In this thread I would like to investigate what I've long thought was an inconsistency in Landmark ecclesiology. Now you may think there is a lot of them (or maybe that there aren't any). But I'd like to stick to this point. It is partly historical and partly theological, but I think those who regularly post in this forum will have the most interest in it and possibly the most knowledge of it (and since Landmark discussions are already stirring). That's why I'm posting in the Baptist History forum. rsr, if you think it should be moved, please do so. That inconsistency is this: Landmark ecclesiology fervently promotes the independence and autonomy of the local church. Yet the common practice among Landmarkers, when a church independently and autonomously chooses to support a "different" mission program, a "different" educational program, etc., is to start separating from one another and drawing lines of fellowship. Why is this? Therefore if an independent autonomous Landmark church sends messengers to the ABA, it can't fellowship with a Landmark church in the BMAA, which can't fellowship with a Landmark church in the SBC, which can't fellowship with an independent Landmark church, and so on forever. Is this consistent with the teaching, or inconsistent with it? I first noticed this in the ABA. Back then over half of the churches in the association did not support missions through the Sec-Treasurer's office. The rest did mission work through the office. All the churches were in fine fellowship (theoretically at least) with one another. But on the other hand, many wouldn't fellowship independent churches that believed just like they did, supported missions direct just like they did, but were not members of the association. I think this has been pretty much true of us historically. Is this consistent? Does this make sense? I'm typing this hurriedly trying to finish and meet my parents for dinner (lunch to some of you). I'm check back later, and try to offer clarifications if needed. Thanks.