Landmark ecclesiology "inconsistency"

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.

 

Let me add this. I failed to make this point explicitly in the first post. When I discuss this as an inconsistency, I have in mind not an internal inconistency within the ecclesiological system itself, but an inconsistency between the doctrine/belief and actual practice.

Stephen, I agree that each church is free to choose with whom it will associate and "can draw those boundaries as narrow or as wide as it wishes", though I would argue that this drawing of boundaries is sometimes without any scriptural reason -- therefore the church is free in the sense that no other church/body can tell her what to do, but wrong in the sense she must answer to her head, Jesus Christ.

But let me go a little further, using a real life illustration, with the names changed to "protect the innocent". This question may be too far removed from the situations of some of you have experienced.

XX Baptist Church in Anytown, USA affiliates with the American Baptist Association. She believes the fundamentals of the faith -- creation, inspiration, Trinity, salvation by grace, etc. -- and holds Landmark ecclesiology. She rejects alien baptism and pulpit affiliation, while holding church perpetuity and closed communion. She sends her mission funds directly to the missionary on the field. YY Baptist Church, only twenty miles down the road, does not affiliate with any association. She believes the fundamentals of the faith -- creation, inspiration, Trinity, salvation by grace, etc. -- and holds Landmark ecclesiology. She rejects alien baptism and pulpit affiliation, while holding church perpetuity and closed communion. She sends her mission funds directly to the missionary on the field. XX Baptist Church will not fellowship with YY Baptist Church BECAUSE YY Baptist Church is not affiliated with the American Baptist Association (not because of anything she believes or doesn't believe). She will not allow YY's preachers into her pulpit, will not sit on presbytery's with YY, and she will not visit her meetings or engage in any kind of correspondence. Since XX Baptist Church doesn't believe one must be a member of the American Baptist Association to be a scriptural church, she will accept YY's baptisms, but any other contact is taboo. What is there in Landmark ecclesiology, or common sense for that matter, that would cause XX BC to disfellowship YY BC? Nothing. Yes XX BC is free to not have anything to do with YY, but why should she choose such a course? I can see no reason, and this is what I think is inconsistent with Landmark ecclesiology. If each church is independent and autonomous, why not judge YY Baptist Church on her own merits as an independent and autonomous church instead of judging her on the association of which she is or is not a member?

 

Bro. Osgatharp, thanks for the link. I have found "Petitioning - the next level - Biblically" and think that may be one of the ones to which you refer. I can't figure out how to get around too well there, though. Is there a simple to navigate to the original post? Thanks.

 

I don't think any two Baptists will ever agree exactly where to draw the line of fellowship. But what I see as inconsistent is when we draw the line at not being a member of OUR association, everything else being equal. I really don't even have a problem with being suspicious, as Mark mentions in his post above. If they're not part of our group, do they really believe like we do? That's a legitimate question, I think. But once we've investigated the suspicions, seen that they are unfounded and the church clearly believes like we do, and still won't fellowship with the church, we have elevated association membership above local church autonomy and independence.

I'm not even considering anything as broad as deciding on Evangelical Free Church, the Church of the Brethren, or something like that. And I'm not even talking about the differences as much as between ABA & SBC. The particular real life situation I have seen a number of times is of two Direct Mission Landmark Missionary Baptist, etc., etc., just about down to the dotting of i's and crossing of t's, EXCEPT for one being in an association and the other not.

While I think it is admirable of any church to try to remain "pure", I think there is also the other side of trying not to "despise the church of God" that God has not despised.

[ January 16, 2006, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]