Expert: Rev. Andrew Smith - 1/18/2009

Question
QUESTION: I am a Christian raised as a Southern Baptist.  Granddaughter of a Southern Baptist Preacher.  In fact my grandparents met and fell in love in the 1930's while they were both attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas.  Both earned their Master's degree in Theology.  Unfortunately, both are deceased and I am unable to ask them this question. I have recently met and fell in love with a wonderful man who is a Missionary Baptist affiliated with the American Baptist Association.  Can you tell me what the differences in doctrine are between Southern Baptists and Missionary Baptists?   


ANSWER:    Lee,

  This is a good question. The differences between these two groups are rooted in their history, so I will start there and then move into doctrine.

  The American Baptist Association was created in the early 20th century when two groups of "Landmark" Baptists merged. One group was rooted mainly in Texas, and the other in Arkansas. Landmarkism was a movement among Baptist churches in the South that received its shape in the years running up to the Civil War. Under the leadership of J. R. Graves, James Pendleton and others, many Baptists in the "old Southwest" (Tennessee, Arkansas, and finally Texas) began teaching that only Baptist churches, having descended directly from Christ, were true churches, and that baptism by members of other groups was invalid. They also rejected allowing non-Baptists into Baptist pulpits. Many of these things had been Southern Baptist stock-in-trade for years, but the Landmarkers gave them renewed emphasis in light of 19th century denominational competition.  This is a hopeless oversimplification of course, but plenty of information is available on the Landmark movement.

  After the Civil War, Landmarkism softened a bit, but the ideas still circulated in the Baptist bloodstream, and were often articulated by leaders frustrated with what they perceived to be the over-organization of Baptist life in the South. Since Landmarkers taught that only the local church is the church, and that there is no New Testament sanction for any other organization wearing that name, they tended to be very skittish about state and national conventions, and they were especially fearful of mission boards, just like the Primitive Baptists had been during the early 19th century. The groups that eventually combined to create the ABA had withdrawn from the state conventions of Texas and Arkansas over just such fears.

  This is why ABA Baptists believe what they do. They hold standard Baptist doctrines just like Southern Baptists do on subjects like the Bible, Jesus Christ, and salvation. In addition, however, they tend to believe that Southern Baptists are compromised in their use of mission boards to do home and international missions, and they would reject the entire SBC organization as illegitimate. They reject the idea of a "universal church," and do not recognize congregations of other denominations as churches. Basically, the doctrinal differences come down to a serious disagreement on the nature of the church.

  I have never been involved in the worship of an ABA church, but I would guess that there is a significant difference in tone, as well. Never having visited a church, I wouldn't venture to say more, however.

  I hope that this helps answer your question. Please as a follow-up if I missed something. Thanks for a great question,

  Andrew

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: The book, "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll, is a book which illustrates how only Baptist churches were descended directly from Christ like you mentioned.  J.M. Carroll was a Southern Baptist but I have never heard reference to this book until visiting a Missionary Baptist church.  Is his viewpoints widely accepted by Southern Baptists or is his ideaology only accepted by Missionary Baptists?

ANSWER:    Lee,

  When The Trail of Blood book was written, many Southern Baptists, especially in the western pasts of the South, believed in what Carroll was saying. Other Southern Baptists, however, were more skeptical. In 1899, President Whitsitt of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was forced to resign because of pressure from J. R. Graves and others because he suggested that Baptists actually emerged from the English Reformation, rather than having existed from the beginnings of the Christian movement. This issue consumed Southern Baptist politics for years.

  In the years since, Southern Baptists have generally backed away from the history contained in The Trail of Blood. This is probably best, because the historical method used there is unreliable, identifying heretical groups through the history of Christianity such as Novatianists and Donatists as Baptists. This flies in the face of clear evidence that they baptized babies just like everyone else. Most Southern Baptists would concede that Baptists are Protestants, and emerged from the milieu of the English Reformation in the 1600s.

  So, the short answer is that Southern Baptists and Missionary (landmark) Baptists would disagree on this particular issue.

  Let me know if you have further questions about this. I've done some research on it, but I don't want to overload you with boring information.

  Thanks,

  Andrew

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you so much for your insight.  It has been very helpful. I have done some research and you have been the most resourceful. Can you explain the concept of the "Baptist Bride"?

Answer
  Lee,

  This is something that I have honestly never heard of, until now. I am glad you asked me about it, though, because it's something that I need to know about.

  After doing a little reading, the "Baptist Bride" doctrine seems to be that while all Christians will be "saved," only Baptists will collectively become the "Bride of Christ." Other Christians will be second-class citizens in the new heaven and new earth, and will not be allowed to live in the New Jerusalem. Non-Baptists will also not be served at the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb." People who affirm these doctrines are Landmarkers in other respects, rejecting "alien immersion" (the acceptance of baptism from churches that aren't Baptist) and "open communion" (allowing visitors from other denominations, or even other Baptist churches, to take communion.)

  I generally restrict myself to commenting on history, but I can't go without commenting that this could only be supported from the Bible using a very creative method of intepretation. Paul almost never implied gradations of salvation (but, see I Corinthians 3:10-14. Even here, though, he says that there is only one foundation - Jesus Christ). I just don't see how this doctrine could legitimately be supported from the Biblical text.

  Does this help?

  Andrew