|
|
|
News & Views, May 2000 - Edited By E. L. Bynum
Nightclub Musicians for God? - By E. L. Bynum
Ashland Ave. Splits Over Doctrine - By Todd Van Campen
Another—Neo, Sorta Baptist Church - By Dr. Ken Johnson
A dispute about theology has fractured Lexington's Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, threatening its ambitious building plans. Ashland, with a weekly attendance of 1,200, has been one of Central Kentucky's largest and most stable Southern Baptist congregations. It has had just four pastors during its 83 years.
Now, however, members who disagree with the Rev. Russell Howard's teaching about baptism and Communion are leaving to start a new church. The new church may attract 300 people to its first worship service at 10 a.m. Sunday at Blue Grass Baptist Schools, said Lewis Marcum, a deacon at Ashland and a leader of the dissenters. As many as 17 of Ashland's 35 deacons may join the new church, Marcum said. "It's like losing family members," Howard said. "These are tough days." The split leaves in doubt Ashland's plan to build a $7 million complex on Reynolds Road. Work had been scheduled to start this summer, but that will be reconsidered, Howard said.
Fine points of Baptist theology opened the fault line within the congregation. In the past, the church has re-baptized all those who came from non-Baptist churches. Howard now teaches that the need for re-baptism should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The church also has practiced "closed communion," which limits the reception of Communion at Ashland to members of that church. Howard espouses "close communion," which would make Communion at Ashland available to members of other like-minded churches. Both debates are related to differing views about what the Bible means when it says "church." Howard holds that the church can be seen as a universal fellowship of Christians. Marcum's group says that the church is only a local, distinct body of believers.
While these issues might seem trivial to outsiders, they have become deeply important within the congregation. On Feb. 27, Marcum led 200 members in an emotional walkout from Ashland's Sunday-morning service to protest Howard's teachings. Howard and Marcum met later that week, and both said they had reconciled their differences. As Howard preached over the past three Sundays, however, Marcum decided he could not agree. The truce broke Sunday, after the congregation voted 402-316 to endorse Howard's positions. "It's just made a more clear line between the two factions," Marcum said. "We know where we stand now, more than we did before." Twenty-seven men met at Marcum's house Monday night, and they decided to break away.
The situation could get worse before it gets better. Marcum says the new congregation wants the Ashland Avenue Baptist name and its Ashland Avenue property. Ashland is trying to sell that property in preparation for moving to Reynolds Road.
Then there's the issue of who would get the $900,000 that Ashland has in the bank. "We're not going to just walk away and say, `Take it,'" Marcum said. Howard said he had not heard from Marcum's group firsthand about the issues. "I'm loath to make any sort of response to that until any sort of formal question is asked," Howard said. "What it really comes down to is, we need to talk. I'm hoping those conversations can be had."
Meanwhile, those who are caught in the middle wait for peace to return. "The doctrine has been taught over here for 80 years," said Clifford Sallee, a member of the church for 52 years. "The pastor is coming in and trying to change it, and it's hard to change people. I think he's wrong in trying to do that, and I think the other people are wrong trying to be too dogmatic. "I think if it could just settle down for a while, it would solve a lot of problems." Published Thursday, March 23, 2000, Herald-Leader
It is sad when Baptist Churches split, and yet, the time comes when there is no other solution. Under the two last pastors the Ashland Ave. Baptist Church had taken a radical change in direction. They openly swung back to affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention. Many people had assumed that this Church was an Independent Baptist Church. Apparently we were wrong, as it seems that they had never fully left the Southern Baptist Convention. They had broken with the local (SBC) Association over the question of alien immersion. This was a right decision on their part, but I think that many of us had thought they had broken with the SBC. It seems that they had not, but had only become a non-cooperating SBC Church.
This Church had their own independent College to train young people for many years. They had published "The Trail of Blood," by J. M. Carroll, which the SBC as a whole had repudiated years before. Tabernacle Baptist Church had ordered many thousands of these books and distributed them down through the years. Now they have repudiated that doctrine and joined in full cooperation with the SBC.
In the accompanying article "Sorta Baptist Church," Ken Johnson fully exposed this change of doctrine. (It was written months before the split.) In his letters to others, Howard had boasted that only 10 or 20 percent of the people at Ashland Ave. still believed in the doctrines found in "The Trail of Blood." Apparently he was wrong according to the story above.
Churches are one by one turning away from the doctrines that they had taught in years past. We are indeed living in the time of a great fall
The Franklin Graham Festival has been to Lubbock and has gone. The sorry state of religion in America can be illustrated by the City Wide meetings held by such men as Billy and Franklin Graham. We use to have Revivals & Evangelistic Meetings. Billy Graham reduced this formula to Crusades. Now his son Franklin calls his meetings Festivals. Only the Lord knows how they will be labeled in the future.
The old time revivalists such as Dwight L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, Bob Jones and Mordecai Ham used godly musicians. They never went to the nightclubs to get their music or musicians. Billy Graham was converted under the ministry of Mordecai Ham, but the ministry of these men has been far different.
During the days of these men, the barroom and saloons owners got converted to Christ, and closed down their sinful drinking places. I heard Mordecai Ham preach, and he told about some of the owners of drinking places getting converted in his meetings, and closing down their businesses. The same thing happened in the Billy Sunday meetings. While we might not totally agree with some of the old time Evangelists, they were far, far better than the Grahams and their kind. The first thing they did was shut down their places, and pour the liquor in the gutter. J. Frank Norris was a pastor, but he held many revivals. I heard him tell about saloon keepers being converted, and how they got out of the business. As a matter of fact, I met a widow woman who was a faithful member of First Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas. Her husband was converted under the ministry of Norris, and he closed up his saloon and poured the liquor out.
It is different now. The Ecumenical Evangelists go to the bars, nightclubs, and casinos to get worldly entertainers to help them draw a crowd. What a sad condition religion in America has come to, yet, they dare call it Christian.
You never hear of bars, nightclubs or casinos shutting down as a result of the meetings of Billy and Franklin Graham. The same problem exists in the ministry of other Ecumenical Evangelists. If they make converts from Hollywood, and the nightclubs, they just go back to that same life. The singers may go to the nightclubs and mention Jesus, but they just keep on entertaining the drunks and adulterers with their sinful music. Some of them go into worldly Contemporary Christian (?) music. Many of the men wear long hair and the men and women both dress in a worldly fashion which identifies them with a sinful world.
The Franklin Graham Festival in Lubbock, TX, April, 2000, furnishes us with a good example of what I am talking about. One of the big draws for the meeting was the big time entertainers and their unscriptural music. I am sure if the worldly music was left out, the Festival would have been a flop.
The first night of Graham's Festival featured
Ricky Skaggs and two contemporary Christian (?) music groups. Skaggs is
a well-known nightclub singer and entertainer. His band is called the Kentucky
Thunder. I have looked at the Ricky Skaggs' web page on the World
Wide Webb. It tells about his secular music career, but there is nothing
on it which would indicate that he is a Christian.
The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal published a full page story on the life of
Ricky Skaggs. It was written by William Kerns, A-J Entertainment Editor.
He chronicles the musical career of Skaggs, the records that he has made,
and the awards that he has received. It was published April 23, 2000, just
ahead of the Franklin Graham Festival, and evidently was written to boost
the Festival. It contains some interesting information and quotes. Kerns
writes about his interview with Skaggs, and makes some direct quotes.
So some may be astonished to learn that the recording artist purposely stood apart from religion as a young man.
"Wasn't I stupid?" Skaggs asked. He explained, I blame some of it on ignorance of the gospel. I really thought that if I served God, I'd have to give up everything else that I loved, namely my music. Plus I'd visited a lot of churches and I didn't see that many happy people there and I wondered about that. ... I guess it was about 20 years ago that I realized you can play secular music, be a Christian and touch people's hearts.
"I look back to when I got divorced in the late 1970s. When that happened, I was so broken up. After that, I decided to seek God for my life and my next marriage."
Kerns went on to write, "Skaggs prides himself on witnessing from the stage, no matter whether he is performing at arenas, bars, nightclubs or casinos."
He did not record a religious album until October 1999. "That was a once in a lifetime thing," he said. "I have no plans to do another. I plan to be of the church, not in it offering my ministry to God not to the church." (Emphasis ours).
Kerns wrote, "Skaggs' talent as a bluegrass musician has been documented via reviews and awards. He also was cited by the original Dixie Chicks as an inspiration, and will open several of the Chicks' concerts this summer."
Kerns writes further of Skaggs, "His immediate plan is to complete a Bill Monroe tribute album, slated for a fall release. Skaggs also reduced his touring schedule to approximately 85 dates per year. But the brunt of those concerts, he said, still will take place at bars, nightclubs and casinos (Emphasis ours).
This poor man had it right, when he thought he would have to give up his music and playing in bars, nightclubs and casinos. Some compromising preacher probably convinced him that he could go right on with his music in these sinful places, and still be a Christian. Such preachers do not warn people of the many Scriptures that teach separation. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6:14-18).
It is sad that the Grahams, Robert Schuller, and a host of other deceptive leaders would help entertainers to keep right on helping the ungodly, and still claim to be Christian. While I am not the judge of any man's soul, God in His Word does judge their works.
The rich young ruler "went away sorrowful," when Jesus demanded that he give up his sin. Modern day religionists would tell him to come on and use his money and talents for God (Matt. 19:22). Jesus made some serious demands. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33). John the Baptist demanded that they "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matt. 3:8). Paul preached the same thing. "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20). What was the result of such preaching? He tells us in the very next verse. "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me." (Acts 26:21).
These people seem to know nothing of what the apostle John preached. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (I John 2:15). James said, "... know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4).
Can you think for one minute, that Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, or James would have brought in entertainers from the nightclubs, bars, and casinos to help them in their ministry? Would they have tolerated such people, when the knew the very next week they were going back to the bars, nightclubs, and casinos? The Grahams and others do it all the time. Ricky Skaggs has about 85 engagements this year, and the most of them are in bars, nightclubs and casinos. He is going to perform with the Dixie Chicks a number of times this year.
I have nothing against Ricky Skaggs and the rest of these entertainers. They may be delightful people, but they are badly deceived when they think that the can sing in religious Crusades and Festivals, and then go back to the same old nightclubs. I really blame people like Billy and Franklin Graham the most. They are responsible for producing this kind of converts, and soothing them into thinking that they are right with God.
Please do not think that I am teaching salvation by works. Man cannot earn salvation by good works, but a real salvation will produce good works. The grace of God produces something better than a nightclub entertainer. Such musical entertainers help the bars, nightclubs, and casinos to lure people into their hell holes of iniquity. That is sinful and wrong, and those that do such things should never have a part in anything called Christian.
Another entertainer that appeared with Franklin
Graham each night was Dennis Agajanian. According to his web page he has,
"Performed at Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Magic Mountain, the Golden
Nugget, Las Vegas, Nevada and the Grand Ole Opera, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dennis has performed with Johnny Cash, Ricky Skaggs, Tanya Tucker, Bill
and Gloria Gaither, Paul Overstreet, Michael W. Smith, appeared and lead
the music program in honor of Roy Rogers, along with Billy Graham, Gene
Autry, George Beverly Shea, Pat Boone and many other guests."
These people are caught in the web of compromise. They have been snared
by the Grahams and others, in the compromising religion of our day. A look
at the above list of entertainers will give some idea of what we have come
to in the ecumenical religious society in which we live.
Michael W. Smith was also on the program with the Graham Festival. He performed on Sunday Night and held draw the largest crowd of the Festival. The newspaper certainly gave him the greatest amount praise of any of the musicians. The Contemporary Music industry is doctrinally bankrupt, and nothing proves it more than the music ministry of Michael W. Smith. Nothing proves this more than the following paragraph from the Calvary Contender.
Michael W. Smith, The Charismatic CCM pop/rock superstar Michael W. Smith has performed at Billy Graham and NRB conferences. Before success, his home fellowship for most of 20 years was Belmont Church (Nashville) which wore the Church of Christ label before going charismatic (4/00 Charisma). Smith tells about a Full Gospel Business Men's service that changed his life: "I went forward because I wanted more of God.[A] guy was laying hands on people. People started passing out and getting slain in the Spirit.And this guy touched me, and I was out for 15 minutes.Took me forever to get off the floor. And I laughed. I laughed for...I laughed all the way home." Besides this "holy laughter," Smith says many more charismatic experiences have occurred since. (He doesn't like the label "charismatic" to describe himself because of the negative baggage.) He relates another time of laughing, hyperventilating, "rolling on the floor," and says: "Then everybody started laughing .for 30 minutes.I really believe that that was God." - CC
I fully know that I will be severely criticized for writing this article, but I have written the truth and that is what I must do. No one can prove from the New Testament that to play and sing at nightclubs and then perform in Crusades or Festivals is right. All of the Scriptures are against it. Someone will say, the people from the nightclubs need to hear preaching. Certainly I would agree to that, but they should not be the star performers.
True Baptists have always been a public challenge and often a complex people. Many years ago this writer stepped onto the campus of a Baptist college to immediately experience the totally unexpected. Two fellow students were arguing the "finer points of "universal invisible church theories." They soon debated to a stand off, turned to this newly arrived stranger, and asked, "Which do you consider correct concerning our points?"
The immediate response was, "Neither is correct; your argument is about a non-entity!" The amity chilled at once with the precipitated words, "Oh!Here is another who has read The Trail of Blood !" Quite a shock for a young student who actually thought he had arrived at a "Baptist" college. Their amazement was surprising to both when they learned this writer had never heard of the book they so openly dismissed.
Being a curious person finding a copy of this book was a natural choice of the hour. A quick letter was finished and sent to my pastor asking if there really was such a book. His answer was soon received and well pleasing along with a copy from 1956 which noted several thousand copies in print to date. From that experience over four decades ago, years have continued to produce surprises from the ranks of like minded men who do not have a lot of time or concern for BAPTISTS but welcome every opportunity to confess they are pastors of "Sorta Baptist Churches."
America still grants them this privilege and they are free to exercise their religious choice in any manner free speech provides. Their insistence that any holding a contrary view are narrow sectarian bigots and the only people going to heaven is purely contrary to facts. To be honest and up front on this moot point, this writer has never read a book that made this claim, never heard a sermon based on such a claim, and has met many who are not Baptist members and some not members of any church and yet they gave ample evidence of being saints.
I have the perfect example of this reverse muniment of hostility toward BAPTIST who have failed to embrace the concept of a church that is ecumenical, interdenominational, in-definable, invisible, and contemporary in character. Three letters from Russell S. Howard, Pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church of Lexington, KY, [one to a Catholic (TM,) two to the Catholic's friend who witnessed to him (KB), and another handwritten from TM to KB based on what Pastor Howard and KB had presented to him.] These four letters were sent to me that they might be considered relative to content and evidence of effect.
What is evident of immediate consideration is the book Trail of Blood, authored by J. M. Carroll concerning Baptists' history, the center of discussion; it is a copy printed by Ashland Avenue which Bro. Howard pastors, and is dumped openly as a simple collection of "Successionist's" un- historical claims born as baggage by a few deluded minds of bigoted thinking. One wonders why the careful pastor does not suspend the printed publication he abhors, take Baptist off his church's name, and honestly become what he preaches a "Christian SECESSIONIST" or "Sorta Baptist Church." This would fit perfectly with what a group called New Century Community Church professes in our fair city. They first advertised as SBC. This was eventually dropped and their advertising is now without "SBC" and simply a service with emphasis placed on:
---Contemporary Music
---Quality Children's Programs
---Casual Dress as When visiting Friends
---A great place to be on Sunday Mornings!
If it is such a terrible thing to be a Baptist with a history of a people who gave their lives in testimony of their convictions, why not go ahead and remove Baptist from ALL consenting congregations and simply footnote the name with "Sorta Baptist Church" that all may know exactly where the involved have devolved? Perhaps a consideration of the letters involved will help classify why the NEW "SBC" meaning would be acceptable --- at least as a Secessionist as opposed to Successionist.
In Pastor Howard's letter dated Feb. 15, 1999, several points of importance are postulated to the recipient, TM the Catholic friend of KB. Pastor Howard opens his letter by stating to TM, "You need to know, ironically, I generally agree with your conclusions. Having been pastor here for just a short time I have inherited a number of interesting topics, one of them is this `Baptist Successionism.'" Evidently the noble pastor desires to secede because in his estimation, "Not many, even at Ashland, still embrace the mindset, although there is a great deal of inertia regarding the publication of Carroll."
At this point we should consider several things. First, we must consider Pastor Howard does not know he is writing to a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Next, we have to establish the point historians are not inerrant but the Bible is inerrant. It is the Bible that gives credibility to "SUCCESSION"; history only gives the presence of human evidence. We must ask ourselves, "Did Jesus Christ actually start a church, what was it, and what was it to do?" Without going into all the doctrinal points of ecclesiology we can admit Jesus started His Church in His public ministry. The Apostles were "first" set in the Church (I Cor.12:28.) This event was recorded in Lk. 6:12-17 and also Mt. 10 and Mk. 3. This church and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2), had the Lord's Supper (Mt. 26:26-30), and even fulfilled a prophesy of Christ's singing in His Church (Heb.2:12 c/f Ps. 22:22.) It was God's Divine record that promised perpetuity to this small church in Mt. 28:20 when they were told to teach their baptized converts to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" ("observe" meaning to guard and watch over protectively) and they were promised "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." This body of men all died before the "end of the world" and therefore were promised this PERPETUITY as the instituted church to carry out Christ's commission. It is the Church of our Lord that is promised to exist forever (Eph. 3:21). History is the evidential testimony of those who have kept true New Testament doctrine of New Testament Churches in succession as promised. That is why we should say, "Let the secessionist go" as described in Mt. 18:17. This is simply seeking to obey Christ our Lord and Head.
This first letter also states Carroll's written record, "My own view point is Carroll's data, at least locally, are viewed as something of a historical curiosity think he had some narrow mindedness and I think he was carrying some baggage (evidently.) I thought it might be interesting for you to know that I generally concur with your conclusions." He then concludes, "The kingdom of God is a little bit bigger than the Baptist denomination, is it not?"
If Carroll's study of Baptists' history is a "historical curiosity," what must we think of Pastor Howard who writes "Carroll's, data at least locally, are viewed as something of a historical curiosity more than any driving point of doctrine." Perhaps Bro. Howard finds the profession of Dr. Carroll's conviction of soul less "doctrinal" when compared to Catholicism, Christianity of Protestantism (which has forsaken their mother's soteriology of baptismal salvation) or the "moderates" of SBC. This calls for a history and doctrine to be provided by the SECESSIONISTS. Shall we retreat to Whittsit, McGoldrick, Tull, Ross, Gilliland, et. al. and with contemporary practice of today abandon even the name "Baptist" and join unbelievers, non-doctrinal doctrine and the universalist pantheism of oriental mystics? I trust true faith and doctrine runs deeper than such that even casts doubts on our Baptist heritage.
To answer the question, "Was Carroll a believer?" is an insult to the man's faith and the recorded history of the martyrs among Baptist ranks who shed their blood to preserve the testimony of our faith and doctrine. On the last page of Carroll's book is a short statement of "Fundamental Doctrines" which states succinctly ten points to consider. Number six states:
6. Its members. Believers only, that are saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
It is sadly dishonest to shadow the testimony of J. M. Carroll with a statement as Pastor Howard has done. Are we to conclude this pastor has some agenda that adds to grace spoken of which Baptists are claimed to have at their origin and preached through out their history? If his mystery of Baptists' history possesses such, bring it forward with the proof.
Some very interesting statements are made in this letter from a Catholic (TM) to his Baptist friend (KB) who was seeking to witness of Christ to his soul. The statements made by Pastor Howard stand out in an obvious ecumenical non-doctrinal commitment in agreement with the Catholic who was being witnessed to of Christ and His Church. TM wrote, "I told the Pastor that to believe the Baptist Church was the early church was a fallacy. I also told him that Carroll was a narrow minded anti- Catholic bigot, just like the person who sent me the booklet." It doesn't take much consideration of Pastor Howard's first letter to arrive at a conclusion as to his position with regard to what he thinks of J.M. Carroll and the Baptist History involved. Calling it a "historical curiosity" is about as revealing as his statement "he had some narrow-mindedness." Pastor Howard's final statement of "I thought it might be interesting for you to know that I generally concur with your conclusions" is quite revealing to say the least. One is forced to wonder just what kind of a Baptist would make such statements regardless of whom they were sending their mail. In all honesty it is not one who is simply broad-minded as a Baptist but more correctly stated it is one who is a Sorta Baptist person.
Perhaps an investigation into this matter would be profitable. In a news release of the Associated Press is an interesting article from the recent but former head of the SBC International Missions Board (aka Foreign Mission Board.) Keith Parks openly criticized the SBC efforts of seeking converts from religions of "non-Christians." This AP article states
Parks makes no apologies for spreading his faith as a missionary in Indonesia, but he does object to condemning other religions and singling out any group for conversion.
He's not sure that Hindus, Jews, Muslims would like his claim that he has access to the true God through Jesus Christ. But it's essential, he said, that a Christian's descriptions of other faiths be acceptable to members of those faiths. "It's important that we do not caricature other religions," he said in an interview.
Many Baptist, he said, prefer a more positive approach. "We need to cultivate personal relationships rather than launch a new crusade that's confrontative and abrasive," Parks said.1
It is strange that this is called a "new crusade" knowing for centuries Baptists have consistently sent missionaries to Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, plus nations that are purely pagan where the missionary might preach the claims of Christ concerning His atoning work by the gospel. Are we now to accept the "moderate" SBC message of change and think to ourselves this is a new innovation that will unify the world in a religious unity? Actually, this is not a new moderate thinking; it is an older modernist approach that is advocated by today's "Sorta Baptists."
Permit one example from this writer's library that will be limited to a time element of a mere five-year segment 1966-1971:
Sept. 15, 1966 A Baptist pastor and a Catholic priest married a Catholic boy to a Baptist girl in a Catholic Church.2
Oct. 27, 1966 A Catholic priest preached in the First Baptist of Tallahassee.3
April 20, 1967 Ten guidelines are outlined for Baptist Catholic discussions.4
May 4, 1967 - A seminary professor "Praises Openness" and urges Southern Baptists to "welcome with Christian love every indication of openness with the Roman Catholic Church.Dr. Estep concluded that Baptists cannot afford to be ill-informed or wrongly motivated concerning the ecumenical movement."5
August 10, 1967 Six different churches met with the Snyder Memorial BC of Fayetteville, NC, "to get good fellowship." Methodists, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholic churches were included.6
Sept. 23, 1971 The editor of the Index encourages Baptists are coming into a "new Baptist Day" which he characterizes as one in which parishes are getting more independent of Rome and thus Baptist should cooperate interdenominationally without any organic merger.7
Feb. 11, 1971 Some 90 SBC and Roman Catholic clergy met in a "first official national dialog session" in which SBC Dr. Cecil Sherman said, "An individual takes part in his salvation by affirming his place in creation, seeing things from Christ's point of view, and taking on the discipline of the cross." Bishop May (RC) pointed out "that Baptists and Catholics are one in professing Christ as Lord and Saviour and in participating in life-long process of affirming our faith."8
In a significant volume tracing relations between Baptists and Catholics is a move from Baptists doing mission work among Catholics and Catholic nations in 1845 to Catholic's in the midst of the SBC annual convention:
In recent years it has been common to see one of these priests [a Glenmary priest from the Glenmary Missioners KJ], complete with clerical collar, in the annual Southern Baptist Convention.9
A log of years' activity and dialog between Catholic leaders and SBC leaders is listed which encompass 1968 to 1990 and four sessions planned by the SBC Home Mission Board.10
Shall we suggest the missionaries in Catholic nations be called home since the obvious spiritual needs no longer exist? What shall we do to hide the history of Baptists' blood shed because Catholics refused to recognize the freedom to preach the Bible and its message of grace in Christ Jesus? The trail of blood is a historical fact; even the Jews of the days of the Crusades give testimony to this religious tragedy. The famous Maimon family gives evidence to this fact in Heschel's biography of Maimonides "Christians even believed `that torturing an infidel to death would most surely glorify Christianity.'"11
Pastor Howard will find it a difficult task to find any testimony of true Baptists who ever persecuted anyone in such a manner as is evident in The Trail of Blood.
This letter is an interesting but short eight paragraph explanation of Pastor Russel Howard's position relative to Catholicism and his position as a Baptist. After a cordial greeting in paragraph one, Pastor Howard states he had "never endorsed Catholicism" and "nothing in my communication with Mr. M. indicates any endorsing of Catholicism." One must wonder what is a logical endorsement by Pastor Howard's definition when his opinion of Carroll's position was stated as one of "I agree with your conclusions," "He had some narrow-mindedness," and then create a doubt concerning any credibility of Carroll's salvation and his having religious "baggage (evidently)." Pastor Howard, might we suggest with this kind of belief you might be honest enough to tell your church this and ask to stop the presses. Give them opportunity to give it up or get out.
In paragraph three Pastor Howard defines "successionism" and equates it to "a classic Catholic fallacy.which J. M. Carroll repeated and endorsed but it's just too Catholic for me." [Paragraph 4, KJ] First, Roman Catholicism is based upon "apostolic succession" starting with the claim of Peter as the first Pope. Church to a Catholic is one universal church covering the earth directed by the hierarchy of Catholicism in perpetuity of apostolic authority based on Peter's apostolic rule. Pastor Howard's equating this to "succession" of Churches being the same is totally false. J. M. Carroll believed the Bible and Christ's promise of the perpetuity of His Church. Mt. 28:18-20 and Eph. 3:21 openly declares the Church Jesus left on earth was to continue in perpetuity. Yes, Pastor Howard, the Kingdom of God is bigger than the Baptist denomination. It's even older; but, it shall not endure longer. The sophism of assuming the "church" and the "kingdom" is false and poor reasoning.
In paragraph five Pastor Howard dumps all Montanists as a cultic group that denied the deity of Christ, were not Baptists, weren't even Christian, and claims Carroll is "wrong" on this and many other facts. It is amusing in this manner. Even SBC testimony today displays women as "prophetesses" aka pastor etc. Could we actually deny there are "tongues speaking" SBC? OR, would we dare conclude with Pastor Howard and the interdenominational thrust that welcomes those among SBC fellowships as he says, "They weren't even Christian."
Perhaps a few words in defense of Carroll's claim re. The Montanists and their position in history is needed. M'Clintock and Strong in their treatment of this people quote Schaff, Mosheim, Neander, and even Tertulllian with facts that clarify their doctrine and practice which is not so "wrong" after all.
Concerning doctrine it is recorded by them
Montanist (or Tertullianists, as they were called in Africa) in the 3rd century, and continuing to flourish as a sect until the close of the 6th century as a doctrinal system, Montanism in its original inception agreed in all essential points with the most catholic [universally accepted doctrine of the N.T.KJ] teachings, and held very firmly to the traditional rule of faith.
This distinction in Montanism between the Paraclete and the Holy Ghost is not a distinction (or difference, rather) of person or nature, but the distinction of a plenary bestowal for a complete revelation following a partial bestowal for an imperfect and temporary revelation.
It introduced also schism in its most aggravated form, asserting that the party of Montanus alone was the true Church, the pneumatici all other nominal Christians being psychici.12
Pastor Howard might be interested to know the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists records of the Montanists:
Montanists practiced regenerate church membership, immersion, acceticism, fasting, and episcopacy.13
J. T. Christian, a SBC historian, adds more information in this area when he records
The Montanists were deeply rooted in the faith, and their opponents admitted that they received the entire Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, and they were sound in their views of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.They rejected episcopacy and the right of the bishop's claim to exercise the power of the keys.14
It is a fact of history and records of the enemy of truth that is so often taken by men today as the true testimony for men who were called heretics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Robinson illustrates this need to separate fact and fiction in his study when he recorded the history surrounding the Montanists, Tertullian, and Augustine when he wrote
The more a man reads the histories of heretics, which, to use the emphatical language of almost all ecclesiastical writers, have troubled the church, that is, denied the dominion of the priests of one party, the more he is bewildered; and the more he believes the less he knows. Accounts are so contradictory, that they cannot fairly be said to agree in anything except one, and that is, that dissenters of all orders were proscribed, who when living were justly punished, and now dead serve only, like criminals hung in chains by the road side, to deter others from disputing the dictates of ruling parties. Even the Protestants, instead of gathering facts and hints, and writing a new and true history, continue the old Catholic arrangement, and represent all, whom the Catholic authors thought fit to censure, as pests of society, to cruelly treated indeed, but yet pests of society, who deserved punishment though in a less degree.15
Pastor Howard in the three closing paragraphs (6-8) of this Sept. 14th letter speaks of "All we need is our stand on the word of God," "Baptists arose in 16th century England final refinement of the Reformation sought to complete the break their spiritual fathers had made with Rome.To equate affinity with The Trail of Blood with salvation (as you must, since you question my relationship with my Lord on the basis of my rejection of Carroll), is idolatry." What a montage of spohistic assumptions!
Pastor Howard could do well to stand on the Word of God relative to whom is meant in John 1:6 and sent His Church to perpetuate this in Mt. 28:18-20 with ordinances that Paul confessed to be observed in the church (I Cor. 11:2).
The affinity that Pastor Howard makes of Baptists and Rome via Separatists, Puritan, and Reformed calls for two things to be logically acceptable:
#1-Naming the man who started the 16th century Baptists and authority involved.
#2-Proving there was no Baptists existent in that day or before that day.
It would be easier for Pastor Howard to do the act of his fellow SBCers and logically go back to his Catholic mother as described in such a manifesto entitled "Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium."16 In this way, Sorta BC could follow suit with the Lutherans and dissolve the former conflict concerning salvation which is now set to be accomplished.17 At least this will neutralize the question of salvation and "The Trail of Blood with salvation" part.
Just for the reader's information, perhaps a note concerning Baptists before 1641 would be in order:
There is some reason to believe that a Baptist Church existed in Cheshire at a much earlier period. If we may credit traditions of the place, the church at Hill Cliffe is five hundred years old. A tombstone has been lately dug up in the burial-ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of the church is assigned, in the "Baptist hand-Book," to the year 1523. This, however, is certain, that a Mr. Warburton, pastor of the church, died there in 1594. How long the church had been then in existence there are no written records to testify. [1871-500 years =1371.]18
The fourth letter is from Pastor Russel Howard and also to KB who witnessed to his Catholic friend. It is dated Sept. 22, 1999, and contains nine segments in answer to observations of KB to answer questions evidently of note. Because of this paper's length continuing to extend, brevity for the moment shall be observed.
The "Second" point ends with the statement of a quasi retreat observed in "I suspect we have no difference at all, you and I, on how we view Roman Catholicism." If this is true, why the attack on "successionism" when the start and finish boils down to the same origin problem?
The "Third" point deals with Carroll's "Baggage" again. It amazingly states:
The Baptists could not handle him [Alexander Campbell, KJ], which is tragic. In order to regain some feeling of superiority to Campbell and his followers,the Baptists contrived the viewpoint the Baptists Churches were more "legitimate" than any other church, not because of their stand on the gospel of Grace or the Word of God, but because we were organically connected to the apostles in a way that superseded all other's claims to such connections. The view is historically inaccurate and theologically irrelevant.
May we consider this point for a moment. Campbellites are evidently bad but at the same time better debaters, according to Pastor Howard, when compared with weak handed Baptists. We are also to consider this took place in the 1800's which evidently must mean there are no "Successionists" before that date. Someone should have told John Spittlehouse and John More before they wrote a small book on this subject in 1652. The very title betrays the fallacy of Pastor Howard's assumption: A Vindication of The Continued Succession of The Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Now Scandalously Termed Anabaptists) from the Apostles unto this present time.19
Ch. Blackwood wrote a book printed in 1644 in which he demonstrated opposition to Catholicism calling his work The Storming of Antichrist in which he debates the two issues of (1) Compulsion of Conscience and (2) Infants Baptism. He records a clear statement opposing Rome's universalism of his day when he stated
...Whether Jews or Gentiles, are all one in Christ, Eph. 2:14, but it follows not, they are all one in any visible constitution, unless we hold some universal visible Church on earth, of which the Scripture is silent.20
Incorporated into this "third" point is dismissal out of hand of any "organically" connected Baptist Churches to Christ and "The view is historically inaccurate, and theologically irrelevant." The pitiful position Pastor Howard embraces is one that denies perpetuity of the Church Jesus built and makes the Word of God of none effect (Mt. 28:18-20 and Eph. 1:21,22 c/f Eph. 3:21 and Rev. 21:9-11). His notion of irrelevance is evident among SBC ranks where Max Lucado (pastor of Oak Hills Church of Christ) books are sold and large screen TV displays his acceptance in crusades along with Promise Keepers and Evangelicals & Catholics Together.21
One wonders why the congregation of this pastor is not led to join in with what he calls "the most visible and influential churches up and down the Ohio Valley" since organic unity is historically inaccurate and theologically irrelevant. Catholic and Campbellite "be dipped or be damned" is made meaningless to fellowship.
May be___ this would explain Pastor Howard's admitting in his "Fourth" point "my failure to indict Catholicism.then I apologize without excuse for a dropped ball."
In the "Fifth" point it is admitted Carroll didn't "claim strict organic succession.I know, because a small group of them remain in our church membership here. They claim that all who do not reside within that successionistic link-chain are quite probably not saved" One might conclude this "small group" might not have a great deal of respect for their reformed Baptist Protestant Pastor Well__.
In the "Sixth" point the origin of Baptists is mentioned with equal disdain. Pastor Howard remarks "they took the core doctrine of the Reformation that necessitated the rejection of paedobaptistic practice.Did some person or group of people deliver the truth to our English predecessors? I do not know." The admission of amentia concerning Baptists' forefathers is followed in the "Eighth" point by an unqualified confession of being "a Calvinistic, Creationistic, Inerrantists Southern Baptist" who believes as the "Ninth" point declares concerning "what Bible?" "The MSS as delivered through the hands of the authors, reconstructed by the archeologists, and translated by the best available scholarship." A good summary of this gallery of Secessionist testimony would possibly be better expressed as one who doesn't know where he came from, who preaches from an eclectic Bible, and trust his authority to the priesthood of scholarship.
This whole discussion makes clear the reasons why Sorta Baptist Churches are unaware that even their own admit the "Successionists" before modernists' influence in SBC schools gained control, were in the majority.22
Today the received influence of Germany and Whitsitt-Dexter, with even McGoldrick et.al. sing the harmony of obsequious secessionism Baptists who declare they have no history much earlier than 1641. It is no wonder men who lived and wrote of Baptists' history in the mid 1600's as Thomas Collier23 and Henry D'Anvers24 along with others do not count. If the Bible we call the Word of God is inerrant (and it is) and based on the work of archaeologist rather than the promise of God's Providential care (Isaiah 40:8), secessionists are in more trouble than even those "baggage carrying" Successionists. One wonders just how far away and how deep the leadership, pastors, and schools of a Sorta Baptist Convention will lead their people if this continues. The Northern Baptists might give us a clue for their publication society once declared in 1853 (sic) the purpose of the American Baptist Publication Society was:
One of the ultimate aims of such an organization should be to secure a complete reliable history of the denomination, from the days of the Apostles.25
With John of old good advice is found in Rev. 18:4.
"...Come out of her, my people..."
1. Associated Press Writer, "Ex-Baptist
Leader declares news strategy," Roanoke Times, Oct.
23, 1999.
2. Jack U. Harwell, Assoc. Ed. "Missellanea," The Christian
Index, Vol. 146, No. 37 (Sept. 15,
1966.)
3. Ibid., Vol. 145, No. 43 (Oct. 27, 1966.)
4. Jack U. Harwell, Ed. "Suggest Guides For Dialogue," The
Christian Index, Vol. 146, No. 16 (April 20, 1967.)
5. Ibid., Vol. 146, No. 18 (May 4, 1967.)
6. Ibid., Vol. 146, No. 32 (Aug. 10, 1967.)
7. Ibid., Vol. 150, No. 6, (Sept. 23,1971.)
8. Ibid., Vol. 150. No. 6 (Feb.11,1971.)
9. Glenn A. Igleheart, "Southern Baptists Relations With Roman Catholics,"
Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. XXV, No. 3 (July, 1990),
p.39.
10. Ibid., pp. 40-42.
11. Joachim Neugroshel, trans. Of Abraham J. Herschel, Maimonides
(New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1982), p.60.
12. John M'Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
(New York: Harper and
Brothers, Publishers, 1876), Vol. VI. Pp. 526-530.
13. Norman W. Cox, ed., Encyclopedia of Southern Baptist (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1958), Vol. II, p.922.
14. John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists (Texarkana:
Baptist Sunday School Committee,
1922), Vol. I, pp. 43,44.
15. Robert Robinson, The History of Baptism (London: Coachman
and Fry, 1790), p.206.
16. First Things, May, 1994, pp. 15-22.
17. AP Article, "Lutherans, Catholics will settle age-old debate on
salvation," Roanoke Times,
Oct. 31, 1999, p. A6. [c/f "SBC Announces 5 years in Bed With Whore
of Revelation," Plains
Baptist Challenger, Vol. LVIII, No. 10, Oct. 1999. -KJ]
18. J. M. Cramp, Baptist History (London: Elliot Stock, 1871
reprinted in 1987 by Baptist
Heritage Publications), p.205.
19. John Spittlehouse and John More. A Vindication of The Continued
Succession of The
Church of Jesus Christ (London: Published by J. Spittlehouse and
J. More, 1652), title page.
20. Ch. Blackwood, The Storming of Antichrist (London: NP,
1644), p.66.
21. Jerry Huffman, ed. Calvary Contender (Huntsville: Calvary
Baptist Church, 1999), Vol. XVI,
NO. 17.
22. James E. Tull, A History Of Southern Baptist Landmarkism In Light
of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology (New York: Arno Press, 1960),
"Abstract."
23. Thomas Collier, The Right Constitution And Subjects of The Church
Of Christ (London:
Henry Hills, 1654), p.l .
24. Henry D'Anvers, A Treatise of Baptism (London: For Francis
Smith, 1674), preface.
25. Daniel G. Stevens, The First Hundred Years of The American Baptist
Publication Society (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication
Society, n.d.), p .34.