History of baptists...to which theory do you subscribe?

[ALAYMAN]

Where do you believe Baptists come from?
A) English Separatism--17th century English Separatism
B)Anabaptist Origins-- Anabaptist movement from the 16th century
C)Spiritual-Kinship--always existed, with some oddball cousins linked by belief in regenerate membership and immersion of confessing believers
D)Unbroken Succession-- unbroken chain of true Baptist churches since the time of the apostles
E) Other...explain

 

[illinoisguy]

I'll take Door Number C, Spiritual Kinship.

Advocates of D (Link Chain Succession) like to cite a chain of churches from the time of John the Baptist up to a church in Dyersburg, Tennessee (or maybe Dyer, Tennessee - a different town - they are not sure what town that church was in). I have examined that chain of title - some of the books cited do not appear to exist. Some of the rare church history books that are cited do indeed exist and I have them in my library, but when I look up the pages cited, they do not contain the alleged documentation for that chain of title. In other words, that claim for link-chain Baptist succession is totally phony, but it is the only one ever cited by proponents of "unbroken succession." That bogus chain of title has been examined and refuted in the excellent book "Landmarkism Under Fire."

"Landmarkism Under Fire Revised Edition 2018" (ntbaptist-lizton.org)

 

[tmjbog]

Where do you believe Baptists come from?
A) English Separatism--17th century English Separatism
B)Anabaptist Origins-- Anabaptist movement from the 16th century
C)Spiritual-Kinship--always existed, with some oddball cousins linked by belief in regenerate membership and immersion of confessing believers
D)Unbroken Succession-- unbroken chain of true Baptist churches since the time of the apostles
E) Other...explain

Probably some A, some B, and some C.

 

[voicecrying]

E. Real Baptists started with Jack Hyles, duh!

I read Trail of Blood and a few other similar books over 20 years ago, and they seemed to make quite a few stretches, so I think D is out IMO. I'm probably in the C camp now.

 

[AverageJoe]

Camp C would be the closest to the truth. There have been those who have been known by different names but held to the distinctives that are now found in Baptists.

 

[illinoisguy]

"Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll lists a lot of religious groups over the centuries, implying that many of them were Baptists, but without providing specific documentation regarding the Baptistic convictions of the religious sects that are mentioned. "Trail of Blood" is of very minimal value in documenting the existence of Baptistic churches over the past 20 centuries. I would agree that "Trail of Blood" "seemed to make quite a few stretches" and claimed almost all non-Catholic groups in the Dark Ages as Baptists, without presenting any evidence of that. Some of these Baptist histories claim the Paulicians, who were anti-Trinitarian, as Baptists. In my opinion, "History of the Baptists" by Thomas Armitage is more scholarly and of value in documenting Baptist principles over the ages.

 

[AverageJoe]

"Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll lists a lot of religious groups over the centuries, implying that many of them were Baptists, but without providing specific documentation regarding the Baptistic convictions of the religious sects that are mentioned. "Trail of Blood" is of very minimal value in documenting the existence of Baptistic churches over the past 20 centuries. I would agree that "Trail of Blood" "seemed to make quite a few stretches" and claimed almost all non-Catholic groups in the Dark Ages as Baptists, without presenting any evidence of that. Some of these Baptist histories claim the Paulicians, who were anti-Trinitarian, as Baptists. In my opinion, "History of the Baptists" by Thomas Armitage is more scholarly and of value in documenting Baptist principles over the ages.

I've not read all they way through Armitage's writings on this...probably should. I had a History of the Baptists by GW Dollar, and then another history by another person connected with the Landmarkers sect of Baptists. I haven't been able to read through it fully a second time..the last time was nearly 30 years ago.

 

[Ransom]

A, with a smattering of B.

Thomas Helwys and John Smyth were English Separatists: members of a movement that saw the established Church of England as unreformable. Living in exile in Holland, they formed a congregation that is generally recognized as the mother church of English General Baptists.

They were influenced by continental Anabaptist doctrine, as seen, for example, by Smyth's use of affusion (pouring) when he baptized himself (making him John the Se-Baptist, I guess) and any disciples that would join him. Smyth in fact wanted to merge with the Mennonites, but this led to a disagreement with Helwys that led to his expulsion. Meanwhile the Particular Baptists also had their origin in Puritanism, and some contact with the exiles in Holland. They are the ones who re-introduced immersion as the proper form of baptism (it had gone into disuse in English churches in favour of diffusion), and are the origin of the modern Baptist churches, as the General Baptists faded away after a few decades.

As far as the "kinship" view, or worse, Landmarkism, go, many of the groups they list in their succession of "true Baptists" might have a superficial resemblance to Baptist doctrine and practice, insofar as they might have shared one or two distinctive practices with the Baptists. But that isn't enough to make them "Baptist." For example, while the Anabaptists were so-called because they were rebaptizers, they didn't necessarily care whether the subject of rebaptism was a new convert or an infant--the issue was with the Roman priest that baptized them. Most Anabaptists were Trinitarian, but some were Unitarian. And so forth.

As James McGoldrick writes,

although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers.

James Edward McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Association, 1994), 2.

The Baptist movement is an outgrowth of English Puritanism. Baptist successionists--or Landmarkers, Baptist Briders, whatever you want to call them--are peddling pseudohistory.

 

[ALAYMAN]

E. Real Baptists started with Jack Hyles, duh!

I read Trail of Blood and a few other similar books over 20 years ago, and they seemed to make quite a few stretches, so I think D is out IMO. I'm probably in the C camp now.

So you actually are going to try and deny the impeccability of the dots and time-stamped segmentation that THIS inerrant documentation represents!?!

illinoisguy--"Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll lists a lot of religious groups over the centuries, implying that many of them were Baptists, but without providing specific documentation regarding the Baptistic convictions of the religious sects that are mentioned. "Trail of Blood" is of very minimal value in documenting the existence of Baptistic churches over the past 20 centuries. I would agree that "Trail of Blood" "seemed to make quite a few stretches" and claimed almost all non-Catholic groups in the Dark Ages as Baptists, without presenting any evidence of that. Some of these Baptist histories claim the Paulicians, who were anti-Trinitarian, as Baptists. In my opinion, "History of the Baptists" by Thomas Armitage is more scholarly and of value in documenting Baptist principles over the ages.

I think that the most defensible position logically and theologically, based on available historical and Biblical evidence is that there is no biblical promise of an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches. As absolute as our baptist convictions of Sola Scriptura are we must come to the reasonable conclusion that there is no need to demand any form of Landmarkism.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'll take Door Number C, Spiritual Kinship.

Advocates of D (Link Chain Succession) like to cite a chain of churches from the time of John the Baptist up to a church in Dyersburg, Tennessee (or maybe Dyer, Tennessee - a different town - they are not sure what town that church was in). I have examined that chain of title - some of the books cited do not appear to exist. Some of the rare church history books that are cited do indeed exist and I have them in my library, but when I look up the pages cited, they do not contain the alleged documentation for that chain of title. In other words, that claim for link-chain Baptist succession is totally phony, but it is the only one ever cited by proponents of "unbroken succession." That bogus chain of title has been examined and refuted in the excellent book "Landmarkism Under Fire."

"Landmarkism Under Fire Revised Edition 2018" (ntbaptist-lizton.org)

Thanks for the documentation. I had not read that claim about the chain linking to America via the Dyersburg, Tennessee connection. To tell ya the truth, when I read that I was a little freaked out. The whole obsession to tracing exactly back to the first church seems a little weird to me. Don't get me wrong. The same pull that the Roman Catholic church exerts via "chain of custody" is seductive, and Baptists can be drawn in by the same mindset to try to point to history as a proof for authenticity of our species, but at the end of the day it really is a non-starter for anybody who lives by the faith found exclusively in the constraints of the word.
I went to their website and they offer their booklet on this subject for merely the fee of postage. Considering requesting that for my library. Thanks again for the interesting resource.

 

[illinoisguy]

The chart that Alayman references in post #9, that comes from the "Trail of Blood" booklet, lists a lot of medieval groups but there is no documentation to show that they were Baptistic. The Montanists believed in new revelations after the completion of the New Testament, they had women preachers, they were similar to modern charismatics. Novatian, founder of the sect of that name, was "baptized" by pouring because he was sick at the time - not a very good role model for Baptists. The main issue between the Donatists and the Roman Catholics was that Donatists rejected the validity of sacraments performed by unworthy clergy, while Roman Catholics insisted that such sacraments were valid. (Today, most IFBs would side with the Roman Catholics on that particular issue - very few if any IFBs would reject baptisms performed in the churches of Jack or Dave Hyles based on the moral turpitude of those pastors).

The famous Baptist historian Robert Robinson, in his book "Ecclesiastical Researches," published in 1792, states that many of the "Baptist" groups that are now claimed in our Baptist chain of title were Anti-Trinitarian. Robinson, who was Anti-Trinitarian himself, thought that was a good thing. (If his name rings a bell, he was the author of the hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing)."

I accept the Waldenses as Baptistic, probably the Henricians and Petrobrussians also. The Albigenses may have been identical with the Cathari, who were totally heretical Manichaeans. "Anabaptists" was a catch-all term used to describe any groups that rebaptized converts for any reason, by any mode - groups that were branded as Anabaptists by their enemies may or may not have been Baptistic - nowadays the Jehovah's Witnesses and Morons, who rebaptize, would be classified as Anabaptists, but that does not make them Baptists. Nor does baptism by immersion prove that any group is thoroughly Baptistic - up through the 16th Century, many Catholic and Anglican baptisms, and all Greek Orthodox baptisms, were performed by immersion, but that does not make those groups Baptist. Unfortunately, some Baptist histories make all sorts of claims of kinship for these medieval sects, for which no documentation is provided. I suppose we can call it "The Joy of Sects."

I hold to the principle that there have been Baptistic groups through the ages, but there is absolutely no documentation to demonstrate any sort of link-chain succession. Not even close to it. And even those groups that appear to have been Baptistic did not always believe or practice the same way as modern IFBs today. I, in common with Alayman, am "freaked out" by the claim of a chain link from John the Baptist to the present day. Milburn Cockrell of Berea Baptist Church in Mantachie, Mississippi, in his book "Scriptural Church Organization," reprinted the familiar Trail of Blood-style chain of title, but he inexplicably ends up at a church in Oakland, California with no mention of Tennessee. I don't recommend or endorse that book, but those who want to research the "D" position of "Unbroken Succession" can check it out in that book. The problem with those who hold that position is that they will say "If your church is not in that chain of links from the time of John the Baptist, then it is not a true church" and then they will try to take over your church and have the pastor re-ordained in their clique and all the members rebaptized. That is an extreme position that freaks me out too, but in my opinion most Landmarkers today do not hold to such an extreme notion. (Note - if you ask the churches that hold to "Link Chain Succession" to document their own place in the chain of title back through the Middle Ages, they will tell you "We don't have that information - the Catholics destroyed all the records)." In theory, if no link-chain can be documented, then there can be no true churches today - that was the position of Roger Williams, who planted a Baptist church in Rhode Island in 1639 and then abandoned it after a few months, saying that there were no true churches on earth with the authority to serve as a "mother church."

 

[ALAYMAN]

The chart that Alayman references in post #9, that comes from the "Trail of Blood" booklet, lists a lot of medieval groups but there is no documentation to show that they were Baptistic. The Montanists believed in new revelations after the completion of the New Testament, they had women preachers, they were similar to modern charismatics. Novatian, founder of the sect of that name, was "baptized" by pouring because he was sick at the time - not a very good role model for Baptists. The main issue between the Donatists and the Roman Catholics was that Donatists rejected the validity of sacraments performed by unworthy clergy, while Roman Catholics insisted that such sacraments were valid. (Today, most IFBs would side with the Roman Catholics on that particular issue - very few if any IFBs would reject baptisms performed in the churches of Jack or Dave Hyles based on the moral turpitude of those pastors).

The famous Baptist historian Robert Robinson, in his book "Ecclesiastical Researches," published in 1792, states that many of the "Baptist" groups that are now claimed in our Baptist chain of title were Anti-Trinitarian. Robinson, who was Anti-Trinitarian himself, thought that was a good thing. (If his name rings a bell, he was the author of the hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing)."

I accept the Waldenses as Baptistic, probably the Henricians and Petrobrussians also. The Albigenses may have been identical with the Cathari, who were totally heretical Manichaeans. "Anabaptists" was a catch-all term used to describe any groups that rebaptized converts for any reason, by any mode - groups that were branded as Anabaptists by their enemies may or may not have been Baptistic - nowadays the Jehovah's Witnesses and Morons, who rebaptize, would be classified as Anabaptists, but that does not make them Baptists. Nor does baptism by immersion prove that any group is thoroughly Baptistic - up through the 16th Century, many Catholic and Anglican baptisms, and all Greek Orthodox baptisms, were performed by immersion, but that does not make those groups Baptist. Unfortunately, some Baptist histories make all sorts of claims of kinship for these medieval sects, for which no documentation is provided. I suppose we can call it "The Joy of Sects."

I hold to the principle that there have been Baptistic groups through the ages, but there is absolutely no documentation to demonstrate any sort of link-chain succession. Not even close to it. And even those groups that appear to have been Baptistic did not always believe or practice the same way as modern IFBs today. I, in common with Alayman, am "freaked out" by the claim of a chain link from John the Baptist to the present day. Milburn Cockrell of Berea Baptist Church in Mantachie, Mississippi, in his book "Scriptural Church Organization," reprinted the familiar Trail of Blood-style chain of title, but he inexplicably ends up at a church in Oakland, California with no mention of Tennessee. I don't recommend or endorse that book, but those who want to research the "D" position of "Unbroken Succession" can check it out in that book. The problem with those who hold that position is that they will say "If your church is not in that chain of links from the time of John the Baptist, then it is not a true church" and then they will try to take over your church and have the pastor re-ordained in their clique and all the members rebaptized. That is an extreme position that freaks me out too, but in my opinion most Landmarkers today do not hold to such an extreme notion. (Note - if you ask the churches that hold to "Link Chain Succession" to document their own place in the chain of title back through the Middle Ages, they will tell you "We don't have that information - the Catholics destroyed all the records)." In theory, if no link-chain can be documented, then there can be no true churches today - that was the position of Roger Williams, who planted a Baptist church in Rhode Island in 1639 and then abandoned it after a few months, saying that there were no true churches on earth with the authority to serve as a "mother church."

Really nice post, reminds me a little of the FFF glory days...you may posthumously get a Pickle U Dawktorate! On a more serious note, along with your mention of how the "true church" mantra of option "D" will lead to the demand of re-ordination is that those who are not in the chain, but are "baptist", will be on the outside fringes at the wedding supper (at least operating from my ancient memory and long ago study of some Landmarkers). hmmm, I may have just thought of another different thought for a thread.

 

[ALAYMAN]

As James McGoldrick writes,
The Baptist movement is an outgrowth of English Puritanism. Baptist successionists--or Landmarkers, Baptist Briders, whatever you want to call them--are peddling pseudohistory.

I thought about putting that book on my Christmas list, looked it up, and figured you might by a kind moderator and bless me with it, eh?

 

[AverageJoe]

Really nice post, reminds me a little of the FFF glory days...you may posthumously get a Pickle U Dawktorate! On a more serious note, along with your mention of how the "true church" mantra of option "D" will lead to the demand of re-ordination is that those who are not in the chain, but are "baptist", will be on the outside fringes at the wedding supper (at least operating from my ancient memory and long ago study of some Landmarkers). hmmm, I may have just thought of another different thought for a thread.

Yep! I remember those "dawktorates!" I had on "Dr. BrotherTony, Imp.D....LOL Still have it around here somewhere! Doctor of Intuiting Martin Proclivities...LOL...Don't know if you remember Pastor Sam Martin from over near St. Louis...constantly complaining and accusing me of having trolls to harass him! What a nut!
Let me add...I used to be in the Landmark movement 30 years or so ago, and I found it a very untenable position. I finally had to leave it as they seemed to worship the "Trail of Blood" booklet and used it almost as much as they did the Bible. UGH!

 

[illinoisguy]

Yes, some Landmarkers who are also Baptist Briders would say that if you were not a lifelong faithful member, up to the time of your death, of a "true church" - that is to say, a church that is part of their clique - then you are still saved, but you will only be one of the guests at the wedding supper of the lamb, not actually partaking at the supper. They would say that you lose your seat at the wedding supper, if you leave their group or get thrown under the bus by them, but you would not lose your salvation. I am not seeing much mention of the Baptist Bride stuff in current Landmark publications any more, and my guess is that the vast majority of Landmark Baptists today do not hold to any form of the Baptist Bride position. There are many shades of opinion in the Landmark movement today. Not all Landmarkers are wild-eyed "lunatic fringe" crazies, by any means, but as a result the antics of extreme Landmarkers, people think all Landmarkers are like that, so they avoid them. Those who are extreme in their Landmark positions tend to go hog wild on other forms of extremism (KJV only, preacher rule, no women's slacks, etc. etc). I suppose it is a characteristic of some people's personality that they are inevitably going to push everything they believe to an absurd extremist limit.

Average Joe, I totally agree that it is unwise to over-emphasize the Trail of Blood book and to rely on it as an authority. But some good, well-meaning people have promoted it over the years - I used to promote it myself. (I'm not necessarily claiming to be a good person when I say that). The first copy I ever saw of the Trail of Blood was given to me at Calvary Baptist Church in Normal, Illinois, a great church that was not extreme Landmark.

 

[AverageJoe]

Yes, some Landmarkers who are also Baptist Briders would say that if you were not a lifelong faithful member, up to the time of your death, of a "true church" - that is to say, a church that is part of their clique - then you are still saved, but you will only be one of the guests at the wedding supper of the lamb, not actually partaking at the supper. They would say that you lose your seat at the wedding supper, if you leave their group or get thrown under the bus by them, but you would not lose your salvation. I am not seeing much mention of the Baptist Bride stuff in current Landmark publications any more, and my guess is that the vast majority of Landmark Baptists today do not hold to any form of the Baptist Bride position. There are many shades of opinion in the Landmark movement today. Not all Landmarkers are wild-eyed "lunatic fringe" crazies, by any means, but as a result the antics of extreme Landmarkers, people think all Landmarkers are like that, so they avoid them. Those who are extreme in their Landmark positions tend to go hog wild on other forms of extremism (KJV only, preacher rule, no women's slacks, etc. etc). I suppose it is a characteristic of some people's personality that they are inevitably going to push everything they believe to an absurd extremist limit.

Average Joe, I totally agree that it is unwise to over-emphasize the Trail of Blood book and to rely on it as an authority. But some good, well-meaning people have promoted it over the years - I use to promote it myself. (I'm not necessarily claiming to be a good person when I say that). The first copy I ever saw of the Trail of Blood was given to me at Calvary Baptist Church in Normal, Illinois, a great church that was not extreme Landmark.

Yep...I know Dr. Weniger used it. Arno never was one to shy away from history...but he even admitted that some of the history in the booklet was unreliable. I had a copy from the church I went to growing up...but I got this one when my wife and I were in the movement. I'm far from a Baptist Brider...that was something I couldn't and wouldn't support. It made our pastor ballistic! Oh well...that's life.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yep! I remember those "dawktorates!" I had on "Dr. BrotherTony, Imp.D....LOL Still have it around here somewhere! Doctor of Intuiting Martin Proclivities...LOL...Don't know if you remember Pastor Sam Martin from over near St. Louis...constantly complaining and accusing me of having trolls to harass him! What a nut!
Let me add...I used to be in the Landmark movement 30 years or so ago, and I found it a very untenable position. I finally had to leave it as they seemed to worship the "Trail of Blood" booklet and used it almost as much as they did the Bible. UGH!

I do remember that character, not a lot, but do recall his memory. There certainly never was a dull moment on the FFF in those days!

Speaking of Landmark(ism), I spent some time on vacation years ago in Flordida and when on vacation still scouted out a church to go to "of like faith". I was a little more diehard KJVo back then, and on that trip to Florida chose to go to Mickey Carter's Landmark Baptist Church. Never really had much to report from that visit, which I anticipated more excitedly than what I experienced, but it was ok. Unlike some other spots we went to on vacation. I could (and may) tell some stories about those vacation churches. Just one, for now. In your state we loved to go to the Smokies. On one occasion I didn't do enough advanced scouting to find a church that had enough "like-faith" qualities, so I winged it and picked a Baptist church on a whipsnitch. We got there right at the beginning of the service, settled in, and they were an "old fashioned" church in their format and songs, so I was pleased. Then the preachin' started. It was a decent message and all seemed ok, but after about 10 minutes he started into the "Tennessee windsucker" stuff, ending every sentence in a loud "and-uh". That is a real pet-peave of mine and I struggled to keep the family there through that entire fiasco. After about 15 minutes of that windsucking and getting worked into an absolute frenzy he started turnin' colors and didn't look good, got out of breath and slowed the roll. Sermon ended shortly after that and we was out of there, looking for a different Baptist church around Pigeon Forge when we next came down.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...Those who are extreme in their Landmark positions tend to go hog wild on other forms of extremism (KJV only, preacher rule, no women's slacks, etc. etc). I suppose it is a characteristic of some people's personality that they are inevitably going to push everything they believe to an absurd extremist limit.

I believe an EXTREMELY astute observation is made in that sentence.

 

[AverageJoe]

I do remember that character, not a lot, but do recall his memory. There certainly never was a dull moment on the FFF in those days!

Speaking of Landmark(ism), I spent some time on vacation years ago in Flordida and when on vacation still scouted out a church to go to "of like faith". I was a little more diehard KJVo back then, and on that trip to Florida chose to go to Mickey Carter's Landmark Baptist Church. Never really had much to report from that visit, which I anticipated more excitedly than what I experienced, but it was ok. Unlike some other spots we went to on vacation. I could (and may) tell some stories about those vacation churches. Just one, for now. In your state we loved to go to the Smokies. On one occasion I didn't do enough advanced scouting to find a church that had enough "like-faith" qualities, so I winged it and picked a Baptist church on a whipsnitch. We got there right at the beginning of the service, settled in, and they were an "old fashioned" church in their format and songs, so I was pleased. Then the preachin' started. It was a decent message and all seemed ok, but after about 10 minutes he started into the "Tennessee windsucker" stuff, ending every sentence in a loud "and-uh". That is a real pet-peave of mine and I struggled to keep the family there through that entire fiasco. After about 15 minutes of that windsucking and getting worked into an absolute frenzy he started turnin' colors and didn't look good, got out of breath and slowed the roll. Sermon ended shortly after that and we was out of there, looking for a different Baptist church around Pigeon Forge when we next came down.

I just checked on my old "nemesis" Sam Martin and found that he passed away in 2020 at the age of 68. I truly had nothing against Sam, and conversed with him several times...he just didn't have much confidence. He'd suffered a nervous breakdown from what he implied, but had recovered and was still in the ministry. I feel sorry for his wife, Kelly...Oh well...he's with the Lord.
We visit churches from time to time when we're on the road. I used to make sure that I went to an IFB church, but after we left the IFB movement, we went to SBC churches or "Bible" churches. Many of the SBC & Bible churches had questionable doctrine, so we just opted to have services ourselves in the hotel room. Either that or we'd watch a preacher on the tele whom we knew was pretty sound. If you've ever heard Tony Hutson or other IFB preachers from the South , you'll know that they all are loud, and for the most part obnoxious people! I try to stay away from most of them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I just checked on my old "nemesis" Sam Martin and found that he passed away in 2020 at the age of 68. I truly had nothing against Sam, and conversed with him several times...he just didn't have much confidence. He'd suffered a nervous breakdown from what he implied, but had recovered and was still in the ministry. I feel sorry for his wife, Kelly...Oh well...he's with the Lord.
We visit churches from time to time when we're on the road. I used to make sure that I went to an IFB church, but after we left the IFB movement, we went to SBC churches or "Bible" churches. Many of the SBC & Bible churches had questionable doctrine, so we just opted to have services ourselves in the hotel room. Either that or we'd watch a preacher on the tele whom we knew was pretty sound. If you've ever heard Tony Hutson or other IFB preachers from the South , you'll know that they all are loud, and for the most part obnoxious people! I try to stay away from most of them.

That is a shame about Sam. What was his background? Was he IFBx?

Here's another quick story from a vacation church we attended. Once again this one stems from me not doing my research ahead of time well enough for a "like faith" church. We were on vacation and the Poconos and decided to go to the nearest Baptist Church to our resort condo. I was pretty staunch KJVo at the time, so of course you can imagine my consternation when I got sat down and pulled out the Bible in the pew and it was an NIV. Well, the first thing that went wrong was their music was, <gasp> CONTEMPORARY!.... but worse than that, they sang 10 or 12 songs. Everybody knows a Baptist Church you only sing two or three hymns and then the offertory. We finally got through that and then the sermon commenced. Keep in mind that the culture here is far from Appalachia or the Bible belt South. We are in the Northeast, Pennsylvania particularly, not far from New York. The pastor began preaching and things were pretty quiet in the church but after a while it was getting good and me being an amen kind of guy, I let out a modest subdued "amen". The preacher immediately pauses for a split second and looked my way and then resumed the sermon. Thought it was weird but, whatever. He really got rolling after that. Don't get me wrong, he wasn't spitting and shouting and screaming. No hellfire and brimstone. But it was solid exegesis and exposition, a good sermon, so I let out another amen, this one a little bit more robust but no shouting or excessive volume. The preacher stopped again looked over my way and said " yeah, amen brother, I'm glad somebody in here this morning is getting it" .... Awkward! Wasn't too much longer after that in the sermon wound down and we slithered out of there before the congregation stoned me for shaming them!