect one messenger to meet with the other messengers of the churches in Texarkana March 22, 1905, for consultation and possibly organization. May God direct.
Adopted in church conference, January 29, 1905.(128)
At the March meeting approximately 150 messengers and visitors from approximately fifty churches met in the courthouse at Texarkana. J. N. Hall reported that "organization was effected by the election of Elder J. K. P. Williams of Sherman, Tex., as moderator, and Ben M. Bogard of Little Rock, Ark., as secretary . . . ."(129) Bogard (Arkansas), W. H. Kuykendall (Texas), and B. L. Pettit (Kentucky) were named as a committee on "Statement of Principles and Methods." The committee's report was subsequently adopted after much discussion and change.(130) This "Statement of Principles and Methods of Work" specified that the new association would bear the name "General Association of Baptists of the United States of America."(131)
The messengers were divided as to whether or not the new organization should be considered permanent.
On motion [Hall explained] it was finally decided by a practically unanimous vote to defer permanent organization until November 22, 1905, asking them to make certain changes in their present policy of work, with the understanding that if no attention was paid to the requests, the organization would then be made permanent. A committee was appointed to attend the next meeting of the convention bearing this memorial.(132)
This committee was composed of W. L. Lackey and J. K. P. Williams, Texas; Bogard and J. H. Robins, Arkansas; and J. T. Tucker, (133) Terms of the "memorial" were rejected subsequently at the session of the Southern Baptist Convention convened at Kansas City, Missouri, May 12-15, 1905. Bogard apparently had expected such action.(134) Two foreign missionaries had even been elected at the March meeting.(135)
As a result of the action at Kansas City, the Landmark messengers met again at Texarkana on November 24-26, 1905, for the purpose of forming a permanent organization. Messengers represented 107 churches from 12 states and territories. Twenty states and territories sent financial contributions to the work. The moderator and clerk were re-elected.(136) Since the document drawn up in March had not proved satisfactory, the "Statement of Principles" was re-written and the official name was changed to the "Baptist General Association."(137) The committee which drew up the new "Statement of Principles" included J. N. Hall, chairman; C. R. Powell, secretary; E. A. Puthuff; C. A. Gilbert; G. W. Capps; J. A. Scarboro; W. A. Ridge; A. Carlin; W. M. Barker; and G. H. Stigler. After eighteen hours of deliberation by the committee, this constitution was read and adopted unanimously without any amendments.(138)
By the 1907 "Third Annual Session" the name of the association had been changed to "General Association of Baptist Churches."(139) By 1915, however, the name had been changed back to "Baptist General Association."(140) In 1920 the name became "Missionary Baptist General Association."(141) This is the name the association held when it adjourned "Sine Die," December 11, 1924, at Texarkana, where it had begun in 1905.(142) With all of the name changes, one is not surprised that this association usually has been referred to as the "General Association."
American Baptist Association
The "Sine Die" adjournment of the "Missionary Baptist General Association" and the formation of the "American Baptist Association" on December 10-11, 1924, was the culmination of several years movement toward a "unification" of the various Landmark Baptists. At the 1922 session of the General Association, J. W. Brewer, C. C. Winters, and J. W. Franklin submitted a resolution calling for a committee to work with various state committees toward "a General Unification of the Baptist Churches, on mission work . . . ."(143) C. C. Winters (McNeil, Arkansas, chairman), D. N. Jackson (Texarkana, secretary), C. A. Smith (Rocky, Oklahoma), Uriah Farthing (Sallisaw, Oklahoma), and W. H. Hodges (Texarkana) were named to this committee.(144) At the 1923 session at Louin, Mississippi, December 4-6, the "unification committee" reported favorable responses from Oklahoma and Texas. The following committee recommendations were approved:
Recommendations
In keeping with the agreement of the joint committee of your body and that of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, and the recommendation of the Texas Association, we recommend--
1. That this body call the proposed mass meeting of one messenger from each church who favors a church equality cooperative body, to meet in Texarkana on Tuesday evening at 7 o'clock, following the first Sunday, in March, 1924, to perfect such unification.
2. That this body appoint a committee on unification to confer, and to take steps as they see proper, to unite our Sunday School Literature and that owned by the Baptist Worker Publishing Company and published under the auspices of the Baptist Convention of Oklahoma, and to further the cause of unification in all other ways endorsed by this body according to the directions of Christ, our King.
C. C. WINTERS, Chairman,
C. A. SMITH
URIAH FARTHING
W. H. HODGES, Clerk Protem.
Note. D. N. Jackson was not present.
We concur in the foregoing report.D. C. Dave [sic; i.e., Dove]
Chairman, Texas Unification Committee,
H. B. PENDER,
J. M. NEWBURN.(145)
The committee membership was retained, with the addition of H. B. Pender (Greenville, Texas), J. M. Newburn (Jacksonville, Texas), C. A. Gilbert (Texarkana), and Ben J. Smith (Texarkana).(146)
Two hundred sixty-seven churches were represented by messenger and five by letter at the "Unification Conference," Texarkana, March 4, 1924. J. V. Vermillion read the report from the "Committee on Articles of Agreement":
In our endeavor to set forth these Articles of Agreement, we have kept in mind and fully appreciate the battles that have been fought and the victories that have been won by our co-operative Baptist bodies, that have been contending for the Equality and Sovereignty of the local churches, and we look upon this work as only an enlargement and continuation of the work of the various organizations that have been working along the lines stated above.(147)
D. C. Dove then submitted the following resolutions:
l. That the results of our work here be reported to the churches composing the State and General bodies composing this conference, for their approval or disapproval during their annual meetings this fall.
2. That the temporary organization under which we have been working, be made provisionally permanent, until we meet as herein provided for.
3. That when we adjourn tonight it be to meet here in Texarkana December 10, at 7:00 p.m., to eleect [sic] officers and arrange to take up the work for which the American Baptist Missionary Association of Churches [sic] has been organized.(148)
The final session of the Missionary Baptist General Association met December 9-11, 1924, at Texarkana. On December 10, J. M. Newburn read a report from the "Committee on Resolutions and Nominations" recommending the acceptance of the actions taken by the Unification Conference on March 4.(149) The American Baptist Association was formed officially on Wednesday evening, December 10, 1924.(150) Approximately 175 churches were represented by letter or messenger.(151) At the Unification Conference the name "American Baptist Missionary Association" had been chosen, but because of criticism from "some of the brethren," M. A. Roberts submitted a resolution at the December session, changing the name to "American Baptist Association."(152)
The American Baptist Association was established because the work of the General Association did not gain the success nor the momentum that had been envisioned. In brief, this association was not successful chiefly because a great number of the churches in the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas did not participate in its cooperative work. The Texas association even had its own missions program, including foreign missionaries.(153)Bogard stated that Baptist Progress editor S. H. Slaughter and Texas Baptist Herald editor S. A. Hayden had
taught the Texas brethren that the General Association was a bad and dangerous thing. Thus a strong prejudice was created . . . . The brethren who were thus prejudiced against the General Association AGREED ALL THE TIME WITH THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION BUT THEY DID NOT KNOW IT.(154)
Hayden and Slaughter represented what Bogard called "a convention element in the B.M.A."(155) A, J. Kirkland, moreover, has made a similar assessment:
"Some eight or ten years after the B.M.A. was organized, they continued to support the program of the Southern Baptist Convention. One reason for this was that the leaders hoped to get the Southern Baptist Convention to recognize the B.M.A. as officially representing it instead of recognizing the General Baptist Convention of Texas.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I do know that the Lupers and their friends even opposed the unification of the B.M.A., until they saw it was futile and then struck out tor a new name, the name 'American Baptist Association.' This helped the opposition to save face."(156)
Bogard also explained that "misunderstanding and lack of acquaintance and perhaps some technical differences . . . hindered the unification of these orthodox Baptists."(157) One area of misunderstanding was the lack of mutual trust across state lines. Bogard attempted "to allay the fears of the Texas brethren that Arkansas had something to put over . . . and also to demonstrate to those in Arkansas who feared Texas that there . . . [was] nothing to fear from that point . . . ."(158)
The American Baptist Association, therefore, was in many respects a continuation of the earlier General Association, but it was also a new association, with a new constitution, organization, and enlarged membership. A division occurred within the ranks of Associational Baptists, however, twenty-six years later.
North American Baptist Association
On May 25-26, 1950, 882 messengers from 465 churches in 16 states assembled at Temple Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of forming a new national association. The name of the new association was "North American Baptist Association."(159) The following associational officers were elected: president, Gerald D. Kellar, Jacksonville, Texas: vice presidents, J. E. Cobb, Conway, Arkansas, and J. W. Duggar, Laurel, Mississippi; recording secretaries, E. T. Burgess, North Little Rock, Arkansas, M. B. Childers, Bay Springs, Mississippi, and Gerald Parsons, Lamesa, Texas.(160)
This new association of churches was the result of sharp controversy at the 1949 and 1950 sessions of the American Baptist Association. Events leading up to the rupture included the following. (1) On Wednesday afternoon of the 1949 session, Andrew J. Cabiness and Clyde Leslie offered a resolution to amend the "Articles of Agreement," article three, section three, to read:
Each Church shall be entitled to three Messengers whose qualifications shall be determined by the Church electing them. But no person shall represent a Church of which he is not a member.(161)
(2) At the Thursday morning session, L. D. Foreman made a motion "to table" the Cabiness-Leslie resolution.(162) The motion "to table" carried. (3) A motion passed "to refer this matter to the churches for consideration, and they be asked to inform the Association of Messengers at their 1950 meeting their desire in the matter."(163)
The 1950 session of the American Baptist Association met on April 19-20 at Lakeland, Florida, at the invitation of First Baptist Church, Auburndale, Florida. (4) At the morning session, Wednesday, April 19, J. W. Duggar "made a motion to suspend the regular order of business and call for an expression of the churches on change of Articles of Agreement, Section 3, of Article 3."(164) President Kellar subsequently ruled out of order Leo Causey's "substitute motion to continue with regular order of business, . . . the election of officers." (165) The messengers, however, upon an appeal to the body by A. J. Kirkland, voted not to "sustain the ruling of the chair"--440-536. "The ruling [therefore] was voted down by a majority of 96 votes."(166) (5) On Wednesday afternoon, "the chair [L. D. Foreman] ruled . . . out of order" a resolution offered by G. D. Kellar. When the decision was appealed to the body, "the vote . . . sustained the ruling of the chair."(167)
(6) On Wednesday evening, T. Sherron Jackson "read a resolution to change section 3 of article 3 of the Statement of Principles, moved the adoption and laid on the table till a subsequent day."(168) Thursday, 10:00 A.M., was thereupon set for the time to consider this amendment. (7) When the proposed amendment came up, A. J. Kirkland offered the following substitute motion:
Whereas, this body referred a proposed amendment to the Articles of Agreement to the churches of the American Baptist Association last year for their consideration and asked them to inform us as to their will in the matter and whereas it requires two-thirds of the churches to change the Articles of Agreement; and, whereas the required number of churches did not demand a change as required by the Articles of Agreement, therefore, be it resolved, that this body understands and declares that the proposed amendment is lost or failed to be established.(169)
Kirkland's substitute motion passed. (8) The president then "requested messengers who desired to go on record regards change in Articles of Agreement, either by personal instruction from their churches or by written statement in the form of resolutions, please file same with clerks now [i.e., on Thursday morning]."(170) During the afternoon session, not long before adjournment, the president again "requested all who brought letters or any other written message from their church who had not already turned them over to the Clerk to please bring them forward now."(171)
A meeting held "under the stars" by Lake Mirror at 11:00 P.M., Wednesday evening, April 19, became the subject of much controversy. The American association leaders claimed that "it was there that to all intents and purposes the new body (or the official personnel of it) was formed."(172) The leadership of the North American association denied the charge. D. N. Jackson stated:
NOT SO. That meeting was held purely for COUNSEL by over FIVE HUNDRED brethren and sisters whose hearts yearned because of the abuse heaped upon old time Missionary Baptist principles and practices by certain leaders of the American Baptist Association.(173)
Jackson maintained that the following resolution adopted that night corroborated his denial:
"Resolved, That in the event a satisfactory and Scriptural agreement can be reached tomorrow at the association, whereby the churches may be heard, giving equal rights to all churches, that we remain with the American Baptist Association, but unless the messengers are heard tomorrow as promised them by the messengers in their 1949 annual session in Little Rock, Ark., we recommend that a mass meeting of the churches be called as soon as possible to consider the formation of a national association that will respect the voice of the churches themselves; and that a committee be named now for the purpose of working out details of a national mass meeting, if such must be, but only on condition that the A.B.A. tomorrow (the last day, April 20) refuses to hear the voice of the churches backing it, thereby denying them their Scriptural rights.
"Be it understood in the event a general meeting is called, that it be backed by the authority of a Missionary Baptist Church or Churches."(174)
The minority group at the 1950 American Baptist Association met the following May and established the North American Baptist Association.(175)
Why Did the Association Split?
The question logically should be asked: Why did Associational Baptists, who had taken so long to unify, divide so soon in 1950? Foreman and Payne have explained:
For three or four years, possibly longer, the opponents of Bogard charged that the students in the Baptist Institute were members of Antioch Church but pastoring rural churches out over the state of Arkansas, that these churches were electing the student pastors as messengers to represent them in the sessions of the association and, thus through the students, Bogard was controlling the association. They said, "The student belongs to Antioch Church. Bogard tells him what to do. The church he preaches to elects him as messenger, thus, when they get to the messenger body meeting, the majority are under the control of Bogard.(176)
Foreman and Payne have maintained that the controversy began in 1937 when Bogard became concerned about the financial condition of the publications department of the American Baptist Association. Bogard took a strong lead in ousting Business Manager C. A. Gilbert at the 1938 session of the association. An official audit in 1937 was inconclusive, although the auditor stated: "I am of the opinion that the business has been managed honestly, and that the management has tried to keep the books in a way that would prove satisfactory to the [Sunday School] Committee and the other constituents of the Association."(177) Bogard believed that Gilbert was either dishonest or incompetent. D. N. Jackson, editor-in-chief and also Gilbert's son-in-law, became involved also. Some have charged that the 1937 audit was what "triggered the fight in the American Baptist Association that finally resulted in its split in 1950."(178) Turpin, for example, has assessed the situation as follows:
The years between 1938 and 1949 saw tensions increase and Bogard and Jackson carried on a continuous battle in their papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The fight that started in 1937 . . . finally brought a complete division in Landmark ranks [in 1950]. (179)
Turpin concluded that
during the years the charges on both sides were not substantiated by fact or evidence. A careful reading of the papers of Jackson and Bogard indicate a personality or leadership clash rather than a real difference of theology or ecclesiology. The writer of the paper believes that Bogard was as instrumental in the dividing of the American Baptist Association as he was in its founding. [Italics are mine.] Bogard and Jackson continued their fight until Bogard's death [in 1951].(180)
Assessments like the above, however, are simplistic and more apparent than real. A. J. Kirkland has stated correctly that "it was not just a preacher fight."(181) He has divided the causes into "remote" and "immediate."(182) The Jackson-Bogard conflict might indeed be categorized as both remote and immediate--remote because of its 1937 beginning, immediate because of its continuation in the papers and associational meetings until the final 1950 separation. Kirkland summarized his interpretation of the underlying causes in the split as follows:
To sum up in a brief statement, Association Baptists divided for the following reasons: Remotely, there was graft and crookedness in business that demanded exposure and correction. [Kirkland is alluding to the Bogard-Gilbert conflict.] This provoked a struggle for power and control. Directly, the immediate cause was an attempt to change the time honored principles of church independence and bring the churches under denominational direction and dictatorship.(183)
Although Kirkland's interpretation clearly is biased, what he identified as "denominational direction and dictatorship" probably lies at the heart of the matter. He based most of his argument on certain events in the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, especially the controversy surrounding "the doctrine of recommitment."(184) This "doctrine" was an attempt by the less extreme gospel missions element to explain church sovereignty in associational work in the context of a strong association and associated work.(185) Advocates of this doctrine held views similar to those of the ones whom Kirkland and Bogard had categorized earlier as a "convention element" in the Texas association.(186) Recommitment actually represented a different philosophy of missions and associated work from what Bogard and Kirkland believed. From the beginning of the national associations, Associational Baptists who formed the General Association in 1905 were not in strict agreement concerning the role of associations in missions 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."(187) Men from each "shade of conviction" believed themselves to be true to New Testament faith and practice.
A major division within the association probably would have happened eventually--even if Bogard and Jackson had not become enemies as a result of the Gilbert affair. The two factions among Associational Baptists represented two different philosophies of missions work, even as their philosophies were different from the Convention Baptist system of missions. Because of the believed biblical bases for their convictions, these differences led to severe controversies. The validity of this analysis should become clear as the remainder of the study unfolds.
The answer to the question about a separation among Associational Baptists soon after unification is, therefore, both simple and complex. It is simple because a personality clash precipitated the division. It is simple also because differing philosophies and interpretations of scripture were the major factors in the controversy. The answer is complex, however, because the manifold human elements among so many people involved over a fifty-year period served as a catalyst for the other factors.
Summary and Conclusion
The present chapter has outlined briefly the events surrounding the various state and national associations of Associational Baptists which have been formed since the turn of the century. Apparently, all of the early leaders of the movement were in agreement in their criticism of the convention type of organization and system of mission work and in their concern that the local church has scriptural authority and responsibility for mission work. It has been suggested that differing philosophies of missions and interpretations of scripture lay at the heart of the causes for a division among Associational Baptists in 1950. Analysis of official and unofficial Associational Baptist documents in succeeding chapters will illustrate this further and demonstrate that Landmark ecclesiological tenets and presuppositions have always been vitally connected to this movement. In the final chapter further attention will be given to the question of why Associational Baptists waited so long to unify into one national association and then divided so soon in 1950.
Notes
1. Grice, p. 576.
2. Above, chapter three.
3. Homer L. Grice, "Direct Missionism (Gospel Missionism)," ESB, I, 363.
4. Ibid.
5. L. E. May, Jr., pp. 333-34.
6. Grice, "Direct Missionism (Gospel Missionism)," p. 363.
7. Ibid, p. 364. See also John F. Gibson, "Gospel Missionism," ESB, I, 572; William Wright Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention: 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press,1954), pp. 113-17, 184.
8. Much of this information is contained already in other theses, dissertations, and historical studies; hence the justification of brevity.
9. C. B. Colton, "Baptist Missionary Association," ESB, I, 118. "Questions and Answers," Baptist Progress [cited hereafter as BP], June 25, 1914, p. 2, specifies July 7 to be the date and thirty-two churches represented. R. C. Vance, A History of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas from 1900-1953 (n.p., n.d.), pp. 13, 15, states that twenty-nine churches sent messengers to Troup on July 6. W. H. Parks, History of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas (Cleburne, Tex.: Review, n.d.), p. 38, says that thirty churches were present on July 6.
10. See Vance, pp. 19-15; Parks, pp. 3-35; W. Benton Tatum,"A History of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas" (unpublished M.A. thesis, Baylor University, 1936), pp. 1-42; N D. Timmerman,"The Hayden-Cranfill Controversy" (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, SWBTS, 1936), pp. 7-34; and C. Kenneth Mann, "The History of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas" (unpublished M.A. thesis, East Texas Baptist College, 1954), pp. iv-v, 1-12, for discussions of the general background and surveys of the development of various district and state-wide associations and conventions in Texas. Hereafter all footnote references to the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas will be BMAT and references to the Baptist General Convention of Texas will be BGCT. Tatum, pp. 1-18, cites "Sectional Prejudice" as a major cause of the strife. See L. R. Elliott (ed.), Centennial Story of Texas Baptists (Dallas: Executive Board of Baptist General Convention of Texas, 1936), p. 415, for a chart illustrating the rise and development of these various associations.
11. See Timmerman, p. 68, and Tatum, pp. 83-84, who call them "land-mark Baptists." Parks, p. 3, in characterizing what brought about the division, stated: "The old landmarks seemed to be receding in the distance, and evidently we were drifting from them." Later, p. 42, he quoted himself at the Lindale meeting (December, 1900) as addressing the East Texas Baptist Convention: "We [i.e., Baptists from other parts of the state, particularly 'Central North and West Texas'] come to you recognizing you as a body of true Baptists, organized on landmark Baptist principles, as petitioners, earnestly asking you if you can consistently, without sacrificing any of your principles, to so change the name of the body to admit all churches in the state holding the same doctrines."
But see R. P. 0rgan, "Slaughter is True to the B.M.A. and Knows How to Be, Is the Reason They Fight Him," BP, August 16, 1914, pp. 2-3; and O[r]gan,"In Part Why I am a Church Party Baptist," ibid., June 25, 1914, p.4, for some statements critical of "so-called Landmarkers."
12. Mann, p.13; Colton, p. 118; B. F. Riley, History of the Baptists of Texas (Dallas: Published for the Author, 1907), p. 366; Timmerman, pp. 58-83; and J. B. Cranfill, Dr. J. B. Cranfill's Chronicle (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916), p. 439, all agree that this marked the beginning of the controversy.
13. Colton, p. 118. Mann, pp. 32-45, and Timmerman, pp. 35-57, give an account of the controversy and debate between the two papers, as well as informative background material.
14. Colton, p. 118. See Timmerman, pp. 4, 236-68; Parks, pp. 4-13; Vance, pp. 7-12; Mann, pp. 46-55; and Tatum, pp. 43-87, 105, for similar opinions and/or further information about the charges, counter-charges, and litigation. ,
15. See Parks, pp. 14-35, for a detailed study giving the Hayden Party side to the question. Tatum, pp. 52-83, and Timmerman, pp. 106-35, 150-203, cover the same material, with a pro-BGCT approach. Mann, pp. 13-51, gives a detailed discussion of the events at these meetings. His work seems to be the most objective. Tatum is so biased that he does not even include Parks' history in his bibliography or footnote quotations from it (e.g., pp. 86-87).
16. Colton, p. 118.
17. Timmerman, p. 204; see also p. 205.
18. Colton, p. 118.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid. See also Vance, pp. 7-11; Parks, pp. 3-4; and Tatum, pp. 83-86. For examples of how this subject was still the subject of discussion even in the 1940s, see L. A. Stidham [?] (ed.), "Church Authority; Conferred or Transferred: A Questionnaire," BP, August 7, 1941, pp. 6-7; and Grover C. Lewis, "The Relation of Churches to Associations," ibid.; p. 8. The basic arguments used in these discussions will be analyzed in detail in chapters five, six, and seven.
21. "Questions and Answers," ibid., June 25, 1914, p. 2. See Parks, pp. 3-4, for his summary of the reasons for the division. According to Vance, p. 13, "there were three things that became the chief reason for the division of the Texas Baptists. (1) The money basis of representation which made it possible for the rich church to send more messengers to the annual meeting thereby controlling the sessions. (2) The Ninth Article to the Constitution which enabled the Convention to refuse a messenger a seat in the convention. It gave them power to refuse one messenger from a church and yet receive other messengers from the same church if the body so desired. In the opinion of the leaders of the Association this caused the Baptist General Convention to become an Episcopal body. (3) The taking of Rusk Academy away from the Cherokee Baptist Association, without the consent and over the protest and vote of the Cherokee Baptist Association. This one thing with regard to the Rusk Academy caused twenty-nine churches to send messengers to Troup, Texas, to organize the East Texas Convention in July of 1900."
For later statements giving essentially the same information and making the same claims, see C. R. Meadows, "Out of Necessity," BP, April 2, 1931, p. 4, and L. S Ballard, "Who We Are and What We Stand For," ibid., Aug. 6, 1931, pp. l-2.
22. Colton, p. 118.
23. Vance, p. 15; Parks, p. 38; and Mann, pp. 56-57.
24. Colton, p. 118; so, Vance, p. 15; Parks, pp. 46-47; und Tatum, p. 83.
25. "Questions and Answers," p. 2.
26. Vance, p. 15. A copy of this constitution is contained in ibid., pp. 16-20. According to Vance, pp. 21-22, except for a few changes, the BMAT Constitution was essentially that of the East Texas Baptist Convention.
27. "Questions and Answers," p. 2. See H. B. Pender, "Why Not Disband," BP, March 12, 1914, p. 7; Pender, "Open Letter to C. E. Clem, Dallas, Tex.," ibid., Dec. 10, 1914; and Pender, "What Does the Baptist Missionary Association Stand For?" ibid., Nov. 6, 1919, pp. 1-2, for his analyses of the differences between the BMA and BGCT. Many of these arguments will be set forth below, in chapters five and six.
28. Vance, p, 21. See Parks, pp., 41-48; Mann, pp. 57- 62; Tatum, pp. 89-94; and Timmerman, pp. 269-304, for details of the transition of the East Texas Convention to BMAT. C. R. Meadows, "Our Name," BP, September 10, 1931, p. 4, gives a defense of the name "Baptist Missionary Association."
29. Vance, p. 22. Parks, p. 49, says forty-eight more BMAT churches were represented in 1901 than at the BGCT meeting.
30. Colton, pp. 118-19. Parks, p. 57; BMAT, "Minutes," 1904, p. 18; and Mann, p. 70, say 563 were represented. Vance, p. 25, however, says 560 churches were enrolled.
For detailed, chronological analyses of the history of the BMAT, see Vance (1953), pp. 13-58; Parks (1912), pp 41-81, 93-94; and Mann (1953), pp. 63-177. Tatum (1931) takes a topical approach: i.e., missions (pp. 106-39) education (pp. 140-52), benevolence (pp. 153-56). He includes several interesting charts and tables illustrating the BMAT work up through 1931.
31. Earlier attempts at reconciliation were made in 1905, led by the BMAT president, J. C. Loggins (so Vance, p, 28), U. W. Jarrell, S. H. Slaughter, W. H. Parks, L. S. Knight, and H. B. Pender (according to Parks, pp. 59-60) and in 1916-1919 (according to Vance, pp. 34-39; and Mann, pp. 94-99, 178-91).
32. BMAT, "Minutes," 1932-1936, p. 25. Colton, p. 119, mistakenly implies that Morris A. Roberts was chairman of the BMAT committee. See Mann, pp. 132-34.
33. Colton, p. 119. See Mann, pp. 213-22, for a comparison of the original constitutions and the proposed changes.
34. Colton, p. 119. BGCT, "Minutes," 1935, pp. 86-87.
35. Colton, p. 119.
36. BMAT, "Minutes," 1932-1936, p. 25. Since minutes were not printed separately for the years 1932-35, except for "Brief Reports" printed with the 1936 minutes, the text of the committee's report is not available there. The report obtained from other sources, pamphlets, etc., as contained in Mann, pp. 213-22, is apparently accurate.
37. Vance, p. 50, quoting H. L. McKissack.
38. Mann, pp. 189-91; Tatum, p. 158; Vance, p. 50.
39. BMAT, "Minutes," 1948, p. 6.
40. Ibid., p. 10. A special committee, however, had recommended that the messengers be seated; ibid., p. 21. See also ibid., p. 13.
41. Ibid., pp. 7, 13.
42. Ibid., p. 8. The vote was 178 to 109.
43. Ibid., pp. 7, 9, 13-14.
44. Ibid., p. 9.
45. Ibid., pp. 11, 24.
46. Ibid., 1949, p. 6.
47. Ibid., pp. 7, 12. [The reference to footnote 47 in the text of the dissertation is missing; clearly, this is not the correct spot, p.b.]
48. Ibid., p. 7.
49. Ibid., pp. 8-9, 12.
50. Ibid., p. 2.
51. Ibid., p. 8.
52. Ibid., p. 11.
53. Ibid., p. 13.
54. See A. J. Kirkland, Why Association Baptists Divided and Other Vital Issues [cited hereafter as Why Divided] (Henderson, Texas: Texas Baptist Institute & Seminary, 1961) pp. 5-34; and A. J. Kirkland and Albert Garner, Report of Missionary Council, Held with the Missionary Baptist Church, Corsicana, Texas, December 15-16, 1949 (n.p., n.d.), for further information from the standpoint of the minority group. A new association, "Missionary Baptist Association of Texas," was organized, December 14-15, 1950, at Longview, Texas; Missionary Baptist Association of Texas, "Minutes," 1950, pp. 1-7.
55. BMAT, "Minutes," 1950, p. 16.
56. J. S. Rogers, History of Arkansas Baptists (Little Rock, Ark.: The Executive Board of Arkansas Baptist State Convention, 1948), p. 602; D. Moore, pp. 179-81.
57. Turpin, p. 118.
58. Ibid.
59. See ABF during the years Hall was advocating gospel missions.
60. Turpin, p. 119. See also Foreman and Payne, II, 313-17.
61. Rogers, p. 597.
62. Turpin, p. 120.
63. Ibid.; Rogers, p. 602.
64. Turpin, p. 120.
65. D. Moore, p. 57.
66. Turpin, pp. 120-21.
67. Foreman and Payne, II, 319.
68. D. Moore, p. 59.
69. Ibid.
70. Steely, p. 140.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.; quoting Arkansas Baptist State Convention, "Minutes," 1903, p. 16. See also Rogers, p. 598.
73. Tull, pp. 622-23.
74. Ibid., p. 623. See Arkansas Baptist State Convention, "Minutes, 1903, pp. 15-27, for the full report from the committee and an account of the action taken by the convention.
75. D. Moore, p. 64.
76. Ibid., pp. 64-65. Moore's final conclusion is very debatable, however.
77. Ibid., p. 179; quoting the "Statement of Principles" of the General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches (article one); State Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches, "Minutes," 1907, p. 30 (article one of "Declaration of Principles").
78. State Association of Missionary Baptist Churches of Arkansas [cited hereafter as SAMBCA], "Minutes," 1922-23, pp. [3] (article one) and 42. Associational names which appear on the covers and title pages of state and national minutes do not always agree with the official names set forth in the constitutions and articles of agreement of these associations. The practice followed in this study is to accept as official the names specified in the constitutions.
79. The North American Baptist Association had been organized at the same church, May 25-26, 1950. See below, p. 159.
80. Arkansas Missionary Baptist Association [cited hereafter as AMBA], "Minutes," 1950, pp. 3-18, 32-41.
81. Ibid., pp. 13, 14-15, 20-21, 28. See A[bner] R[euben] Reddin,"A History of Arkansas Missionary Baptist Association From 1950-1960" (unpublished M.S.Ed. thesis, The Arkansas State Teachers College [Conway, Arkansas], 1962), for analysis of the formation and growth of this association.
82. J. A. Scarboro,"Editorial Page," The Baptist Flag, XXXIV (October 29, 1908), 12; C. A. Gilbert,"Field Notes," ibid., XXXV (January 28, 1909), 4.
83. State Association of Baptist Churches of Mississippi, "Minutes," 1911, p. 19 (article one of "Statement of principles"). On page 21, however, article one of "Rules of Decorum" states that "the Association shall consist of delegates [sic] [this was amended during the course of the association to "messengers"] chosen by the Churehcs [sic] to which they belong and shall be styled the General Association of Baptist Churches of Mississippi [italics mine]."
84. Ibid., p. 1.
85. Ibid., p. 10.
86. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
87. Mississippi State Association of Regular Missionary Baptists [cited hereafter as MSARMB], "Minutes," 1923, p. [14] (article one).
88. Ibid., 1950, pp. 6-7. See above, n. 83, where the association had a similar provision in 1911.
89. Ibid., p. 8.
90. Mississippi Baptist Association [cited hereafter as MBA], "Minutes," 1954, pp. 6 (article one) and 13.
91. Landmark Baptists in Missouri had a state association prior to 1928, for L. H. Piper,"The Landmark Baptist Association of Missouri," The Baptist Flag, XXXVII (Nov. 30, 1911), 11, made an announcement about the meeting which was to be held at Marston, Missouri, December 19, 1911. No other information about this association is available.
92. Missouri State Association of Landmark Missionary Baptist Churches [cited hereafter as MSALMBC], "Minutes," 1935, p. [13] ("Historical Table"). Doermann's and Hamlin's names, however, subsequently were listed as "A. H. Dorman" and "M. M. Hamlin," ibid., 1942, p. 2.
93. Ibid., 1935, p. [14] (section of "Statement of Principles or Articles of Agreement").
94. Ibid., pp. [8-9].
95. Ibid., 1950, p. 2 (section three) and pp. 10-11. See below, chapter five, p. 199, for further information here.
96. Missouri Missionary Baptist Association [cited hereafter as MMBA], "Minutes,' 1961, p. 10.
97. MSALMBC, "Minutes," 1957, p. 5 (articles 24-29).
98. Ibid. (Article five.)
99. See ibid., p. 8, where Speer resigned his places of responsibility after the "Articles of Faith" were approved; and NABA, "Minutes," 1960, pp. 15-16, 94, where controversy raged over the admission of several new Missouri churches to the association.
100. Comparison of the churches represented at both Meramec and Missouri State associations in 1957 and 1959 is indicative of the rupture; MSALMBC, "Minutes," 1957, pp. 12-13; ibid., 1959, pp. 12-13; Meramec Landmark Baptist Association [cited hereafter as MLBA], "Minutes," 1957, p. [14]; and ibid., 1959, p. [18]. The absence of most Meramec churches in 1959 is obvious, as well as the addition of new churches to the Meramec association.
101. Meramec Baptist Association [cited hereafter as MeBA], "Minutes," 1914, p. [1].
102. Ibid., p. 14.
103. Ibid., 1919, p. 7.
104. MLBA, "Minutes," 1923, p. 11.
105. Ibid., pp. [1], 2, 6,
106. MeBA, "Minutes," 1919, pp. [1-2], 3; and R. S Douglass, History of Missouri Baptists (Kansas City, Mo.: Western Baptist Publishing Company, 1934), p. 263. Fourteen churches were represented by messenger and letter at the MeBA in 1919; MeBA, "Minutes," 1919, p. [l7].
107. MLBA, "Minutes," 1951, pp. 7-8. See below, p. 197, for the text of this resolution.
108. Louisiana State Association [cited hereafter as LSA], "Minutes," 1938, front cover.
109. Ibid., pp. [1], 11-14.
110. Ibid., p. 18.
111. Ibid., p. 16 (article one).
112. Baptist Missionary Association of Louisiana [cited hereafter as BMAL], "Minutes," 1954, p. [1] (article one).
113. Ibid., inside front cover.
114. Ibid., p. 1961, p. 1.
115. Ibid., 1954, p. [23].
116. State Association of Oklahoma Baptist Churches [cited hereafter as SAOBC], "Minutes," 1912, front cover, p. 12 (article one).
117. Ibid., p. 3.
118. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
119. Baptist General Assembly of Oklahoma [cited hereafter as BGAO], "Minutes," 1926, front cover, p. 7 (article one). See background and other pertinent material about this merger in Roger D. Hebard, "The A. Nunnery Movement in Oklahoma" (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, SWBTS, Fort Worth, 1944).
120. BGAO, "Minutes," 1926, front cover.
121. Ibid., p. [21].
122. Ibid., 1936, p. 1.
123. Ibid.
124. Missionary Baptist Association of Oklahoma [cited hereafter as MBAO], "Minutes," 1952, pp. 2-4.
125. Ibid., p. 4.
126. Ibid., pp. 1, 5-7.
127. Ibid., p. 9.
128. Ben M. Bogard, "A Call for Organization of a General Association of Landmark Baptist Churches of the United States," ABF, XXXI (February 23, 1905), 1. Turpin, p. 121, following Foreman and Payne, II, 321, mistakenly says that the year of the Bethlehem Church's call was 1904.
129. Hall, "The Texarkana Meeting," ABF, XXXI (March 30, 1905), 8.
130. Ibid.
131. See "Statement of Principles and Methods of Work," [cited hereafter as "Principles and Methods"], ABF, XXXI (April 6, 1905), 12 (article one); and D. Moore, pp. 182-87 ("Appendix IV"), for a copy of this constitution. D. Moore, p. 66, apparently using D. B. Ray, The New Revolutionary Landmark Baptist Faction (Oklahoma City: D. B. Ray, n.d.), pp. 6-7, says that "they called themselves the 'United States National General Association of Landmark Baptists,'" although the constitution Moore includes as "Appendix IV" says otherwise! [Hereafter this association will be cited as GABUSA.)
132. Hall, "The Texarkana Meeting," p. 8.
133. "Principles and Methods," p. 12. D. Moore, p. 66, erroneously substitutes for "Lackey" "W. L. Lackery." Foreman and Payne, II, 320, show "A. J. [sic] Robins," include also J. Y. Freeman, and J. P. Seelman (Texas), and omit J. T. Tucker.
134. Ben M. Bogard "Observations at the Southern Baptist Convention," ABF, XXXI, (May 25, 1905), 13. See also D. Moore, p. 66, and Tull, pp. 623-24. Turpin, p. 122, following a typographical error in Foreman and Payne, II, 320, erroneously states that the convention met "March [sic] 12-15." He also cites in his documentation, p. 122, n. 35, the dates March 12-15. Foreman and Payne have "March 12-17." Turpin, consequently, p. 123, interprets the March 22 meeting at Texarkana as a direct result of the rejection of the "memorial" by the SBC! D. Moore, p. 66, and Tull, p. 623, mistakenly read "May 12-17." Southern Baptist Convention, "Annual," 1905, [p. i.] shows "May 12-15."
135. Hall, "The Texarkana Meeting," pp. 8-9.
136. D. Moore, p. 67; J. K. P. Williams, "The Texarkana Meeting," ABF, XXXI (December 14, 1905), 4.
137. D. Moore, p. 68. This constitution appears in Barker and Hall, pp. 345-49; "Statement of Principles adopted by Baptist General Association at Texarkana," ABF, XXXI, (December 14, 1905), 2; and D. Moore, pp. 188-93 ("Appendix V").
D. Moore, p. 188, obviously has an error in article one: "This Association may be known as the Baptist Association" The other two sources read "the Baptist General Association."
138. D. Moore, p. 68; J. K. P. Williams, p. 4.
139. General Association of Baptist Churches [cited hereafter as GABC], "Minutes," 1907, p. 17 (article one). This change apparently was voted at the 1906 session at Memphis, Tennessee [see J. K. P. Williams, p. 4, where he announced the plans for the 1906 meeting]; the 1907 "Committee on Amendments" recommended no changes (GABC, "Minutes," 1907, p. 4).
140. Baptist General Association [cited hereafter as BGA], "Minutes," 1915, p. 26 (article one).
141. Missionary Baptist General Association [cited hereafter as MBGA], "Minutes," 1920, pp. 5, 38 (article one).
142. Ibid., 1924, p. 26.
143. Ibid., 1922, p. 10.
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid., 1923, p. 41.
146. Ibid., pp. 41-42.
147. ABA, "Minutes," 1924, p. 18.
148. Ibid., p. 19.
149. MBGA, "Minutes," 1924, pp. 4-5. See also ibid., pp. 15-16, for a missionary committee report giving a brief history of the "unification movement."
150. ABA, "Minutes," 1924, pp. 7-9. The General Association completed its work on Wednesday afternoon but officially adjourned "Sine Die" on Thursday afternoon, December ll; MBGA,"Minutes," 1924, p. 26; ABA,"Minutes," 1924, p. 15.
151. ABA, "Minutes," 1924, pp. 8, 20-23.
152. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
153. Foreman and Payne, II, 326, 338.
154. Ibid., p. 367. See also ibid., pp. 332-33.
155. Ibid., p. 336.
156. Ibid., pp. 337, 339, quoting A. J. Kirkland.
157. Ibid., p. 370.
158. Ibid., pp. 372-73.
159. NABA, "Minutes," 1950, pp. 1, 13, 20-48.
160. Ibid., p. [iii].
161. ABA, "Minutes," 1949, p. 13.
162. Ibid., p. 16.
163. Ibid., p. 17.
164. Ibid., 1950, p. 11.
165. Ibid.
166. Ibid.
167. Ibid., p. 13.
168. Ibid.
169. Ibid., p. 15.
170. Ibid.
171. Ibid., pp. 16-17.
172. Kirkland, p. 30.
173. D. N. Jackson, "No Association Organized At the Lakeshore," The Lakeland Review: A True Account of What Happened at Lakeland, Fla., April 19, 20, 1950, and the Underlying Causes of the Separation among Association (Missionary) Baptists [cited hereafter as Lakeland Review] (Second Edition; November 15, 1950), p. 3. See W. J. Burgess, "Why the N.A.B.A.?" Lakeland Review, pp. 27-30; and Walter Griffin, "N.A.B.A. Literature Growing Fast," American Baptist; 76 (Feb. 1, 1951), 1, 6, for other references to the 1950 associational meeting and arguments favoring the new association.
174. Jackson, "Lakeshore," pp. 3-4. For arguments from the other side, see Kirkland, pp. 26-34; and C N. Glover, What Happened at Lakeland? April 19-20, 1950 (n.p., n.d.).
175. For historical surveys of the mission work of the North American Baptist Association, see James A. Henry, "A History of the Foreign Mission Program of the North American Baptist Association from 1950 to 1963" (unpublished M.A.R. thesis, Ouachita Baptist University [Arkadelphia, Arkansas] 1964), and Harold M. McNeill, Jr., "A Historical Survey of the North American Baptist Association Mission Work 1950-1964" (unpublished M.R.E. thesis, North American Theological Seminary [Jacksonville, Texas], 1964).
176. Foreman and Payne, II, 386. See also Kirkland, pp. 17-18.
177. ABA, "Minutes," 1938, [p. 12]. See also ibid., [pp. 11-17] and ibid., 1937, p. 19.
178. Foreman and Payne, II, 285. For detailed discussion of Bogard's role in this controversy, see ibid., II, 277-93, and Turpin, pp. 126-28.
179. Turpin, pp. 129, 130.
180. Ibid., pp. 131-32. See D. N. Jackson, "7 Reasons for the Separation," American Baptist, 75 (May 15, 1950), 3; as well as all of the Lakeland Review, for reasons for the split given by Jackson and others in the NABA leadership.
181. Kirkland, p. 6.
182. Ibid.
183. Ibid., p. 34.
184. Ibid., pp. 10-12.
185. See various issues of the BP in the mid-1940s for much discussion on "recommitment."
186. Foreman and Payne, II, 336-39.
187. Barker and Hall, p. 342.
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 V: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Official Associational Baptist Documents."
Go to Chapter VI: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Non-Official Associational Baptist Documents."