Men use the terms “Trail of Blood” and “Landmarkism” as a kind of mockery, almost never with evidence. They use them in the same manner as calling someone a “Flat Earther.” If I said I was “Trail of Blood” and “Landmark,” what would I mean? Should I embrace those terms in light of potential derision?
Trail of Blood
“Trail of Blood” refers to a booklet written by James Milton Carroll in 1931. Carroll did not originate the words “trail of blood” as referring to the persecution of churches. Others before used “trail of blood” to describe the ongoing record of atrocities of Roman Catholicism through the centuries in its opposition to the truth. I like the metaphor of Carroll, which is saying that you can detect true churches in the historical record through findings of state church persecution.
Carroll would say that the trail of blood started with the Lord Jesus Christ and that suffering marks the trajectory of true churches. I use this exact language all the time, “There have always been true churches separate from the state church.” I also ask this question, “Do you believe the truth was preserved in and through Roman Catholicism?” Men find it difficult to answer “yes” to that question. If they answer, “No,” then they essentially take a Trail of Blood position. I say, “Well, then we take the same position, don’t we?”
Whitsitt Controversy and English Separatism
Opposition to the Trail of Blood started with a liberal president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William Whitsitt (read here, here, here, and here). The work of Whitsitt is less famous than Carroll’s Trail of Blood, but if someone does not accept the Trail of Blood, his other option is called, “English Separatism.” Can we mock someone as “English Separatist”? The Trail of Blood position predates the English Separatist one. If someone rejects Trail of Blood, he is left with the Roman Catholic position on church perpetuity or succession. He denies the promise of Jesus, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Whitsitt took from his European training a modernistic view of truth. He wrote and said that if it does not have primary source historical evidence, it isn’t true. From this, Whitsitt said that the earliest Baptist churches trace from 1610 in England.
A split occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over Whitsitt. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under the presidency of B. H. Carroll started in a major way because of the Whitsitt controversy. Most Southern Baptists then distinguished themselves from Protestants. Carroll’s brother wrote Trail of Blood.
The Application of Modernistic Historicism
Did you know a historical gap exists between the completion of the New Testament and the doctrine of justification? With that historical position, justification did not exist until after the Protestant Reformation. No primary source evidence exists for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. I’ve been to Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank area, and the best historical evidence outside of scripture for Jesus’ birth is secondary and vague. It starts around 325 with Constantine’s mother Helena visiting there.
The mockery designated for Trail of Blood reminds me of the mockery by scientists of a God Hypothesis and intelligent design. Trail of Blood is true, but it is institutionally inconvenient. Intelligent design or a God Hypothesis puts people out of business. Trail of Blood is a strict ecclesiological position that undermines free-floating free agents, who function outside of church authority, like for instance, Alpha and Omega ministries. “Ministries” function outside of a church, not something we read in the Bible, and cross denominational lines on a regular basis.
Landmarkism
The attack on Landmarkism dovetails with the one on Trail of Blood. Landmarkism did not originate local-only ecclesiology. The Landmark movement began in the Southern Baptist Convention because of an ecumenical drift in the Convention. Modernism began affecting the Convention. Compromise grew. Baptist churches began allowing Presbyterians in their pulpit and accepted their “baptism” for transfer of church membership. The Landmarkers stood against this.
The Landmarkers believed local-only ecclesiology like most of the Southern Baptists in the middle 19th century, but they stressed and influenced a stronger practice. They rejected what they called, “alien immersion,” baptism without proper authority. They were saying, “Don’t accept Presbyterian baptism,” or any other Protestant baptism. The Protestants arose from Roman Catholicism with a continuation of state church doctrine. Baptist churches should reject their baptism, Landmarkers claimed, practiced, and encouraged all Baptists to join that.
Many today define Landmarkism with a giant falsehood. They say Landmarkism is chain-link succession of Baptist churches. Furthermore, they say that Landmarkism requires proof of a chain-link succession of Baptist churches all the way to the Jerusalem church. That is not what Landmarkism is.
In a more simple way, you should understand Landmarksim as, first, since Christ, true New Testament churches always existed separate from the state church. Second, churches start churches. Third, baptism requires a proper administrator. Authority is a matter of faith, but scripture recognizes the importance of it. It does not proceed from Roman Catholicism, so it also does not come from Protestantism.
Authority isn’t arbitrary. It is real and it is somewhere. We should not eliminate it. This arises from the rebellion of men’s hearts. Men don’t want authority, especially church authority. I see this as the primary cause of the controversy over Landmarkism and the Trail of Blood.
Brother Brandenburg, I have been greatly helped by your writing ministry in more ways than you know. I have learned a lot that has already helped me in preaching and study. The reason I’m leasing with that is I don’t want to come off as trying to spam or use this to have my own blog, but I have something I have found in my studies that I think is important on this topic. I know you don’t write so people can come on here and teach you new things, but this is something important to me that I believe is worth sharing.
I know about 10-12 pastors personally who hold the view but there are more that I don’t know as well. I think it actually supports the view that Christ alone is head of the church (local only). I’m interested to hear if you’ve heard of it before. Like the Landmark position, there are some who take this too far, but I take this position based on the Bible.
The position is that churches should not be 501c3 corporations or register 508 for government tax write-offs.. The reason is that becoming a 501c3 for tax benefits and other reasons makes the church, which is a spiritual entity, into a legal entity and therefore a creature of the state. The Supreme Court has actually determined that corporations are “creatures of the state” and under the authority of the state. When a church registers as a corporation, it places at least a portion of itself under the authority of the state, whether it likes it or not. There are things the state requires of 501c3 churches that Christ did not command churches to do. Therefore, churches that incorporate submit themselves to another head than Christ at least in one area.
If you’ve never heard of this position or only from quacks. I’d like to offer it from a non-quack, God loving, government honoring, Bible believing position. If you’ve looked into it already, I would like to hear why you do or don’t think churches should incorporate. My experience is that Baptists have just been under the assumption that you have to incorporate and haven’t thought much about the ramifications.
Hello Bro Thompson,
I haven’t thought a whole lot about the 501c3 issue, but enough that I have a temporary position about it. The church where I am is not a 501c3, but for me not by conviction. It doesn’t need to be. I don’t think it’s required. It can have an affect on doing business as a church to a certain degree, I’ve noticed. I see it as a liberty issue whether a church does that or not.
I think there is evidence in scripture to justify 501c3. Here’s a few of my off-the-top-of-my-head justifications, not necessarily in this order. One, Nehemiah went to Cyrus to get permission to do the work in Jerusalem. Two, the Apostle Paul depended upon his Roman citizenship to continue ministering. Three, Jesus said, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Four, Romans 13 says that all authority is of God and we are to submit to all authority. It seems, someone would have to say, doing a 501c3 stops him from obedience to God, ala Acts 5:29. I don’t understand that.
This movement has been around to the degree that I’m guessing it has already heard my arguments and more. I get the ‘don’t-tread-on-me’ attitude. I smile when I see that flag.
It’s difficult to put all the information I’ve got in something like this. I’ve heard each of those responses except Nehemiah. I think Nehemiah’s situation was certainly different because he was a slave asking his master for permission which would make churches in a free country asking for 501c3 status sort of like apples and oranges. As far as “Render to Caesar” I’m sure we both agree the church is in no way Caesar’s realm being that it is a spiritual body with Christ as head. Therefore, asking the state for permission to exist would actually be taking what is Christ’s and offering at least part (the legal entity created in a corporation) to the state. Again with Paul, I think you would agree that personal use of nationality is certainly different than a church asking the government to treat them as a charitable organization for the purpose of tax write-offs and the ability to do business (which is not something commanded in the Scripture for churches to do; therefore, any business a church does would have to be done in full submission to Christ. If not being able to do certain business is the price of keeping Christ as the head, a church would have to forgo the business in obedience and faith.)
You said that as long as incorporating doesn’t cause them to disobey God it is a liberty method. Would submitting Christ’s church to the state not count as disobedience? Also, a corporation must provide a president, secretary, and treasurer. It must have employees (typically at least the pastor). Does a church have a president? Is the pastor employed by the church or is he the servant of God who rules over the church?
Some might say those little things aren’t important, but I know you believe that following the Bible only is vital to keeping churches pure and right. I think incorporating has many little consequences that we don’t know or think about, but if considered carefully according to the Bible, the authority of Christ and His Word are sacrificed on the altar of doing what is convenient when a church chooses to incorporate. Just like everything else churches do without thinking about it like big Sundays, pragmatism, changing standards. There are consequences to actions and when considered in light of the Bible, I think incorporating is ultimately something that dishonors Christ as the head of the church.
As I’ve said before. I’m not here just to argue. I believe there is merit to the arguments against incorporation so I put it out to get people thinking. I’m very certain I have many things which need to be corrected in my life and thinking (which your blog has done multiple times already). If I can help people know the truth I want to try, but I’m not here to get on a soap box.
Thank you for allowing discussion of things like this.
I have in my desk right now a letter from the state of Michigan about our 501c3 paperwork (I pastor a 501c3 church but we are seeking to get out of it and that’s not easy to do). The state did not accept our paperwork because we failed to “reflect on the general nature and kind of business in which the corporation engaged in” and because we failed to “include the required names and addresses for the officers (president, secretary, and treasurer {no deacons necessary here}) and the board of directors (of which there must be three).
I wonder where in the Bible I might go to determine how to answer Governor Whitmer’s request for this information. If we do not fill out the paperwork, we risk losing our “church” (building and assets). We also are required to pay the government to complete the filing. I don’t remember seeing the churches paying their government to exist in the Bible. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but I think it is worth considering.