brown9

Ecclesiastical Separation

by
William L. Brown

I started to title this article "Have you Been Unchurched Lately?" I thought about that title because of the way some brethren among the Landmark Baptist have taken to the definition of ecclesiastical separation which is not something I or our Baptist forefathers were familiar. I am saddened by the practice of my brethren who have declared other Landmark Baptist Churches unscriptural for very unsound and unbiblical reasons, as well as inconsistent reasons. Granted that it may be necessary to question the validity of a church's authority when we have to take actions concerning letters or baptisms. That is not exactly my point of reference.

I am not a little shocked at how many papers, articles, sermons, and discussions are often centered on whom someone cannot fellowship with or recognize as a Scriptural New Testament Church. Now mind you I am talking about Landmark Baptist Churches. Not Pedobaptists churches or psuedo-baptist churches. I am talking about those who hold to the perpetuity of the Lord's church, restricted communion, a rejection of alien immersion, among a host of other precious doctrines we all hold in common.

I just wonder if we really understand "ecclesiastical separation." I respect another church's autonomy to not associate itself with a church that holds to something different. But to declare that other church not of like faith and order, or to declare it unscriptural, or refuse to grant and receive letters from them is amazing when I hear the reasons given.

I have heard and know of churches that have declared others unscriptural and have rejected the baptism of others over their use of fermented or unfermented fruit of the vine. I have seen churches declare those who hold to the doctrine of unconditional election or conditional election unscriptural. I have watched our brethren split over their historical observations of our perpetuity. (This last point hasn't even gone to the point of practice, just a difference in their historical observations of our practice.) Some have pressed this last point much further about how your records state or do not state how your church was organized. But I won't get into that here.

Now I have not intended this article to be a doctrinal dissertation or lengthy theological treatise on the subject of ecclesiastical separation. It is simply an article sharing my personal observations and experiences.

Let me give you an example of inconsistent and unsound reasons some have given for separation or the unchurching of others. Our own church was organized in 1968 and has held to the doctrines of particular redemption and unconditional election since. But, the very church we came from, and the churches we once fellowshipped with no longer recognize us as a church they can grant or receive letters from because of those two doctrines. In fact one church, the one from which we sprang, even went so far as to rebaptize one individual based upon rumors, not facts. When I spoke to the pastor about the issue we removed the basis for the rumors but his last declaration was "well you all believe in unconditional election." To which I agreed. Therefore his reasons for "ecclesiastical separation" are limited to that doctrine. Check your own history my dear brother and you will find the churches from which you sprang were of those dreaded Calvinistic type. That is very inconsistent.

Another church in the area refuses to grant or receive letters on the same basis but there is a twist to their inconsistency. Rumors abound within their ranks also but they at least admitted right up front that they would receive the one who came to them upon their profession of faith and scriptural baptism and not request a letter from us. The twist is that the baptism was ours! Huh! You won't accept the letter but you will accept our baptism. I'll leave the prescribing of motives to others.

How about a missionary on the field who comes to the doctrine of grace and is excluded and left stranded economically for his doctrinal position? Yet this same church traces it history to some very strong Calvinistic churches.

I guess my point is that if you are going to unchurch another body you ought to be honest enough to recognize you have unchurched yourself.

Even with the point of our historical observations of churches and how they were constituted I have seen such inconsistency. One will declare the other unscriptural or find grounds for no longer fellowshipping with their brethren. They drop support for missionaries' etc. (That is their prerogative to do.) The fact is that both of these sides believe that Christ began his church during his personal ministry. They both believe in a continuous existence of Baptist churches according to the promise of Christ. They both believe that no unbaptized man ever had the authority to originate baptism or that any Baptist church was started in this manner. Both would even organize a church in the exact same manner. And both would agree with Graves when he quotes J. W. Smith's reply to Albert Barnes. "Whatever is found in the New Testament is as worthy as if you traced it there. It is only a doubtful practice, whose thread must be traced thus carefully through the labyrinth of history, with painful uncertainty, lest you reach its end, while yet a century or two from Christ. Why, sir, if between us and the apostolic age there yawned a fathomless abyss, into whose silent darkness intervening history had fallen, with a Baptist Church on this side, and a New Testament on the other, we should boldly bridge the gulf, and look for the record of our birth among the hills of Galilee. But our history is not thus lost. That work is in progress, which will link the Baptists of today with the Baptists of Jerusalem"

Baptists just seem way to eager to declare another Landmark Baptist unscriptural, unfit, or unqualified and yet hold up our lineage as valid while we have those same type of men or churches in our past. If we repressed the name of the church at Corinth and simply gave you the doctrinal and practical problems of this church many would no doubt consider their candlestick removed. But, it wasn't, at that point. Only Christ can do that.

I have heard grumbling among the brethren if you go preach some where they regard as unscriptural. In fact some will then reject you on the basis of secondary ecclesiastical separation. Wow again! You better read up some on what really is ecclesiastical separation. It is not about where you might preach but about recognizing Pedobaptists. I could go anywhere and not violate any scripture or principle of scripture. Now if I invite a Pedobaptists into my pulpit or accept their baptism, then we have a problem.

The days of the "gentleman" Baptist are fast fading where we can respectfully disagree and yet not declare some pastor or a church unscriptural. We do not tolerate differences in our ranks very well. I am premil, pretrib, hold to the King James Version only, I am a Baptist Brider, and am independent. But I wouldn't hesitate very long over having B. H. Carroll preach in my pulpit. Care to guess what positions he held to? Others would most certainly have a fit about preaching or associating with J. R. Graves, if he were alive, or others who have set forth the great Landmarks of ecclesiastical separation because of their views on election. Yet they use their books and claim them in their heritage.

At one time Gill's Body of Divinity was somewhat of a standard and used to educate and train preachers almost exclusively. Once Andrew Fuller wrote his work "Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation," that changed. But the brethren of that day differed amicably though they held to the doctrine of the atonement differently. Today the word heretic may be unsaid but it might as well be. We are so antagonistic toward differing views among Landmark Baptists we refuse to fellowship one another, invite certain brethren to conferences, allow them to preach, and even reject them as ordained ministers and the churches they pastor as scriptural bodies.

I am not advocating a dismissal of our convictions or a lowering of ones standards. I know we cannot work with or fellowship with someone who is antagonistic to our views or us. I realize there are dividing grounds. The fact that we are Landmark Baptists emphasizes our connection to our past it emphasizes our lineage. Have convictions, but be consistent. Do those convictions really demand a complete rejection of the validity of those who hold essentially the same views as we do as far as being Landmark Baptists? Be careful with your answer, you might just unchurch yourself.