If you follow Southern Baptist news (and why wouldn’t you) then you are aware that recently the discussion about changing the name of the SBC to “Great Commission Baptists” has been brought back to the forefront. One of the main reasons for this is the announcement of the theme for 2021 Annual Meeting in Nashville. In what is either a brilliant move of marketing, an epic troll, or more likely a desire to promote the gospel the theme will be “We Are Great Commission Baptists.”
Baptist Press reports that the theme connects to the effort by many to use the name approved by SBC Messengers in 2012. Greear’s own church, Summit Church, has said they will begin using the name “Great Commission Baptists.” The name was chosen by a committee in 2012 after years of work. Some corners of the Baptist life seem to think that the desire to drop “Southern” from our name is nothing more than caving in to cultural pressures or being “woke.” But a quick look at the facts will soon show that the effort to change the name of the SBC goes back much farther than the pressures of our current culture.
I sat down to gather all the facts and articles but then I found this incredible summary by Jon D Wilke, a media relations member for SBC Executive Committee. I urge everyone to go and read this excellent tweet thread about the history of the name change. Much of what follows comes from Wilke’s thread and I thank him for his excellent research.
Far from being a new thing, motions to study a name change have been presented to the convention multiple times. Some motions died on the floor but every few years the issue would come back up, like in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990 and 1998. At other times the idea was brought up in different ways to the convention. In 1961 it was brought to the SBC Exec Comm who recommended the present name be retained. Legendary pastor WA Criswell was in favor a name change in the 1970’s although nothing came of it at the 1975 meeting. Other SBC leaders have spoke in favor of it like Jack Graham, Bryant Wright, Jimmy Draper, and many many others. Members of the task force that came up with the name “Great Commission Baptists” included Tom Elliff, David Dockery, Kevin Ezell, Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, and Roger Spradlin. Wilkes thread reports that “Dr. Patterson told SBC EC members he has favored a name change of the convention for a while, saying the convention is no longer regional and that “Southern” is offensive to some.” At the 2012 meeting the unofficial name of Great Commission Baptists was approved with 53 percent in favor and 46 percent against which means that it was far from a settled issue. Task member Micah Fries wrote about it right here on SBC Voices. In the years after that the meeting the name was more or less forgotten. But recent events have brought it to the forefront again.
It’s clear that Southern Baptists have been talking about this for a long time. This Baptist Press article from 1966 reported that many state papers were calling for a change even then. Even a publication of an SBC agency endorsed changing the name. An editorial in Home Missions magazine of the Home Mission Board (NAMB) endorsed a call for the name to change to “United States Baptist Convention.” The article argued that the current name is “misleading and detrimental, and that it is inadequate and inaccurate.” Editorials in at least 9 states endorsed the change, although the largest state paper of Texas was strongly against it.
Very tellingly, the 1966 article concludes with the prophetic line “It appears that the subject will be discussed for a long time.” Now almost 60 years later we are still having the same discussions. There are many reasons to change the name, and many reasons not too. Many of the same reasons were brought up when the names of the IMB, NAMB, Guidestone, and LifeWay were changed at various points over the years. At all those times the disadvantages were not seen as too great and the entities names were changed. I have no idea what will become of the proposed name but my hope is that the arguments center on the facts. It’s beyond ridiculous to say that name change is a concession to current cultural forces. This has been a discussion in the SBC for generations, and it appears likely to continue. As long as there are baptists there will be arguments, but I hope we do so with a full knowledge of the historical facts.
I’m not a prophet nor the son of one but I do predict that the rhetoric, arguments, and discussions will only increase as we approach Nashville in 2021. Whatever happens, let’s make sure that God is given the glory in all that we do. Beyond that, let’s make sure that we are baptists who work to fulfill the great commission, no matter what we call ourselves. That’s something we can all get behind.
In our area of the country, many referred to Southern Baptists as “Missionary Baptists” to distinguish them from other non-missionary churches. If there is to be a name change, I think Missionary Baptists would be the best choice. It is better than Great Commission Baptists, because there are many people in the country who don’t even know what that means, I’m talking about unbelievers. Remember, the name will be seen by the general public.
“Missionary Baptist” as a convention name is already taken.
Actually the SBC churches that have Missionary Baptist in their name are (perhaps unintentionally) misidentifying themselves with the wrong denomination. And some of these like to judge the churches that don’t put Baptist in the name as being deceptive as to who they really are.
I agree, there are SBC churches with the term “Missionary” in their name. Curtis said we should change the SBC name to Missionary Baptist, but there are at least two national conventions of Baptists using that name.
Just a thought not directly related to your comment (Scott H), but it did cause a thought to cross my mind……..
Leaving Baptist out is not necessarily deceptive. People who do not put “Baptist” in their name could be identifying themselves very accurately.
For better or worse, I don’t think GCBC will catch on. Brevity is essential in a brand name. Why use 2 words when 1 will do? Missionary Baptist and Evangelical Baptist both say the same thing. But the whole project is probably moot, since “baptist” has now become just as offensive as “Southern.” Let’s just call ourselves a “convention of like-minded believers” (CLMB). 😉
Two facts …largest funding for SBC comes from Southern churches and largest membership drop has been non-minorities in the South. Does research suggest why? What is focus on core losses? If the region argument is valid why should SBC offices remain in Nashville/Atlanta?
I would think that largest drop in non minorities in the south would indicate a cleansing of bloated church rolls. Moving offices and things would be a major hassle both financially and physically. I can agree with both of your facts but neither of them are really an argument against a name change.
Name change is a token effort if you really believe the term Southern is not region enough or offensive (relocate out of South regardless of cost as meaningful action and right thing to do)
You have not given a reason to relocate the offices. Every global corporation has their offices somewhere. Moving offices and a name change are not linked at all so I don’t know why you are trying to do so. The geographical term “southern” does not describe us anymore so we get a name that does. The offices have nothing to do with this until you brought it up.
Reason…WaPo interview suggests Southern is offensive….
That’s the point of the post. It can’t be “token” if it’s been a discussion for 60 years. There are arguments against a name change but “token” is not one of them.
Thx for clarification term Southern is deemed offensive by some….should apply to both region and name…
If the word “southern” offends a person, I can only imagine how they feel about the Gospel.
I do not think a name change will matter over the next 10 years as we see churches departing the SBC in record numbers. I pray not…but see the writing on the wall.
I don’t think so much that’s its offensive so much as it’s not accurate.
My comment was in reference to the quote in your article about the word southern being offensive to some people. To change a name because of geography is a silly reason in my book and personally think there is an alternative leaning that is unspoken as to why the word southern would need to be changed. With that said, I could not care less about a name change and feel that the majority of SBC church pew sitters feel the same. It is a distracting argument for what is really happening in our convention.
As people are fond of pointing out, there aren’t really any Southern Baptist churches, we aren’t a denomination. Are they sharing the Gospel? If so, then who cares if they have Southern or Baptist in the name? If not, I doubt it’s the fault of the name they chose.
I wish we (at least some of us) were as passionate about the Great Commission as we are Great Commission Baptist.
I am reminded of what Jesus said to the church at Sardis, “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
Personally I am in inner turmoil and it is not about the name.
My biggest issue is not the what, but the why. Aside from the fact that “Great Commission Baptists” doesn’t do much for me, giving it a big push for this year’s convention is not good timing in my opinion. It goes along with the emphasis on CRT, BLM, etc. It comes across as a woke move to me. I have pastored two churches in the West, and Southern Baptist has not been a big deal for us. I’ll be voting “no” in June.
That’s the point of the post. It can’t be “woke” if it’s been a discussion for 60 years. There are arguments against a name change but “woke” is not one of them.
I respectfully disagree. I understand your post. But the timing of our president declaring that we are now all Great Commission Baptists is not accidental. Have a great day.
Name Southern defined offensive (WaPo interview) has not been discussed 60 years….should seminaries follow?
I certainly don’t think that we should follow the lead of WaPo and that’s not what I’m saying. I care about accurately representing the diversity of churches in our convention. To repeat myself, there are valid reasons to be against a name change but woke is not one of them. It’s also worth noting that other people think the name should change too, not just WaPo. This has come from within the convention, not from the outside. As I wrote in the post. “Dr. Patterson told SBC EC members he has favored a name change of the convention for a… Read more »
Living in the Washington Post’s backyard, I feel led to comment. I have never found anyone here who thought the simple word “Southern” in our name was offensive. However, (1) among many African-Americans, the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is identified with a white patriarchal system at best, and racism at worst. Concrete example: the husband was from Africa, and his introduction to Southern Baptists were missionaries such as those under whom he was converted, so the name was attractive to him. But the wife was from South Carolina, and the name to her meant racism and exclusivity. (2) Among those… Read more »
Recent days.. flag resolution, another apology, gavel retirement, desire to rename buildings, BLM support and now name change effort….hard to debate disdain for use of Southern…why not seminaries as well?
The Great Commission should do a lot for us. It ought to infiltrate and animate our lives. Don’t read CRT and Wokeness into it because if you do then you desperately need to take a hermeneutics course.
I don’t believe there will be a vote in June on it as it is the theme for the meeting (which isn’t voted on) and we already voted on this (as a descriptor we can use) in 2012. But if there were, your basis for voting against is extremely flawed and doesn’t really make any sense.
Scott “H”, thank you. I did not mean that the Great Commission doesn’t do anything for me, just the name. Thank you for the recommendation on the hermeneutics course. I understand that we will not vote on the theme nor the name. My statement was confusing. I should have said that I will vote in favor of anything (resolution or other) that discourages a wholesale use of the name. In 2012, it was approved as a voluntary option. I prefer to keep it that way. Again, it is the timing with which I take issue. Have a great day.
When is it ever the wrong time to emphasize the Great Commission?
The church in which I grew up, well outside the south, was one my Dad had joined when he was in the Navy stationed at a base nearby. Being from Virginia, he was able to identify the SBC logo on the sign of one of the two Baptist churches in town and that’s where he went. Almost all the members were transplanted southerners there because of being stationed at or working at the base. That was one advantage it had, I guess, in being identified as Southern Baptist. On the other hand, most of the evangelism was the occasional baptism… Read more »
The name change wont change much. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Changing the name to GCB isnt going to make us more fulfilling of the Great Commission. Or less fulfilling. The problem is going to be in who we are… identity. Identifying one church with another with another keeps those churches cooperating with each other. But many churches dont want to identify with the name because of whatever reason. Its not geographic. What does the SBC stand for? Who are we? Not who we want to be, but actually who we are. And if who… Read more »
Big tent almost any doctrine goes? Where’d you get that idea?
It’s always been my understanding that the BFM and doctrinal statement of the SBC was to define the basis for cooperation, not to dictate to churches what they must believe in order to cooperate. As I see the concept framed in discussions here, the churches are independent and autonomous. There is certainly not anything close to “any doctrine goes” and there are plenty of doctrinal “boundaries” which do put limits on the doctrines of cooperating churches.
Time to drag out my old soapbox again. The only time i paid any attention to this sort of nonsense, I did a search in the Northern USA and found over 2,200 businesses named “Southern”. I doubt any problems stem from the name. The Great Commission is to make disciples … students …. learners. With around 2/3 not even there on Sundays, it’s doubtful we’re doing what’s commanded. As long as we’re not overwhelmingly doing the work assigned to us, I do not know why God would want to send us more people. SBC is applying a World’s “Advertising/PR” solution… Read more »