From "Funnymentalist" to friend: the evolving relationship of Ben M. Bogard and J. Frank Norris.

Some Baptist scholars have argued that the conservative leaders of today's Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) represent a resurgence of Landmarkism within the convention. (1)

These scholars point to the Landmark Baptist demands of doctrinal conformity, resulting in attacks on seminary and mission board leaders, as a precursor to the late-twentieth-century fight for power in the SBC. Missing from this discussion of the link between Landmarkism and today's conservative SBC leaders is an evaluation of the relationship of Landmark Baptists to the first wave of southern fundamentalism. An interesting piece of this earlier story is the evolution in the relationship between Ben M. Bogard (1868-1951), Arkansas Baptist pastor and the foremost leader of Landmark Baptists in the early twentieth century, and J. Frank Norris (1877-1952), Texas Baptist pastor and charismatic leader of early-twentieth-century fundamentalists. (2) In the 1920s and early 1930s while Norris largely ignored the Landmark movement, Bogard mercilessly attacked Norris and other fundamentalists. As Bogard discovered the depth of their similarities, however, he and Norris developed a friendship that allowed them to unite in their attacks on the convention system, especially the SBC.

What initially separated Bogard and Norris were their differing reasons for rejecting the SBC as an unscriptural institution. Norris attacked the convention's supposed modernism and claimed that only new leadership, namely himself, could restore the convention to scriptural ground. In contrast, Bogard argued that the convention could never stand on scriptural ground because the convention system of church polity threatened to destroy the independence of local congregations by centralizing ecclesiastical power. Eventually, in spite of their differences, these two men united in the anti-convention cause.

J. Frank Norris

Norris biographer Barry Hankins credits Norris with bringing "fundamentalism to the South," and with giving "a unique southern accent to a movement that was largely northern." (3) In 1909, Norris became pastor of First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas, a position he occupied for the next forty-three years. (4) His rise to fame began in the early 1920s as he fought Texas Baptists and the SBC over the Seventy-Five Million Campaign, a fundraising effort he viewed as "an attempt by the leadership [of the convention] to usurp the prerogative of local congregations." (5) During this same period, Norris battled Baylor University with charges that a professor was teaching evolution at this bastion of Baptist education. In response to his continued attacks, the Baptist General Convention of Texas censured him in 1922, refused to seat delegates from his church in 1923, and expelled Norris and the congregation in 1924. While his contentious nature made Norris unpopular with denominational leadership, his charismatic and sensationalistic style contributed to his popularity in the fundamentalist movement.

Throughout the 1920s, Norris opposed the convention on two grounds: its failure to respect local-church independence and its affirmation of modernism. (6) Norris formed the Premillennial Fundamental Missionary Fellowship, an organization of fundamentalist churches, in 1931 to compete with the SBC, and he moved away from extended discussions of local-church independence. (7) Thus, his appeals to Baptist polity appear to have been merely a means to an end. For Norris, anti-modernism trumped all other considerations, and while he sometimes appealed to Baptist polity, particularly the independence of local congregations, he did so only when it fit into his larger purpose of purging the convention of modernistic leaders. (8)

Ben M. Bogard

As a pastor, newspaper editor, and defender of Landmark Baptist beliefs, Bogard led a movement to separate from the SBC. In 1902, following two years of failing to convince the Arkansas Baptist State Convention to adopt his ideas, he led a group of Landmark Baptists to organize the General Association of Arkansas Baptist Churches, marking the end of unity among Arkansas Baptists. (9) After this separation from the state convention, Bogard began to call for Landmark Baptists to cooperate on a national level, leading to the formation of the United States National General Association of Landmark Baptists in 1905. This national Landmark Baptist association formed after the SBC refused to amend its bylaws and constitution to meet the demands by Landmark Baptists to decentralize the mission enterprise of the convention. The creation of the General Association of the United States marked one of Bogard's greatest contributions to the Landmark Baptist cause. In this new association, Landmark Baptists could cooperate in supporting missions and other endeavors, while remaining dedicated to the independence of local congregations. The group changed its name to the American Baptist Association (ABA) in 1924 after uniting with the Baptist Missionary Association. (10)

Bogard's attacks on the SBC focused primarily on his belief that the convention threatened the independence of local congregations. According to Bogard, God intended for local, independent Baptist congregations to send and support missionaries, and Baptist conventions violated this principle. (11) Bogard rallied his followers by contending that it was the duty of all "orthodox Baptists" to work for the destruction of this unscriptural institution. This Landmark Baptist assault on the convention system was ecclesiological in its essence. The foundational belief of Landmark Baptists was the total and complete independence of local congregations, (12) and any institution that claimed any portion of the authority God gave to the churches must be destroyed.

"Funnymentalism"

Beginning in the mid-1920s, Bogard published numerous articles in the pages of the Baptist and Commoner to expose the danger fundamentalist Baptists posed to the Landmark cause. In 1926, Bogard accused Norris, Minnesota fundamentalist pastor William Bell Riley, and other fundamentalist Baptist leaders of being late supporters of the anti-convention cause. (13) While Bogard commended the fundamentalist Baptists for their fight against modernism in the convention, he believed fundamentalist Baptists failed to uphold sound (Landmark) Baptist principles, (14) particularly the authority of the local congregation. Essentially, Bogard argued that the fundamentalist Baptists were too weak on the fundamentals of the faith to be considered true Baptists. Instead of adopting all the principles of the ABA, he sensed that fundamentalist Baptists were more concerned with gaining power than upholding scriptural truth.

In an attempt to denigrate the fundamentalist Baptist movement because of its refusal to adopt all of the Landmark Baptist beliefs, Bogard often called them "Funnymentalists." From his perspective, the root problem with these "Funnymentalists" was their unscriptural understanding of the church. He found it odd that fundamentalist Baptists, with all of their discussion about the inspiration and authority of the Bible, often violated the mandates of the Bible in their understanding of the church. These "Funnymentalists" failed to reject the universal, invisible church, leading them to ignore Landmark Baptist ecclesiology and instead to allow union meetings, pulpit affiliation, and alien immersion. (15) In spite of their claim to hold to the fundamentals of the faith, these "Funnymentalists" rejected the very definition of the church that lay at the foundation of Landmarkism.

Bogard had especially strong words for Norris. As the leader of the fundamentalist Baptist movement in the region, Norris possessed great influence over many Landmark Baptists because of his popularity and his anti-convention polemic. This influence concerned Bogard, who vowed to shine a light on Norris's heretical beliefs in order to protect the one true Baptist faith. Whenever he had the opportunity, Bogard reported on fundamentalists who endorsed ideas diametrically opposed to Landmark Baptist ecclesiology, using guilt by association to link the offending party to Norris. (16)

While Bogard was defending what he believed was the one true faith, Norris's definition of the fundamentals of the faith allowed him to cooperate with ministers from other denominations. According to Bogard, his movement was truly a Baptist movement; Norris's movement, on the other hand, was much larger than the Baptist community. Bogard grew increasingly jealous over Norris's popularity and power, which had led many to abandon the Landmark Baptist movement in favor of Norris's fundamentalism. Rather than sit idly by while his followers flocked to another leader, Bogard insisted on attacking the fundamentalist leader for being too soft on the true Baptist fundamentals, insisting that "there are some fundamentals on church organization and polity as well as the ones insisted on by these so-called fundamentalists." (17)

Landmark Baptist Fundamentals

To help clear up the confusion about which group truly held to all of the fundamentals of the faith, Bogard led the ABA to adopt a "Pronouncement on Fundamentals" at their 1932 annual meeting in Memphis. This statement agreed with the fundamentalist movement by affirming the verbal inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, and the second coming of Christ, and by rejecting evolution. The ABA statement went further, though, in holding that Landmark views of the church were also fundamental to the faith. The ABA accepted only baptisms performed by Baptist churches, repudiated pulpit affiliation, rejected the Holiness and Pentecostal understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, denounced worship services held with other denominations, and affirmed the necessity of inter-church cooperation in mission work. (18)

With the publication of this pronouncement, Bogard challenged his readers, "If a church and preacher can not endorse the following statement of fundamentals it is because they are NOT FUNDAMENTALISTS and have become FUNNYmentalists." (19) For Bogard, fundamentalism included not only traditional fundamentalist beliefs, but also Landmark Baptist ecclesiology. To reject these ecclesiological "fundamentals" was as egregious a sin as rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus.

Bogard believed that fundamentalist Baptists were correct in their attacks on modernism in Baptist conventions, but unless fundamentalist Baptists adopted the true biblical (and Baptist) teachings on ecclesiology, including a refutation of the convention system as unscriptural, Bogard saw no need to cooperate with fundamentalist Baptists. (20) This strong stance toward fundamentalist Baptists, and especially Norris, raised Bogard's stature among Landmark Baptists. In presenting Landmark Baptists as the true fundamentalists, Bogard sought to prove that Landmark Baptists, not fundamentalist Baptists, were the true believers in the fundamentals of the faith.

Emerging Friendship

With the vehemence with which Bogard attacked Norris and other fundamentalist Baptists, it is surprising that eventually Bogard and Norris became friends and each helped shape the other's ministry. While records do not indicate what particular event precipitated this newfound affection between them, Bogard's tone towards Norris took a drastic shift beginning in 1935. On January 31 of that year, Norris spoke before the Baptist Bible School at Bogard's invitation. (21) When asked why he invited Norris, his former enemy, to speak at the Bible School, Bogard replied that he still disagreed with Norris on some issues but realized how much Norris could help the Landmark Baptist movement in combating conventionism. In spite of Norris's flawed ecclesiology, Bogard commended Norris as "a most powerful preacher of salvation by grace" who was "simply ruining the machine Baptists" and leading people "out of conventionism in droves because of his influence." (22) With this new respect for Norris, Bogard vowed, "I intend to work along with him on the things about which we agree and we agree in NINETY-NINE percent of what we are doing. I wish I could correct the ONE PERCENT. But that shall not divide us." (23) For his part, Norris began to utilize some Landmark Baptist rhetoric in his own preaching against the convention system. In 1935, Norris cited Baptist successionism in reference to the innovation of the convention system, referred to the convention as a dictatorship, and declared that "orthodox Baptists" should not support the unscriptural convention. (24)

After their initial cooperation, Norris and Bogard began to collaborate more frequently. The 1935 ABA meeting was scheduled to meet in Dallas, but when Norris offered the use and hospitality of his church in Fort Worth, the ABA accepted. Bogard promoted the meeting as an opportunity for Landmark Baptists to show fundamentalist Baptists how a true Baptist association conducted its business and also as a meeting with potential to heal the division between the two groups. (25) In spite of his efforts to publicize the 1935 ABA meeting, attendance was lower than Bogard had hoped. Still, in his estimation, the meeting proved a great success. During the meeting, Norris delivered a lecture on Baptist doctrine and practice that revealed he was a "real Baptist." (26) After this lecture, Bogard felt vindicated in his association with Norris and pledged to extend his cooperation with Norris in the future.

Bogard responded to criticism of his newfound affection for Norris by assuring his readers that he had not left Landmark Baptist principles behind. The relationship between Bogard and Norris had been mutually beneficial. According to Bogard, Norris had taught him to be a better evangelist, and Bogard had taught Norris to be a better Baptist. Bogard vowed that he would never violate his long-held Baptist beliefs, but that when he had opportunity, he would work with those of similar beliefs, helping lead them to the full truth of Baptist doctrine whenever possible. Bogard decided he could tolerate certain differences with other ministers as long as the differences were over "non-essentials." As long as "a brother stays with SALVATION BY GRACE and the church stays in AUTHORITY UNDER CHRIST in all the work, and the fundamental doctrines are preached," Bogard promised he could "give the hand of fellowship." (27) When Norris agreed to accept the independence of a local congregation, and thereby condemn the convention system as unscriptural, Bogard had no problem joining Norris in the attack on the Southern Baptist Convention, even if Norris would never agree to join Bogard in the ABA.

Doubts remain, however, as to the extent of Norris's "conversion" to Landmark Baptist principles. Even after the public friendship between Bogard and Norris began, Norris continued to attack the convention over the issue of modernity, not polity. When Norris listed "what Fundamental Baptist churches believe" in 1938, the list of core beliefs contained no references to church polity. (28) Apparently, Norris and the fundamentalist Baptists still were not meeting the ABA's standards for the fundamentals of the faith. Norris's "conversion" to Landmarkism seemingly was not as complete as Bogard claimed. Both men likely saw the opportunity to unite in opposition to the convention and were able to work together despite their differences. They were similar enough to cooperate, but Norris never fully adopted Landmark Baptist polity and thereby rejected the central tenet of Landmarkism.

Conclusion

Bogard's evolving relationship with Norris represents a larger struggle in Bogard's ministry. While he believed that his understanding of ecclesiology was the only scriptural model, he also realized that anyone willing to attack the convention system as evil was indeed an ally. Although many in the Landmark Baptist movement remained skeptical of Norris, Bogard realized that his growing friendship with Norris could be mutually beneficial. Norris was a highly successful evangelistic preacher, and Bogard was more than willing to improve his own preaching style by learning from Norris. In return, Bogard believed he helped provide Norris with an ecclesiological defense against the convention system.

Although Bogard was apparently convinced that Norris was orthodox in his Baptist doctrine, Norris never quite went as far as Bogard in his belief in congregational independence. Later in his career, as several churches threatened to leave his denomination, Norris argued that "no 'church' can call itself a 'church' unless it has a worldwide fellowship, or has a definite missionary program." Churches that withdrew from such a fellowship were "twentieth century small editions of the Ishmaelites." (29) Once Norris became the leader of his own fellowship of churches, appeals to local-church independence disappeared almost completely from his rhetoric. In spite of these differences, though, Bogard and Norris continued to cooperate for the rest of their lives in an attempt to destroy the convention system.

(1.) Morris Ashcraft, preface to James E. Tull, High Church Baptists in the South: The Origin, Nature, and Influence of Landmarkism (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000), ix-xii; H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 631-32.

(2.) For more biographical information on Bogard, see J. Kristian Pratt, "A Landmark Baptist's Ecclesiology: Ben M. Bogard and Local Church Protectionism" (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2005), 73-152; for more biographical information on Norris, see Barry Hankins, God's Rascal: J. Frank Norris & the Beginnings of Southern Fundamentalism (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996).

(3.) Hankins, God's Rascal, 19.

(4.) From 1934-1950, Norris also served as pastor of Temple Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan.

(5.) Hankins, God's Rascal, 27.

(6.) C. Allyn Russell, "J. Frank Norris: Violent Fundamentalist," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 75 (Jan. 1972): 290-91.

(7.) Hankins, God's Rascal, 42.

(8.) Ibid., 43.

(9.) E. Glenn Hinson, A History of Baptists in Arkansas, 1818-1978 (Little Rock: Arkansas Baptist State Convention, 1979), 244-45.

(10.) For a full history of the ABA, see Robert Ashcraft, ed., History of the American Baptist Association: Commemorating the Seventy-Fifth Meeting June 2-22, 2000 (Texarkana, TX: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 2000).

(11.) Ben M. Bogard, "What is Landmarkism?" Orthodox Baptist Searchlight, January 10, 1938.

(12.) Scholars who support this claim include: William Wright Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954), 103-13; William H. Brackney, A Genetic History of Baptist Thought: With Special Reference to Baptists in Britain and North America, Baptists: History, Literature, Theology, Hymns, ed. Walter B. Shurden (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2004), 241-44; McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 450-53; James E. Tull, A Study of Southern Baptist Landmarkism in the Light of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology (New York: Arno Press, 1980).

(13.) Ben M. Bogard, "Frank Norris, Geo. Ragland and W. B. Riley: Twenty-Five Years Behind and Yet Think They Lead," Baptist and Commoner, June 2, 1926.

(14.) Barry Hankins has also noted the tension between some of Norris's fundamentalist beliefs and historic Baptist principles. Barry Hankins, "The Strange Career of J. Frank Norris: or, Can a Baptist Democrat be a Fundamentalist Republican?" Church History 61 (September 1992): 373-92.

(15.) Ben M. Bogard, "Fundamentalist's Conception of the Church," Baptist and Commoner, June 2, 1926.

(16.) For examples of Bogard's reporting on these issues, see Ben M. Bogard, "Modern Fundamentalism," Baptist and Commoner, February 24, 1932; Ben M. Bogard, "Funny Fundamentalists," Baptist and Commoner, March 2, 1932; Ben M. Bogard, "Heretical Fundamentalism," Baptist and Commoner, June 24, 1932.

(17.) Ben M. Bogard, "Heretical Fundamentalists," Baptist and Commoner, August 6, 1930.

(18.) Quoted in Ben M. Bogard, "Does This Fundamentalism Suit You?" Baptist and Commoner, March 30, 1932.

(19.) Ibid.

(20.) Norris also denounced "the unscriptural demands of the denominational Hamans." In contrast to Bogard's emphasis on convention polity, however, Norris accused the convention of supporting the teaching of evolution in Baptist colleges, believing in the heresy of postmillennialism, and for promoting the Seventy-Five Million Campaign. J. Frank Norris, Inside History of First Baptist Church, Fort Worth, and Temple Baptist Church, Detroit: Life Story of J. Frank Norris (NY: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1988), 112.

(21.) Bogard founded the Baptist Bible School in 1934 with the help of J. Louis Guthrie and Conrad N. Glover. In keeping with Landmark Baptist ecclesiology, Antioch Missionary Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas officially organized the Baptist Bible School. Today, the school continues to operate as the Missionary Baptist Seminary. For a full history of the institution, see Robert Ashcraft, The History of the Missionary Baptist Seminary (Little Rock, AR: n.p., 1994).

(22.) Ben M. Bogard, "Dr. Frank Norris Visits Little Rock," Baptist and Commoner, February 5, 1935.

(23.) Ibid.

(24.) Norris, Inside History, 224, 229, 230.

(25.) Bogard, "Don't Give Bogard Credit for the Good Move," Baptist and Commoner, March 6, 1935.

(26.) Ben M. Bogard, "Messengers of the Churches, The Glow of Christ, Met in Fort Worth, Texas," Baptist and Commoner, March 20, 1935.

(27.) Ben M. Bogard, "We Should Be Tolerant With Those Who Err," Baptist and Commoner, April 24, 1935.

(28.) Norris, Inside History, 322-23.

(29.) J. Frank Norris, "When a Church Is Not a Church," Fundamentalist, 15 June 1945; quoted in Hankins, God's Rascal, 42.

J. Kristian Pratt is assistant professor of religion at Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, Florida.