An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 7.1

Conclusion
Part I

Introduction

We have now traced the doctrine of the church from the English Baptists of the seventeenth century down through the nineteenth century with special emphasis on Southern Baptists. We have shown how the covenantal concept of the church, as held by the early English Baptists, was also firmly established among the Baptists in early America. We have noted the slow departure from this covenantal view of the church and then the loss of this view as well, as we also noted the influences which contributed to that loss. We must now, in order to guide our thinking to a strong conclusion, pull together our discussion by doing several things.

First, it is necessary to discuss briefly the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists since the turn of the century [from the nineteenth century into the twentieth century].

Second, the writer feels compelled to establish further the Scriptural nature of the early English Baptist view of the church. Our argument is not that we need to reestablish the covenantal concept because the English Baptists, or anyone else for that matter, held such a doctrine historically. If we cannot prove that the covenantal concept is Scriptural, then our whole case comes to naught, and perhaps the Landmarkers did move from error to truth.

Third, it will be our attempt in this section to show a definite relation between the covenantal concept of the church and the subject of church purity, and we will argue for the covenantal concept of the church as the foundation and cornerstone of any attempt to establish a disciplined local church life and membership.

The Doctrine of the Church Among Southern Baptists Today

Perhaps the reader has been asking why we have not devoted an entire chapter to the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists in the twentieth century. Duke McCall answers this question when he states:

Within the Southern Baptist Convention more than half a century has passed since the last serious discussion of the church. Unfortunately that discussion became so involved in personalities that sight of the real issues was lost.305

Obviously, McCall is referring to the Landmark debate with Graves as the strong, dominant, and unbending personality. The point is that Southern Baptists have not had any serious general discussion or restatement of the doctrine of the church in any depth since Graves. This is not to say that all Southern Baptists are now or ever were Landmarkers in their ecclesiology. On the contrary, in the statement of faith adopted at the 1963 Convention in Kansas City, allowance was made for the Old Testament saints to be seen as and included in the church, which was also a clear refusal to make the church a New Testament entity alone. The statement regarding the church, Section VII, reads as follows:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed of all ages.306

Several points can be noted in the reading of this statement. First, notice the space and wording afforded to the defining of the local aspect of the church, as compared to the invisible church. It seems that the way it is worded, the statement concerning the universal church was added as sort of a footnote. It also leaves the impression that this aspect of the universal aspect of the church is secondary in importance. Joe T. Odle, editor of the Mississippi Baptist state paper, The Baptist Record, in his writings discussed this statement of the confession on the subject of the church. He makes no apology and leaves no doubt, when he says the local aspect, as defined in the confession, is the primary meaning and definition of the church, while the universal aspect is only secondary.307 He states further that because the local aspect is primary, it is the body to which Baptists give their attention.308

Our second observation in reading the above statement about the doctrine of the church is that there is no mention of election or the covenant of grace in defining the church. Further note that the universal and local aspects are in no way related to one another. The conclusion, which must be drawn from this stated observation, is that the concept of the universal church in the 1963 confession is not based on the doctrine of election or the covenant of grace. It is true that Section V, titled "God's Purpose of Grace," speaks of election, but it is not a strong statement on the subject, when compared to past Baptist confessions. Furthermore, at no point is the doctrine of election even tied in with the doctrine of the church.309 It appears evident then that though Southern Baptists have placed a statement concerning the invisible church in the 1963 confession, the invisible aspect is seen by many Southern Baptists as a secondary meaning with no relation to the covenant of grace, while the local concept is the primary meaning and concern. One might even get the impression that Southern Baptists are fearful of discussing the universal aspect or even might feel apologetic for believing in a universal concept of the church.

If one were to ask what it could be that we fear about this universal aspect of the church, or what keeps us from a new and open discussion of the doctrine of the church, several answers could be given. For one thing, many Southern Baptists are so individualistic in their thinking (a possible testimony of the lingering influence of Landmark ecclesiology) that there is a tendency to fear any concept of the universal church. Could it be that this fear is that such a concept might eventually lead to some hierarchical structure, which would in turn open the door to the overlording of someone or some group over the individual local church? Hill maintains in his writings that the central theme of all southern religious life is the individual.310 As mentioned above, we have already seen such individualistic thinking concerning Baptists in our previous chapters, climaxing especially in Landmarkism.

Again, part of the psychology which causes many Southern Baptists to fear a universal concept of the church may well be the fear of the modern ecumenical movement. This is not to say that this writer endorses the liberal ecumenical effort, which denies the authority of the Word of God or the Biblical view of salvation or the other major doctrines of the Bible. But this is to say that a person is in error, if he believes that anyone holding to a universal concept of the church is not Baptistic nor capable of holding the major doctrines of Biblical truth, and therefore must be part of the liberal ecumenical effort.

This ecumenical assumption is evidenced in Rone's writing, as he speaks of W. O. Carver's view of the church. Carver, a former professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, and now deceased, says the demand for unity of spirit and aim, and the need of institutional and organizational union of Protestantism calls for an understanding of the true nature of the church.311 That the true nature of the church for Carver is both universal and local is clear, not only from the reference cited, but also in his other writings. In the reference already cited, Carver commends clearly the universal and local aspect of the church, noting the Baptist forefathers defined the church in both aspects, and he challenges the reader to examine the London Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession.312 But in this reference Carver says nothing of the universal aspect as having its ground and foundation in the everlasting covenant of grace, as those Baptist forefathers that he mentioned definitely asserted.

The point is that Rone refers to Carver, his universal view of the church, and his ecumenical attitude, and then Rone places all who hold a universal concept of the church in the ecumenical camp.313 He fails to allow the possibility of any difference between Carver's position and the historical Baptist view, which we saw in earlier Baptist history. His attitude is typical of many Southern Baptists, as the fear persists that an acknowledgement of a universal concept of the church is the first step toward ecumenicism, with the second step sure to follow.

Another reason Southern Baptists are lagging in any new discussion of the doctrine of the church is because few seem to realize its importance to Baptists theologically or historically. Returning to a previously cited reference, in the book titled Why I Am a Baptist by Joe Odle we find ample proof of this charge. The book is a compilation of articles and various testimonies of Baptist leaders, most of them being Southern Baptists, and it discusses why they are Baptists, or what they feel are the Baptist distinctives. In reading the book the writer made a rapid tabulation and found, according to these Baptist leaders, that the leading and most important Baptist distinctives were in the area of freedom and soul competency.314 The doctrine of the Bible, the Baptistic view of baptism and local church government also rank very high. On the other hand, the doctrine of the church was mentioned by very few and then only in its local aspect. Several men mentioned regenerate membership, but none saw it as related to a covenantal concept of the church, as early Baptists in England and America did. Thus we feel that we can correctly conclude that most Southern Baptists today do not know the importance historically of the covenantal concept of the church, and probably are not even aware of the concept itself. Ignorant of this concept, they do not see its relation to purity and regenerate membership, and therefore they cannot grasp its overall importance, or at least the importance it could have and should have for Baptists today.

To summarize our thinking before beginning another area, we would note the following points stressed in this section:

1. The last serious discussion of the doctrine of the church among Southern Baptists was the Landmark controversy of the last century.

2. The new statement of faith adopted by Southern Baptists in 1963 still overbalanced the local aspect of the church against the universal, though we must admit that it does mention the universal aspect, but seemingly gives it a place of secondary importance.

3. The universal aspect of the church in the 1963 confession does not find its ground in the covenant of grace, nor are the universal and local aspects of the church verbally related in the confession.

4. The individualistic overbalance of the local church over the universal church, for one reason, seems to be the fear of the development of a hierarchical structure, which would allow someone or some group to overlord or violate the freedom of the local body or individual member.

5. The overbalance of the local church over the universal, for another reason, is because many fear it is the first of two steps toward ecumenicism with the second sure to follow.

6. Thus many Southern Baptists fail to see the importance of the doctrine of the church because they are also unfamiliar with Baptist thinking concerning the subject historically, and therefore they are unable to relate it to regenerate membership and church purity.
 
Notes:
 
305 Duke K. McCall, Editor, What Is the Church? (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), p. VI.
306 William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969), p. 386308
307 Joe T. Odle, Why I Am a Baptist (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), pp. 100-104.
308 Ibid., p. 104.
309 Lumpkin, Confessions, pp. 395-396.
310 Samuel. S. Hill, Jr.. Southern Churches in Crises (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), p. 73.
311 McCall, What Is the Church?, p. 2.
312 Ibid., pp. 6 and 12.
313 Wendell H. Rone, Sr., Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah, KY: Paducah Printing Company, 1959,), p. 49
314 In the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume II, p. 1214, it is clear the term "soul competency" is used interchangeably with the phrase "priesthood of the believer," as the former phrase has no discussion under it, but rather refers one to the latter for discussion and definition.