Landmark Baptist

Back in the late 1700s, early 1800s, I think, a Baptist preacher known as John Leland (of whom I am named after), railed against the concept of missionary societies and preached that the Great Commission was to be done by the local church only.

The SBC emerged in the 1800s. Out of the SBC came the ABA, then out of the ABA came the BMAA, and so on and so on.

When the MBA of Texas split from the BMA of Texas back in 1949, the association operated with no missions policy for salaried missionaries. They had missionaries on associational salary, but no policy. After nine years (I think) a missions policy was introduced.

So, for the purpose of friendly discussion and to reactivate a dry board, (a) should scriptural associations as we understand them pay missionaries' salaries? (b) If so, should there be missions policies in place to guide the process for associational support? and (c) If you could write a policy from scratch, what would it be?

As for me, I am happy with the way things are... but I do like the new policy being proposed to the MBA of Texas.

To Bro. Leland Acker

Bro. Leland you stated; "The SBC emerged in the 1800s. Out of the SBC came the ABA, then out of the ABA came the BMAA, and so on and so on."

Pardon me, but it is my historical understanding that the ABA did not come out of the SBC. While there may have been churches associating in the SBC in 1905 that began to associate in the ABA (Actually, it was not named ABA until about 1924), there were also many who never had associated with the SBC who voluntarily began to associate in the ABA. To me it is incorrect to say that the ABA came out of the SBC. (I allow that I may be wrong and if I am, I apologize before hand.)

I believe that John Leland took the correct stand when he "preached that the Great Commission was to be done by the local church only."

May I ask, what is the new policy of which you speak?

jll2
Gillette, WY
***Preaching Jesus Christ and Him Crucified: ***The only ONE who can forgive our sins: ***The only Way of Eternal Salvation; ***The One and Only Saviour.

I oversimplified the ABA/SBC thing. THe ABA was not formed from a split from the SBC, but there was a significant split in the SBC in 1899 that led to many independent churches, many of whom eventually came together to form the ABA. Others went to the Independent Baptists by way of J. Frank Norris. My intent was merely to show the progression toward more associationally organized mission programs and discuss whether this has been a good thing.

As for the proposed mission policy in Texas, I will have to post it after I pick up the kids.

Bro. Acker, I do not believe associations should pay missionaries' salaries, so therefore I believe there is no need for any mission policies. Just my two cents. I guess one would have to agree to the first proposition to really have much input to the second.

SBC to ABA to BMAA is not a progression of reality. Before 1814, a Baptist church was a Bapist church and they were all associational in nature as witness the many local associations they formed. Conventionsim started in America with the Triennial Convention in 1814. There were no convention churches, there were only associational Baptist churches, Many of these were lured into the Triennial Convention which adjourned in finality in 1844. In 1845 some men chartered an non-profit corporation in Georgia called Southern Baptist Convention. There were no SBC churches, only associational Baptist churches which they lured into the convention program. In 1905, the General Association of Missionary Baptist Churches of the United States of America was formed in Texarkana, giving the remaining associational Baptist churches a national identity and helping them to avoid being swallowed by the convention program that was steam-rolling by then. In 1924, that name was changed to American Baptist Association to accomodate a large group of churches in Texas. If there is a progression it would be associational Baptist to SBC. The BMAA churches are associational Baptist churches that split out of the ABA in 1950. I can show you a large number of associational Baptist churches in the ABA whose history predates the charter of the SBC. They have never been a part of any convention. I can also show you the conerstone of a lot of SBC churches that prove they were associational Baptist churches before being roped into the newly formed SBC.

Bro. Acker, (I sure like your namesake, John Leland),
As a pastor of a church that fellowships in the "Old State" California Missionary Baptist Association, we have no other missionary support policy than Acts 13:1-4 (God called, church sent) and Philippians 4:15,16 (funds sent direct from church to missionary) and Acts 14:26,27 (direct reporting from missionary to local church).
We have been called "direct-ers" because of this practice but it has worked well for us.

We also represent with messengers and by letter to the ABA and occasionally send special offerings for disbursment as support to many missionaries we would otherwise not support direct.

But, the vast bulk of our support is voted on by the church for our treasurer to send monthly direct to the missionary and reviewed each year for continuance or for change.

It might require more work on the part of the local church to research and investigate and decide, but it sure puts us in more intimate contact with the men we support.
Anything that removes the importance of intimate local church involvement must be questioned.

The SBC to ABA progression was only used to show a rise and progression in associational activity. Two hundred years ago, there were few associations paying the salaries of missionaries. Today, not only do associations and conventions do so, but there are also boards and societies that do the same. I fully recognize that there are many Baptist churches who were never SBC, and so on. This is not a historical discussion, and I'm sorry I brought the historical rise of associational activity up. The purpose of this thread is to give you the opportunity to share with us how you feel things ought to be in regard to mission work.

Me, I like the rise in scriptural associational activity. The more churches support the associational mission funds, the more funds are on hand to support missionaries, the quicker missionaries can get to the fields God has called them to, and the quicker they can get to work.

I fully respect Bro. Howard's viewpoint. I do feel that it is possible to both maintain intimate local church involvement and have associational support structures, but if churches are willing to rally behind a missionary through direct support, then praise God. Those are Godly churches committed to His mission.

I just had to chime in on this one....I was always under the historical impression that many of the churches that became the ABA did in fact come out of the Arkansas State Convention when the split occured there in 1901/1902. I also thought that with Bogard being the leader of this group that he specifically warned the Arkansas State Convention and the General Baptist Convention that many of the Landmark churches would leave them if they did not meet their demands. I thought that history showed that the Arkansas State Convention did meet his demands but that he led the exodus anyway and took it to a national level in which over 175 churches left but many more Landmark Baptists Churches did not leave and remain to this day?

I think that this would be a good question for a brother like Ben Stratton.

Dear Brother Acker:
Yes, it is unfortunate that the named progression was thrown into the mix. It muddied your main topic of discussion. Perhaps the historical part could be taken up in another thread. I would also like to comment on the missions question. The authority to do mission work is specifically given to the Lords' churches. However, since each church has equal authority to do the work, there is no negative aspect to two or more or several hundred or more combining their energies and resources to get the work done. I am not against direct mission as I understant it; however, I believe there is great benefit in several churches joining in a mission work so long as local church enforsement is in play. I do not believe it is right for societies, boards, associations, etc, to hire and fire missionaries and be responsible for them financially. That is church business. I am in general agreement with the several ways mission work is done by the churches of the American Baptist Association.

Isn't local church "enforsement" in mission work really one church telling another church what to do. If its not that then its micro universal churchism? Why does the subject get changed every time someone starts really getting down to some truth issues? Have a good night brethren...I might get back on here in another 6 months.

Surely you would not with-hold your blessings for such a long time! I think if you look at the original question, it was about mission policies and practices. If you wish to start a thread on the subject of your choosing, I am certain dialogue will occur. Your anti-local church endorsement of mission work is mysterious to me, especially from one who claims to be a Landmarker. I hope there is misunderstanding here.

Church endorsement is little more than one church asking sister churches for financial assistance in supporting a missionary.

The way the ABA has organized it's associational mission structure is the best way to go, in my opinion. Developing a board to oversee missions, approve missionaries, oversee them and hold them accountable not only supercedes the authority and role of a sponsoring church, but it creates an unscriptural power structure. God never intended for a centralized command for his local churches outside of the Lord Himself.

I have reviewed the mission policies of missions boards in other associations. The policies tend to be very invasive, leave little room for disagreement, and in my opinion, put boards above the sponsoring church.

Rlvaughn wrote:Bro. Acker, I do not believe associations should pay missionaries' salaries, so therefore I believe there is no need for any mission policies. Just my two cents. I guess one would have to agree to the first proposition to really have much input to the second.

Am I too simple to say "I agree"? I agree.

I, too, think it is not good for associations to pay missionaires. This is why it is not done in the ABA these days. The missions treasurer sends support checks to sponsoring churches of missionaries and it is the churches who then pay their missionaries. Still, there is some grumbling about the association of churches wanting a sponsoring church to provide 20% of its missionary's salary. It is as though some churches want to be in the driver's seat of missions, but they do not want to shoulder even 20% of the financial responsibility to the missionary for his monthly pay. Hummmmm!

W. A. Dillard wrote:I, too, think it is not good for associations to pay missionaires. This is why it is not done in the ABA these days. The missions treasurer sends support checks to sponsoring churches of missionaries and it is the churches who then pay their missionaries. Still, there is some grumbling about the association of churches wanting a sponsoring church to provide 20% of its missionary's salary. It is as though some churches want to be in the driver's seat of missions, but they do not want to shoulder even 20% of the financial responsibility to the missionary for his monthly pay. Hummmmm!

I'm inclined to agree with this... though I believe the sponsoring church should send their 20% directly to the missionary and not through the secretary-treasurer's office. Often times in mission work, you have the sponsoring church's treasurer, missions treasurer, and the secretary-treasurer of the association involved in the funding. If wires get crossed between those three, a missionary can wind up getting paid late, which causes him a lot of heartache, particularly when he has to start paying late fees.

The bottom line here is responsibility. That falls on the sponsoring church. If a church sends out a missionary, that church is responsible for that missionary's salary being paid on time as well as other things. Such church should have two or three months salary in the bank to write a salary check on time without having to depend on what comes from the association's mission treasurer although I do not know of any time in recent years that those checks have been late. If a church cannot attend to these simple tasks, even borrowing from the bank to pay a monthly salary if necessary, then that church should not be sending out a missionary. It is responsibility,,,taking it,,,,,and ,,,,carrying it out. We do not want others to infringe on the duties and responsibilities of a local church....so.... no excuses, let the church shoulder her responsibility. At least them there are my sentiments.

The Sec-Treasurer has never been late as far as I know in payments. The issue would be in the timeliness of the 20% arriving at the sec-treasurer's office. If the sec-treasurer is instructed to wait until the 20% is received, payments could begin to run up to a month late.

I am not able to speak to the possibilities of this being a reality. However, it again fall to the responsibility of the endorsing church. If they were late sending their 20% they would probably be late paying the missionary anyway. I cannot see where an associational missions treasurer would be at fault here nor do I see how not having an associational missions treasurer would be helpful in such a case.

I started a thread for discussing the historical angle that was broached here -- how much and in what sense, if any, does the ABA come from the SBC.
http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/aba-from-whence-t994.html