My basis for the label rightly applying to Burleson and Carroll is because they both held Landmark ecclesiology. For example, I wrote:
Carroll was not a “Landmark” come-out-er, but he was a “Landmark” stay-in-er. He held all the tenets of classic Landmarkism – Baptist church perpetuity, rejection of alien immersion, and so on.
Part of the problem in these discussions may revolve around how a writer uses the terminology (though perhaps sometimes the writer simply wants to rescue a hero from an ecclesiological belief with which the writer disagrees). Sometimes there is confusion over the use of terminology. Certain Southern Baptists revile both the term and the belief that it represents, and apply it only to those who left the convention. (This does not really work, because there a churches and preachers currently in the SBC who hold Landmarkism or Landmark ecclesiology.)
Studying the life and works of A. Nunnery provides an excellent case study of the confusion of terminology. The Oklahoma Baptist Historical Society, in selecting Nunnery as a sort of “dishonorable” member of their Hall of Fame, identified Nunnery as a Landmark Baptist.
“Alonzo Nunnery...was an early day Oklahoma pastor and the owner and editor of a statewide newspaper The Baptist Worker. He was a leader among the Landmark Baptists...” [“Oklahoma Baptist Historical Society, Annual Meeting - October 8, 2016, Minutes,” The Oklahoma Baptist Chronicle (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Eli H. Sheldon, Editor), Autumn 2016, Volume LIX, Number 2, p. 29.]
“From the beginning of his paper, Nunnery was harsh on the new state convention and its directors and other officials. Nunnery was a devoted proponent of Landmark theology.” [“Alonzo Nunnery (1861-1939),” a 2016 Hall of fame Monograph; article by Luke Holmes from The Oklahoma Baptist Chronicle (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Eli H. Sheldon, Editor), Autumn 2016, Volume LIX, Number 2, p. 20.]
While I disagree with some of the aspersions cast toward Alonzo Nunnery, I agree that they correctly identify him as a Landmark Baptist when that terminology is considered as referring to a certain Baptist belief about the nature of the church. However, when A. Nunnery used the term “Landmark” or “Landmarker” he always meant “the others” and never himself. To him it represented those who opposed Conventionism, not those who held a certain ecclesiology with which he in fact agreed.
Nunnery held Landmark ecclesiology. He opposed a number of goings-on in the Baptist General Convention in Oklahoma. He seems to have never doubted the propriety of having a Baptist convention, if it operated correctly. In fact, when he and others split from the BGCO in 1920, they also called their body a convention. Nunnery debated at least four Baptists that he personally identified as Landmarkers: H. M. Cagle in 1911; C. A. Smith and G. W. Crawford in 1916; and Ben M. Bogard in 1917. He affirmed that mission work through Conventions, by means of Boards, was scriptural.
If someone asked Alonzo Nunnery if he were a “Landmarker,” he would have answered, “No.” Despite that answer, Nunnery held a view of the church that is identified as Landmark ecclesiology, and he held it plainly, forcefully, and without equivocation.
No comments:
Post a Comment