Landmarkism and Gospel Missions

In another thread brother Vaughn gave the following list of the central ideas of Landmarkism:

Gospel Missionism, on the other hand, is the belief that mission work should be done directly through the local church, as opposed to mission boards, and that mission work should be restricted exclusively to evangelism, church organization, and indoctrination, as opposed to medical work, secular education, and charitable work. In short, Gospel Missionism is the anti-thesis of Conventionism.

Whereas Gospel Missionists have been, for the most part, stalwart Landmarkers, the two movements are often seen as one and the same. In fact, they are two distinct movements. Though there have been few Gospel Missionists who were not Landmarkers, there have been vast numbers of Landmarkers who were not Gospel Missionists.

The failure to distinquish between these two movements has led to a gross underestimation of the extent to which the Southern Baptist Convention churches were attached to Landmarkism at the beginning of the 20th century. The fact is, Landmarkism - whether by that name or not - was essentially the original ecclesiology of most Baptists in this country, and remained so in the South well into the 20th century.

The reason for the rise of Landmarkism as a movement, was that many Baptists in the mid 1800s had fallen into inconsistencies between their doctrine and practice. The Landmarkers called the Baptists back to the practice of the fathers and, in the South, were quite successful in their efforts.

The Southern Baptist Convention entered the 20th century as a predominantly Landmark group of churches. However, these churches roundly rejected Gospel Missionism and were given wholly over to Conventionism, with all it's attendant evils. Through the Convention system the leaven of liberalism was spread and by the latter part of the century had pushed Landmarkism into minority status in the Convention.

Here is a link to a good article explainly how Convnentionism has historically worked to suppress the truth and exalt heresy. CORRUPTIVE FEEDBACK

Mark Osgatharp

 

I do not think it a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Southern Baptists were, at the end of the 19th century, an essentially Landmark Baptist group of churches. That does not mean:

a. That all Southern Baptists were Landmarkers.

b. That the Landmarkers themselves were identical in all points.

c. That there was not a deeply entrenched and influential non-Landmark element in the Convention that eventually prevailed, especially within the educational system.

What I do maintain is that the core philosophy of Landmarkism, which is that Baptist churches represent the authentic form of Christianity and that they have had a continued existence from the days of Christ until now, was standard Southern Baptist belief and was the faith of the rank and file Southern Baptists well into the 20th century.

For that matter, there are still a sizable minority of Southern Baptists today who, in spite of the fact that they have an aversion to the term "Landmarkism" - because they associate Landmarkism with anti-Conventionism - still hold to this core priniciple of Landmarkism in their eccesiology.

I was raised among the churches of the American Baptist Association and, from the preaching I heard, was left with the distinct impression that all Southern Baptists were non-Landmark in their view. One Sunday night, shortly after I commenced my ministry, I had the occasion to visist a Southern Baptist baptismal service and the pastor preached on baptism and preached the exact same doctrine that the Landmarkers preach, including the point that Scriptural baptism must be administered by church authority. And while I know such may be a dying breed, there are still not a few of them around; being a Southern Baptist I'm sure you are well aware of this fact.

You said,

Of course the Campbell movement had a great effect on the Baptists, including the Landmarkers, of this country (though Landmark doctrine did not originate in reaction to it, as is commonly asserted and as I recently refuted with incontrovertable historical evidence in this forum). But I did not set out to make a post here discussing that matter.

I simply made a post pointing out the often overlooked - and yet monumental - fact that Landmarkism and Gospel Missionism are two distinct movement that have often been confounded, both in the present and in the the past, and that this confusion has led to a monumental underestimation of the powerful influence of Landmark eccesliology on the Southern Baptist churches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I do not intend to discuss these, nor any other spiritual matters, dispassionately nor with hidden feelings. If you interpret this as hatred for conventionism, then you are absolutely right. If you interpret this as hatred for men, the you are absolutely wrong.

Let me say with all the Christian love I can muster that I despise conventionism - Southern, Northern or otherwise - with all it's attendant evils as surely as I hate the Devil himself, who I consider the father of it. And it is love for Christ, love for His churches, and love for mankind generally which inspires this hatred. As it is written in the 97th Psalm,

"Ye that love the Lord, hate evil."

I have seen, both in life and the annals of our history, the spiritual devestation conventionism has wrought on the Baptist churches of this land. The most bitter struggles of my ministry have been in trying to purge it's leaven out of the churches I have pastored and in opposing it's influence in the associations with which I affiliate (which, for the record, are not Southern Baptist, though many among us aspire to be Landmark clones of the Southern Baptists).

In spite of all that, I have no animosity whatsoever toward Southern Baptist people or toward Southern Baptist churches per se. I doubt not that Christ owns many of the Southern Baptist churches (though I am equally sure that there are many of them which He disowns) and I have long prayed that God would break the yoke of conventionism - whether Southern, Northern, or otherwise - off the back His churches that they might once again enjoy the freedom wherewith Christ has set us free.

I challenge you to read, with an open mind and a willing heart, this article on CORRUPTIVE FEEDBACK and see if brother Willard Ramsey didn't hit the nail right square on it's proverbial head.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Brother Vaughn,

I think the theory certainly has validity. I would add that in addition to your charitable and well meaning observation that the Landmakers went underground "in the spirit of cooperation and healing the woundf", I quite suspect that many went underground, just as they are beginning to do within the American Baptist Association, to avoid the unmitigated persecution a Landmarkers suffers most every time he opens his Landmark mouth.

My hope would be that the real Baptists left within the Convention would do more than "resurface." My prayer is that they would exit altogether. That they would heed admonition of the Lord to,

"Come out from among them and be ye separate."

Actually, my ideal dream would be that real Baptists everywhere would come together in true unity and peace around the word of God and leave all their extra-Biblical, unbiblical, strife engendering inventions of men behind. I don't know if that will ever happen - in fact I quite doubt it - but it can't hurt to dream.....and pray.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Yes; and, in light of the New Testament, I am incapable of comprehending how a man who believes in even the bare minimum of historically "Baptist" doctrine could think otherwise.

Mark Osgatharp

 

This morning I studied on my bed and read the book of Zechariah in preparation for my message Sunday, which I intend to be, "Who Has Despised The Day Of Small Things?" from Zechariah chapter 4.

This evening, I was back on my bed and (instigated by your post) did some reading in Tull's critique of Landmarkism, which I aquired a few months ago but have never finished reading (and though it contains some interesting information, I find it to be most thoroughly biased, flawed in it's contentions, and, most annoying of all, assinine in it's glowing praise of all things liberal).

Last week I read the life of T.P. Crawford (again laying on my bed - that is where I do most of my studying) and was made to reflect on the utter wickedness of conventionism and the utter beauty of simple church centered New Testament Christianity. You said,

I'm not sure what you mean by "the only contexts and definitions for who we are as Baptists". If you mean Baptist successionism, I most certainly do not think it is the only defininition of who I am as a Baptist.

What makes me a Baptist is my belief that the Bible is the word of God, the inerrant and all sufficient rule of faith and practice. What makes me a Baptist is my conviction that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is my Salvation and that He commands me to be baptized and to baptize and to be part of one of His churches and to love all of His churches.

My belief in church succession flows from these beliefs, for I cannot believe that Christ planted His gospel and His churches in this world only for them to die out but later be restored purely by accident. Rather, I must believe that when He gave the commission for His saints to go forth evangelizing and baptizing and indoctrinating and promised to be with them "even to the end of the world" that He actually meant it.

My point to you was that if you hold to the first part of what I just said - which I believe you probably do - I cannot conceive how you could possibly look disfavorably on idea that these blessed truths have been preached and practiced by the Lord's churches in every generation since He walked on earth.

Mark Osgatharp