Landmark Baptist

I have seen different numbers bandied about regarding the number of Landmarkers/Landmark churches in the Southern Baptist Convention -- 1000, 2000, etc. I wonder if there has been any actual study of how many self-identified Landmarkers there are in the Southern Baptist Convention?

Anyone have any authoritative information? Thanks.

Bumping this thread back up towards the top.

I believe on one thread Jon wrote that there were about a 1000 Southern Baptist Landmark churches. Someone I read somewhere (which I can't find now) said there were more in the SBC than in the ABA. I am not doubting that these numbers could be accurate, but am looking for some kind of documentation that has been made to that effect.

Thanks.

Ben Stratton or David Miller would be the most authoritative sources on this. I can not even take a stab at it. I was raised in the SBC. Hardly any churches in Lufkin, Texas, BMA or SBC had the slightest indication that they were Landmark Baptists. In fact, even some of the ABA churches seem a bit more evangelical that Baptist in that area. When I began to wrestle with the function of the executive program and the implications of supporting missionaries that denied the bodily resurrection of Christ in the SBC (I personally knew a missionary that did), I decided to join an Independent Baptist Church. To make a long story, GOd led me to an ABA church at the time instead, and I was introduced to biblical Baptist doctrine concerning the church.

From then on, I looked for Southern Baptists that shared my convictions. I still have a heart for the churches in the SBC and can not believe that there is scripturality in them anywhere. I have not found a single Landmark Baptist church in the SBC outside of Kentucky. I understand that there may be some in Arkansas and Tennessee, but I have not found them. One Southern Baptist pastor told me that there is a handful of churches in my own county here in California that are Landmark Baptists and fellowshipping in the SBC, but every church I have come across is more influence by John MacArthur than biblical doctrine.

I think the idea of 1,000 or 2,000 churches in the SBC that are Landmark is an exaggeration. If there are that many Landmark Baptists in the SBC, then all of the ABA churches ought to rejoin the convention and move it back towards a more biblical position. Southern Baptist history shows that the Landmarkers involved in the conservative movement had to join forces with the fundamentalists and the egalitarians fighting against the moderates who wanted to challenge the inerrancy of the Bible. If there were 2,000 Landmarkers, why did they need the egalitarians? If the number has grown, where is the mission board pushing this new direction? If churches are returning to a Landmark Baptist position, I still can not take their baptism, as for years, Southern Baptists would take holiness baptism and other baptisms that are unscriptural.

My friends in the SBC are awesome people, and the work that they do spreading the gospel ought to be commended. There are several scriptural churches in the SBC, and many pastors who have made a positive impact on the future of Southern Baptist missions. However, I treat the Southern Baptists the same way I treat every church. If the church is scriptural, I fellowship with them. If not, I don't. I do not believe that practicing missions unscripturally means that the church is not longer a New Testament church. If I believed that, then I am not sure that even of us could be a member of a scriptural church since there have been bizarre mission practices as long as there have been churches.

How many Landmarkers / Landmark Baptist Churches are there in the Southern Baptist Convention? This is a difficult question to answer for the following reasons:

1. Terminology. There are many Southern Baptist preachers and churches who are basically landmark in their doctrine, but deny or do not recognize the term "Landmark" or "Landmarkism". Case in point: I had two professors at the Southern Baptist Bible College I attended who were both strong landmarkers in their doctrine. One openly claimed to be a landmark Baptist. The other denied the term, believing it should only be applied to independent Baptists. Many other landmark Southern Baptists know what they believe about the church and the ordinances, but have never heard of "Landmarkism."

2. Definitions. What exactly is a Landmark church? What all does it have to believe? Does it have to believe in closed or just close communion? Which alien immersions does it have to reject. How strict does it have to be in its rejection of pulpit affiliation? Does it have to believe in Baptist succession or just church perpetuity? How strongly does it have to believe in the local church? Does it have to believe in the Baptist bride or can it believe in the glory bride? Southern Baptist churches, even those who lend in the direction of landmarkism, are all over the map on these questions.

3. Generational Gap. There have been a lot of changes in Southern Baptist churches in the last twenty years. The older generation was much more landmark than the younger generation. As this older generation passes away, the young generation often leads their churches to depart from their landmark beliefs. Because of this there are a lot fewer landmark Southern Baptist churches than there were twenty years ago.

To answer the question, if I had to guess, I would say there are 500 - 1000 landmark Southern Baptist churches. I could probably come up with 200 in Kentucky alone. Keep in mind there are 42,000+ Southern Baptist churches in the U.S. I know of landmark Southern Baptist churches in most states in the union. However I am not sure how many landmark Southern Baptist churches are in certain states today. Forty years ago there were multitudes of landmark Southern Baptists in Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, California, Oregon, etc. Due to the generational gap, I'm not really sure how many are in those states today.

Hope this helps.

Ben,

Could you clarify on your point #2-Definitions, more particularly where you stand in these areas? It troubles me that there could be so many variations on those things and a church could still be considered a Landmark church.

Chad,

Could you elaborate please on your statement that ABA churches in the Lufkin area are "more evangelical than Baptist"?

studymore wrote:Ben Stratton or David Miller would be the most authoritative sources on this.

Who is David Miller? Is he a member here?

I think the idea of 1,000 or 2,000 churches in the SBC that are Landmark is an exaggeration.

I think it would be high also, and notice Ben does too in his reply. But a few years back I would have thought there were zero Landmark Baptists in the SBC. That would have partly been due to my definition, and partly due to my own experience. Once I queried quite a few East Texas SBC churches about baptism, and found none that accepted only Baptist baptism as a matter of conviction. I found one that restricted to that out of tradition, and one that drew the line at Baptist (any Baptist) as a matter of not having to sort out the differences in other denominations. But in the past few years I have learned a few different things. For example, about ten or so years ago a Missionary Baptist resident of this area moved to Kentucky. This person was a member of an ABA church (largest landmark association that I know of) and sought to join a Kentucky SBC church by letter. They would not accept him and required rebaptism. What a turn of events, to my way of thinking!

If there are that many Landmark Baptists in the SBC, then all of the ABA churches ought to rejoin the convention and move it back towards a more biblical position.

Even if there are 2000 Landmark churches in the SBC, and additional 2000 would make only 4000, less that a tenth of the total number of SBC churches (circa 42,000). And even if they could agree on ecclesiology, most wouldn't agree on missiology.

If the number has grown, where is the mission board pushing this new direction?

I found this question interesting, because some Southern Baptists have charged the leadership of the International Mission Board with Landmarkism. A recent SBC International Mission Board policy dealing with the administration of baptism is the source of controversy. The new policy, according to Wade Burleson's blog, is:

IMB wrote:a. Baptism is a church ordinance. Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.
b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.

I'm sure that Landmark Southern Baptists would agree with this policy, but I do doubt that this arises strictly from Landmark ecclesiology. The soteriological as opposed to ecclesiological element of the argument may mean that a lot of non-Landmark Southern Baptists also agree with this position. The Landmark way to argue for the rejection of these baptisms performed by churches rejecting eternal security is to say these churches are not true churches. I haven't seen that argument being made distinctly.

Brother Ben, thanks for adding your personal insights to the subject. You hit on two areas that definitely create a problem in discussing this subject.

The terminology, though seemingly having a fixed meaning, actually varies a good bit from one Landmarker to another, not to mention the anti-landmarkers. And then there are those who have been raised on those doctrines absent the terminology. When I was growing up, I don't remember folks around here speaking of us in terms of being Landmark Baptists. We always called ourselves Missionary Baptists. I'm sure the preachers would have recognized the churches as Landmark Baptist -- even some of the churches and associations were so named. But I expect it was never common for the average church-goers to think of themselves or possibly even know they were Landmark Baptists. In fact, just the other day when I was discussing Landmark Baptists with a Landmark Baptist preacher, his father, a Baptist deacon, asked what we meant by Landmark.

When I was doing my independent Landmark Baptist church survey, I had one California pastor write, "Yes, we believe all those things, but don't want our church identified as Landmark Baptist. You can count us as a number if you'd like, but don't put our name on your list."

In southwest Missouri there are a number of "Old-time Missionary Baptists" that separated from the SBC circa 1950. They will tell you they are not Landmark Baptist. Yet they have the same ecclesiological beliefs/traits of Landmarkers. These "Old-time" Missionary Baptists in Missouri had contact with some Baptists who identified themselves as Landmarkers and they thought the Landmarkers were weak and sickly on allowing folks to join the churches without being able to relate a credible experience of salvation. So they are not impressed with that terminology.

This "name thing" is something that complicates the assessment of the extent of Landmarkism, not only among Southern Baptists, but Baptists in general. Also there is the problem of the definition. If some Landmarkers are allowed to define the term, it will be exactly what they are and nothing else. Ben, I think you'd agree, if Wade Burleson were allowed to define the term, probably all SBC'ers who hold any kind ofrestricted communion would be Landmarkers!

I came up with a kind of "lowest common denominator" idea for assessing the unaffiliated churches when I did the independent Landmark Baptist survey. I realize it will not satisfy everybody, but I looked at the overall history of what has been called Landmarkism from the time of Graves, Pendleton and Dayton. I tried to see what was common with the movement as a whole from that time until the present. It will include some Landmarkers that some other Landmarkers are not willing to recognize as Landmarkers. But I believe it is nevertheless consistent with the movement itself. By the following I am not trying to scripturally define what is a true church, but to recognize the commonality of the churches that have been encompassed by the Landmark movement. A concise summary of the criteria used is listed below:

The church holds the belief that Jesus organized His church during His personal ministry, promised its continued existence, and that church still exists today.

The church holds the belief that baptism is only the immersion of a believer in water by the authority of a local new testament church, and will not receive believers who have been immersed by other churches/denominations.

The church holds the belief that the Lord's supper is restricted to baptized believers who are walking in orderly church capacity. (restricted, including closed and close)

The church holds the belief that the church is a local autonomous body authorized by Jesus Christ to evangelize, baptize, and teach His disciples.

Here is a link to that survey as discussed on the Baptist Board:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=17022&page=2

Younglandmarker,

You asked, "Could you clarify on your point #2-Definitions"

Let me try and explain. I know of a number of Southern Baptist preachers and churches that are just as landmark as anyone in the ABA. Their only difference would be mission methodology and even then many of their churches support missionaries directly besiders their small support of the Southern Baptist Cooperative Program. However there are other churches who lend in the direction of landmarkism who have some variety in their doctrines. Consider these examples:

1. I know of a few Southern Baptist churches that practice closed communion and reject all alien immersions, yet they practice a limited form of pulpit affiliation in being involved in community Thanksgiving and Easter Services or area wide crusades.

2. I know of a few Southern Baptist churches that practice closed communion and reject all alien immersions, yet due to the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible and dispensational ecclesiology, they would believe in Holy Spirit baptism at the moment of conversion in the body of Christ, which is basically the universal invisible church.

3. I know of some Southern Baptist churches that practice closed communion and reject all alien immersions, yet they have never heard of the Trail of Blood and don't know anything about Baptist successionism / perpetuity.

4. I know of a some Southern Baptist churches that practice closed communion and reject most alien immersions, but would accept Bible Church baptism or a baptistic non-denominational church's baptism.

5. Then you have churches like those pastored by B.H. Carroll and J.M. Pendleton which reject alien immersion, but practice close communion and believe in a limited form of the universal church - called the "glory church" by Carroll and "all the redeemed in the aggregate" by Pendleton. I am sure there are some Southern Baptist churches in this mold today.

I would still consider each of the five above examples to be landmark Southern Baptist churches.

Bro. Vaughn's four-fold criteria for finding landmark Baptist churches is pretty good. I have used the below five-fold criteria to find Landmark Southern Baptist churches:

1. A New Testament church is a local, visible assembly or congregation of immersed believers.

2. The first such New Testament church was started by the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, and churches like it have existed in the world ever since that day.

3. The Great Commission was given by the Lord Jesus Christ only to the New Testament church.

4. Catholic and Protestant churches do not qualify as New Testament churches because they preach a false way of salvation and/or practice a false way of baptism.

5. The practices of alien immersion, open communion, and pulpit affiliation should be rejected.

I think you could find 500 - 1000 Southern Baptist churches (and possibly more) who would agree with these five points.

Brother Ben, thanks for posting your five-fold criteria. I look forward to putting it beside my four points to compare how much we hit on the same things, and what points of difference there might be.

"This is one Southern Baptist historian's opinion on the extent of Landmarkism in the SBC:

While there are some Landmarkers in the SBC, it seems apparent that there are not nearly as many as there were even a couple of generations ago. While I suspect there are Landmarkers in every state, the movement remains strong only in a few pockets, including parts of the Southwest, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. There are very few well-known Southern Baptist pastors who are Landmarkers and even fewer Southern Baptist scholars who are Landmarkers. I can count the ones of whom I am aware on two hands. While Landmarkism is present among us, it is a relatively insignificant movement in the broader SBC and has minimal influence outside of the specific regions where it is strong." -- From Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, and Southern Baptists by Nathan A. Finn

Bro. Ben,

I enjoy the articles that you post to your Landmark Southern Baptists Group. However, I am concerned that you would consider those who "lean" toward Landmarkism to be Landmark Baptists. If you are Landmark, you must reject alien immersion (other than Baptist), open communion, and pulpit and ecclesiastical affiliation (which would include FCA, Promise Keepers, the Gideons, etc.). I know of a church in the ABA who would fit #4 as I have seen it on their website. The only 2 of those that I would even consider accepting are 3 & 5. Those of #3 are practicing ecclesiastical separation but are just ignorant of church succession. Those of #5 do err on the nature of the church in glory but believe in local church only in this age. There are many preachers in the ABA who believe in the "Glory Bride." This may sound bad when I say it, but close communion with say those visiting preacher brethren whom you know their lives, their beliefs, and their ministries is not as great an error (albeit clearly an unscriptural pratice) as wide-open denominational communion or as blaspehomous as open communion. I believe that this has been practiced even among those in the ABA at least in the past. Btw, being ABA doesn't justify it as I believe in looking at each church individually. Also, association or convention officials must be "servants of the churches" as Paul put it and not independent in their own sphere.

My comments are in reference to whether these could be identified as N.T. churches. Upon further investigation I might receive a letter from #3 but probably not #5 because of communion, only maybe their baptism.

Bro. Vaughn,

I also think the "lowest common denominator" test is very dangerous indeed. These points are not the only basis for fellowship. I firmly stand behind the 21 points of the ABA doctrinal statement with perhaps some added contingencies on whether they use the KJV, grape juice for the Lord's Supper, and style of worship.

I find in interesting that you will make a test of fellowship based on things that are not contained in the Bible.

I would call that traditions of men.

With respect to the Lord's Supper, I suppose I should be more consistent and only allow those who have not modified the Lord's Supper to preach for me. After all, the Lord set it, and I should not let those preach for me who feel that they are more wise than our Lord.

Brother Jonathan, I haven't gone back and read this thread. I'm not sure what I wrote to make you think that the "lowest common denominator" test is dangerous or that these points are for a basis for fellowship.

The context of the development of those criteria have nothing to do with my deciding about a true church or whether I will fellowship them. The context was developing a criteria for a basis of a statistical count of unaffiliated Landmark Baptists -- that is, those not affiliated with ABA, BMAA, etc., and therefore already counted (or at least to some extent). The need for a "lowest common denominator" is to take into account what kind of churches have been historically considered Landmark in their ecclesiology. For example, it would be silly to come up with a criteria for what constitutes Landmarkism that excludes J. M. Pendleton, or a criteria for Calvinism that excludes John Calvin!

Hope this helps clarify.