(Editor’s Note: Matt McGlamery is a contributor at Apologia Appalachia. I’ll confess, I’d never seen that blog until I asked for posts and contributors. They are posting some top notch stuff at that blog. Check it out. We have another guest post from one of their contributors that will be up in a day or two.)
The idea of a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention has been discussed for years. A quick survey of the Baptist2Baptist section of the SBC website shows the issue was discussed in 1975, 1998, 1999, and in 2004 when the proposal for a study of a name change was defeated by the messengers to the convention.
But that doesn’t stop us from discussing it, does it? I was in the hall today at work talking with Brian and we were trying to come up with ideas for a new name. I mean we aren’t exactly Southern any longer. We’re everywhere, but still predominately in North America.
How about the National Baptist Convention – NBC. What, someone already uses that acronym?
Well, we cover the entire nation. How about Nationwide Baptist Convention? We could be the world’s greatest Baptist convention in the world. It would be automagical and proactive.
Some churches don’t like advertising the fact that we are Baptists and our scope of influence does extend to the entire world. Could we change to the Worldwide Evangelicals or WWE?
The Conservative Resurgence was a monumental period in the history of the SBC. Why not immortalize it in our new convention name? We are a place for solid conservatives, but Not For Liberals. The NFL Baptist Convention?
Ok, this probably stopped being funny a minute ago (if it ever started being funny).
So, what names do you think would better describe today’s SBC (serious or funny)? Comment away.
It may sound redundant, but I’d suggest “Christian Baptist Convention”. True, there aren’t other world religions that claim “Baptist” as a distinctive but I would like to see include our Lord exalted over our distinction.
I love these humorous posts we’ve been getting. This one is great!
Maybe that spokesman guy for Nationwide could be a keynote speaker at the convention this year.
Well, we’d first need to make a couple of large donations in his name to a baptist school to get him his PhD.
Isn’t that how it works?
My dad, about 10 years ago, actually had an idea that is unfortunately very likely to take off. Back when all the sports arenas were being renamed as a result of corporate ad deals, he said it wouldn’t be long before churches did the same to help cover their costs. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened yet.
If you watched the webcast of Kevin Ezell’s remarks the other week, you no doubt saw the commercials that popped up for Ford, etc. And lots of other commercial vendors.
We’re ALMOST there already!
Oh man, I missed it.
All entities that wanted recognition at the FBC Jacksonville Conference had to pay for “advertising” during the conference if I’m not mistaken.
So we are there, we’re just charging each other.
I have gone on record as being for a name change. I believe a name should reflect what an organization is and aspires to be.
Having “Southern” in the name emphasizes our Southern founding and Southern presence. If that’s what we want to mark us, fine.
I believe that our actual reach (in terms of presence) and the reach of technology should cause us to rethink the wisdom of emphasizing something that was precious to our founders in 1845, but by all accounts no longer is.
Major corporations or products have changed their names over the years to keep up with their vision. Here are some examples:
Comcast – Xfinity
Back Rub – Google
Blue Ribbon Sports – Nike
ValuJet – Airtran
Datsun – Nissan
Pluto Platter – Frisbee
Philip Morris – Altria
Brad’s Drink – Pepsi
Jerry and David’s Guide to the World Wide Web – Yahoo
Sound of Music, Inc. – Best Buy
Sears Tower – Willis Tower
Our own publisher changed its name to LifeWay. I do not meet anyone today who thinks we should not have done that. The name change has been very helpful to attracting business to the store, especially in regions where stores have been opened in recent years.
Most have objected to the name change on the basis that we will be losing something historically if we do that. I understand that sentiment. I was a history major and love history. The church needs to know its history, but the names from history should not mark us forever. We don’t have to become slaves to history. I fear that if history drives us more than our vision and our desire to be open to all people (even to the extent that we would change our name so as not to use a name that regionalizes us), that is not a Gospel priority decision.
One person who is against a name change argued on a blog one time about the benefits that the SBC might enjoy because of its 1845 Charter in the State of Georgia, and that changing the name might jeopardize that. I do not know if that is true. I think it should be looked at carefully. However, even if it were true, the SBC could adopt an assumed name or use a dba. That would still solve the problem of the name we put forward to the world.
But having said all of this, I am NOT in favor of a name change unless a healthy percentage of the SBC would be in favor of it. I do not think it would be healthy for 51% of the SBC people to force the name change upon 49% of the people. This is not that type of issue, though I think it is a significant issue.
My hope would be that a healthy percentage of people in the SBC would come to realize that our Southern origins, however important they may have been in 1845, are no longer important in any meaningful way, and that it is not helpful for us to project that as a matter of vision or a matter of history.
I believe that discussions on this topic should increase and that will help bring the people around. Then I think the change should be a no-brainer, really.
And, no, I do not believe that changing the name of the SBC will solve all of our problems. But that statement is really not an argument. We can deal with one issue at a time, and we should deal with issues on the merits, not because one issue won’t solve all issues. The fact that a name change will not solve all our problems is not an excuse to not change the name or at least consider doing so.
I don’t think that “Convention” needs to be in the name either. We are a convention, whether we put it in the name or not.
I support “Baptist” because that’s who we are. But there are other groups that are Baptistic in their theology, but may not use the name. Still, I think for clarity sake, that should remain. The Baptist theology of our churches (e.g. polity issues, ordinances) are what bring us together, so that is the real substance. That should not change.
As for suggestions, I am all ears. I haven’t heard anything that strikes my fancy just yet.
Somewhat Southern Baptist Convention
Thanks for the feedback. I do hate that the Nationwide guy’s picture didn’t post correctly. Luckily everyone still got the attempt at humor.
Seriously, I love church history and I love our convention, but I think a name change could be useful and more descriptive of who we are. For a denomination that stands on absolutes, “Southern” is kind of subjective. Everywhere is southern of somewhere else and northern of someone else. I’m in North Carolina, so is South Carolina more Southern Baptist than me?
Global Evangelical international Christian organization.
GEICO.
With all these new planets being discovered, how about Galactic Baptist Convention?
Affiliated approximately reformed persons!
I expect to see Great Commission Baptist Convention or something like that.
I knew 2 things as I was at a funeral in South Dakota today.
1) Hibbard and Barnes would get involved in this discussion.
2) That is NOT necessarily a good thing.
Dave. . . you prepped me for it.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, either 🙂
Besides, it wasn’t anything cynical this time.
“Could you really save 15% on your missions expenses by switching to GEICO?—–Does Al Mohler…….”
I better not finish that.
The Convention formerly known as Southern Baptists, then we need a cool logo. We should just steal the old BSU logo. Of course it’s not BSU anymore, it was BSM, then BCM and some places it became Christian Challenge.
Which brings up a point. If the Home Mission board is now NAMB and The International Mission Board. . . well they are still the IMB, and The Sunday School Board is now Lifeway, and the Annuity Board is now Guidestone, how come the SBC didn’t get a trendy name?
Probably because some of the original charter signatories to the SBC are still alive and in some position. Granted, they are probably 150yo, but they still remember when… 🙂
Had a professor in college that was the last surviving witness of the Resurrection. He spoke of the journeys of Paul in first person, and the founding of the SBC as “just the other day.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Some years ago, we were affiliated as laymen with the Oriental Missionary Society. Founded long ago to reach the Orient, they’d come to realize the name was a hindrance in non-Orient friendly countries. So after much discussion, they renamed it:
“OMS International” That way, all us folks who called it OMS anyway, didn’t lose a bit of the identity, but the name more closely reflected what OMS had grown to be (their already having works in Haiti, Greece, Equador, Great Britain, etc etc).
So I wrote Danny Akin many months ago and suggested that, while they were considering all things in their meetings, if the ever got to the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, how about:
“SBC INTERNATIONAL”.
I got a thank you note with no real reference to their plans (as I recall).
Can I put this in here now?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90iTjOhItp4&feature=related]
EDITOR: Here is what I think is the link Jeff was speaking of. I don’t think I can make it come up here. But click HERE.
Warning – half of you are going to find this very funny and some will be offended by the satire.
I hoped it would let me embed with WordPress lingo, but it didn’t. Just paste the link in if you want to see it. Tim Hawkins and the corporate takeover of the church worship songs.
You may have the wrong link.
It does look like I got the wrong link. But you did link to the video I was after.
I don’t watch Tim Hawkins much anymore, after I nearly killed myself laughing at this and other stuff!
Thanks for the fix. I didn’t know if I could embed in the comments, but someone had done it before at my blog so I thought I would try it.
We could call it the Suburban Baptist Convention and even keep the SBC logo since the lettering is the same.
After all, aren’t most new church plants and seminary grads targeting the Suburban South?
Changing the name would only contribute to the problem by suggesting that something actually changed with the CR.
Oh, some chess pieces moved from here to there, and somebody different now owns the board. We (myself as one) might even agree some of this was positive — in fact necessary. However, are we now a “kinder, gentler Convention drawing in the masses in large numbers? With the saving of our seminaries, has biblical literacy improved in our churches?
I just don’t that changing our name would not lead to “false advertising” somehow. Unless perhaps we called it the “Hopeful But Still Greatly In Need of A Movement Of God North, South, East, and West–With a Global Emphais On Missions Convention.” I probably still missed something.
The name is immaterial. All studies seem to indicate a problem with our name is largely our imagination.
All names carry with them both positive and negative connotations. The only reason that one would change a name is when the negative is so bad that any change would be seen as positive. It reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Elaine was dating a man named “Joel Rifkin,” who just happened to share the same first and last name as a famous serial killer. Elaine thought it would be best if Joel changed his first name, but in the end, none of the names that Elaine and Joel thought would sound better actually did.
Are there certain limitations — even negative connotations — with the name, “Southern Baptist Convention?” Yes. Is the SBC located in places outside the South? Obviously, as I am pastoring an unabashedly SB church in New Mexico. But, just because churches within the SBC are no longer geographically limited to the south does not mean that we have to change our name. Even though Kentucky Fried Chicken has eating establishments outside of Kentucky, I think it would be ludicrous for them to change their name.
If autonomous churches (inside and outside the south) choose to remove “Baptist” from their name, who am I to stop them. If certain Southern Baptist churches want to minimize their public ties with the SBC, that’s their right. However, overall, the Southern Baptist Convention, as presently named, has a strong identity. When Air Force personnel move into my community and search for a Southern Baptist church, they know that Bethel probably has certain doctrines and values similar to other Southern Baptist churches throughout the world. Why monkey with a good thing, especially as Frank L. points out, when the name is largely immaterial? Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Any comment with a Seinfeld reference has to be a good one, Howell.
I aim to please!
Howell,
I just realized that I know someone who knows you. Our area missionary here in NE North Dakota was the pastor at Bethel before he moved to Rapid City in 2005. Fred said he has met you before, I would imagine he might have seen you when we were down in Riudoso and Mescalero for a mission trip in August of 2007. I seem to remember that his son Josh was sent to the hospital over in Alamogordo during that trip. Small world dontcha know.
Jeff,
You betcha! I do remember meeting Fred, but it is hard to believe it has been that long. We moved to Alamogordo in July 2007, shortly before your trip to the area. Time sure flies when your’re having fun (and we are)! Tell Fred and his family that the good folks at Bethel send their warmest wishes. One of these days, we will have to plan a mission trip up your way. God bless,
Howell
I will sure let him know. I really love working with Fred. He came up this past Sunday with his wife and youngest son to worship with our church family.
He and I did an “official’ coaching partnership through CoachNet last year, but we have been enjoying getting a chance to work together in this region. His youngest son and my oldest son are good friends as well.
If you guys come all the way up here, you will certainly want to do it in the summer. 🙂
International Baptist Society (IBS) — makes my stomach hurt.
Passionate Missionary Society (PMS) — unpopular with the ladies.
Baptist Organization (BO) — this one just stinks.
Baptist Society (BS) — everyone doesn’t have a Bachelor of Science.
Baptist Mission (BM) — everyone doesn’t have a Bachelor of Music.
Intergalactic Baptist Ministries (IBM) — too straight laced.
Baptist People (BP) — associated with environmental waste.
Baptists Allied Denominationally (BAD) — too Michael Jackson.
Christians Rallying Under Deity (CRUD) — gross and messy.
Oh, what’s the use? Let’s just keep SBC!
Howell and Frank:
Just because you believe that a name change would not help what ails the SBC does not address the issue of whether there should be a name change.
Howell, you have made some comments along the line that because “Southern Baptist Convention” has a strong identity that the name should not be changed. And you compared the situation to “Kentucky Fried Chicken.”
I do not disagree that “Southern Baptist Convention” has a strong identity.
“Baptist Bookstore” also had a strong identity. But don’t you think “LifeWay” is better?
I am not in the marketing and branding business, but my understanding is that the name change to “LifeWay” is considered a huge success.
Oh, and “Kentucky Fried Chicken” is a great comparison. It has changed the name that it presents to the public – “KFC”. Kentucky and Fried are both limiting and “KFC” was a good half step. At least that’s what I have read some place.
Take care.
Louis,
Just to be crystal clear, I do not think that there should be a name change. What does “KFC” stand for? Is it an acronym for Kentucky Fried Chicken or just three random letters placed together? There are already enough churches who, for whatever reason, have run as far away from not only the Southern Baptist label but the Baptist label as well. If autonomous churches feel they need to do that to reach their communities, then I will not stand in their way. But, I will not give a free pass to certain megachurches in Arkansas whose senior pastor was the chairman of the GCR who has chosen — in the “Bible Belt” — to take Baptist out of their name.
I am not ashamed of being known as a Southern Baptist and would therefore fight to keep the name. I’m sure it is only a matter of time before the establishment sees the “wisdom” of changing the name. After all, if we can be more marketable and successful according to the values of our culture, then we will have it made. The name change is yet another example of the huge divide within our Convention that can be added to the growing list of things that will be our undoing. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I’m not ashamed to be Southern Baptist, but I think the name is a hindrance to our work.
I don’t see how the idea of changing the name could possibly be “added to the growing list of things that will be our undoing.”
How does demonstrating that we want to be more than a Deep South convention hurt our work?
Rename it. How about Reformed Evangelistic Baptist Engaging the Lost?
Be a REBEL!!!
Dave,
Good morning. Rick, in his comment below, is spot on. If you do not see how changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention could even “possibly” contribute to the undoing of our Convention, then I’m afraid that the language barrier is deeper and wider than I had imagined.
While you may not be ashamed to be Southern Baptist, it would appear that many within our Convention have an aversion to being identified as such. They have no problem being identified with certain Networks, but when it comes to being identified with the SBC, they do their best to hide any affiliation whatsoever. I would dearly love to know whether or not this was seriously discussed by the GCR Task Force. I would not be surprised if it was and, in the end, they could not pull the trigger to recommend a name change, even though they wanted to. If the esteemed Chairman of the Task Force is any indication of the way they were thinking, then I rest my case. Have a great day,
Howell
First of all, I continue to believe that the GCR was a wonderful work of God to bring us back as a denomination to where we need to be! And I think a name change would really help.
It seems to me that you are making mountains out of molehills. Our theology matters. Our commitment to the Great Commission matters.
But our name matters? I can’t buy that.
If the name “doesn’t matter,” then why would we need to change it? That assertion can cut both ways.
I worded that badly, Jeff. What I am saying is that it seems to me that Howell is equating the desire to preserve the name with the desire to preserve the convention.
I think the name does matter – and it is a hindrance around here. We are NOT southerners and don’t really want to be identified as such.
My problem is with my perception that Howell is making a moral issue out of a NAME. My desire to change the name comes from my desire to make the convention more successful, not to tear it down, as he intimates.
Fair enough. I will certainly give grace for a poor choice of words, I just wanted to clarify what you are saying. I am about as far north as a SBC church can go in the continental US, so I know what you are saying. I think it can be a hindrance in initial phases, like say church planting, in an area where SBC isn’t already known well. I still get questions about why it’s called “Southern” Baptist around town to this day. But part of the problem here isn’t the “Southern” in our name, it is the Baptist.
We are overrun with Lutherans and Catholics and Baptists aren’t looked at very favorably sometimes.
Even though there are other evangelical churches here, I think we are still the only church in town that actually has a baptistery. We are just weird. On the positive side, at least they don’t think we are a cult.
Dave,
I’m not sure how I made my opposition to a name change a “moral issue,” but I am open to being corrected if I did. While I continue to voice strong opposition to the GCR (as opposed to a true Great Commission Resurgence), I do not believe that the people advocating for the full implementation of the GCR are immoral or evil. I believe they are wrong and I will continue to call people to account for their words and actions. We will have to agree to disagree about the GCR “bringing us back” as a Convention (we are not a denomination).
As to why a name change, I don’t think those within our Convention, particularly the recent seminary grads that Louis mentions, are really all that upset with “Southern” in the name. I think they are more upset that “Baptist” is in the name. Very few churches, including the one I pastor, include “Southern” in their name, either in legal documents or on the church marquee. However, we do include the word “Baptist.” Baptist (and yes, Southern Baptist) is distinctive. For good or bad, you know what you will get, at least as far is doctrine is concerned. Why go through the “Battle for the Bible,” the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and then run away from the name? However, I’m afraid Louis is right — if the recent seminary grads want it to happen, who am I to stand in their way! Thanks for the spirited dialogue.
Howell
You said, ” The name change is yet another example of the huge divide within our Convention that can be added to the growing list of things that will be our undoing.”
The idea of a name change is going to be our undoing?
That’s what I was challenging. The idea that changing the unfortunate and outdated name is somehow one more nail in the SBC coffin.
And I am anything but a recent seminary grad. Unless you call 1981 recent.
Dave,
Do you think it’s possible — that doesn’t mean likely, but merely possible — that a move for a name change at this time could have negative consequences for our Convention? Do you think the idea of a name change would bring more unity and harmony among the churches of the Convention or would it tend to, at least for the forseeable future, cause more division and disunity? I do not think that the name change, in and of itself, would be our undoing, but coupled with all the other radical changes taking place, it would possibly contribute to further disunity. That’s what I meant.
If you and others think that now is the time for a name change and that this will help unify us as a Convention of churches, then I would say “Full speed ahead.” However, I think that it is possible — and very likely — that such a move (at the present time) would have devastating consequences for the future of the SBC (or whatever we end up calling it). Hope that makes things more clear. Good “CrossFire” thing we got going on today. I like it! 🙂
KFC–“Kentucky Focused Calvinist” Baptists? Is that right?
Howell,
In respect to the church that shall remain nameless, this is one of the few times I have connections to “people in the know,” as I attended that church several years ago, just before it became a multisite church (we moved out of that area in August of 2001). I still know quite a few people there and while I won’t pretend to know everything that is going on, I could certainly share a story or two in a more private forum.
I honestly have a lot of respect for their pastor and am inclined to cut him some slack. I don’t know him really well, but I do know some of the other staff much better and I know that the heart of those folks is in the right place. I really have no idea what brought about the name change as I didn’t hear mention of if until it was already done. I would note that the first branch of their multisite operation didn’t have Baptist in the name from the beginning (back in 2001), so it isn’t exactly a stunning move.
From the somewhat outside position and from familiarity with the area, I would guess that your mention of marketing had something to do with the name change. But I also know that there is more going on there than most people know about.
How about “Together for the Gospel”?
Oops!
“”Just because you believe that a name change would not help what ails the SBC does not address the issue of whether there should be a name change.””
Louis, the reason I’m not for spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a name change was spelled out in detail. The fact you do not agree with my opinion does not mean I didn’t address the issue.
You can put a tuxedo on a pig, but it will still be a pig. That’s perhaps a simpler form of my answer you can get a better grip on. Please don’t feel I am pressuring you to agree with my analysis, but you should at least read it carefully before attacking it.
By the way, I have actually branded a business so I’m not completely ignorant of the concept.
I doubt very seriously if you will see a change any time soon in regard to a name change. So, it is probably a mute point. My point is: let’s change what the name represents-if it is all that negative as you suggest. As difficult as that would be, it would be cheaper and more effective than ordering new letterhead.
Frank:
I am not attacking you.
The only post that I saw from you said that the name was immaterial. That it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves.
I don’t believe that to be true, and I don’t think that you truly do either, especially with your experience in branding a business. I think that you believe a name is an important thing, or you would not have said it was immaterial.
The other things that you brought up in this most recent post was cost – hundreds of thousands of dollars? I don’t know where that figure comes from. LifeWay spent a lot of money, I suspect, because they had fixed assets in states that needed sign changes etc. But I think that LifeWay would say the change was was a good thing.
As far as costs go all I think that we would need to do would be to file some legal documents and change the name on one building in Nashville. And as we print new documents going forward, use the new name.
You do mention that you think people will think there is a problem or something has changed if the SBC were to change its name.
That’s is why I would only move to see the name changed if people like yourself would get enthusiastic about it. While I support a name change, the SBC should not do that unless people really get excited about it. I would in no way want to have a vote to do this unless we all got really excited about it.
But what I cannot figure is why people cannot get excited about a change that would rid our denomination of an unnecessary stumbling block.
No one, as far as I can see has made any case for why we would today, if we were chosing a name, put the word “Southern” in it. No one has even attempted to make that case.
So, the question becomes what about the word “Southern” is important. And I don’t see anyone saying that it is really important.
All I am hearing is that it is always been that way, it would cause some people to be confused if we did it, and/or that it really doesn’t matter anyway.
I don’t find any of those arguments very strong.
I don’t know if this will be discussed in a formal way any time soon. But I believe it is a topic that should be discussed regularly.
Also, many young people that I meet, recent seminary grads etc. are very excited about the idea, and want it to happen.
So, it may not be for years, but I think it will eventually come. Just maybe not in our lifetimes.
I may live in Alabama but I have no problem with Boston Market, Yankee Candles or California Pizza Kitchen. I don’t feel excluded by these brands simply because their “style” originated in another region. We have a Shanghai Restaurant that is unafraid to identify with it’s Chinese roots rather than it’s current locale. It would be terrible to change it to Bubbas Rice, Meat and Veggies.
A few years ago I had to explain to my Presbyterian mother what Lifeway was. “It’s a store operated by Southern Baptists that sells Bibles, religious literature, Christian music and inspirational artwork and gifts.” She said, “Sort of like a Baptist bookstore?” Exactly, Mom.
Maybe if your address were different, your perspective might be as well.
But if you worked in Iowa, your perspective might change.
Why are we so committed to a name that excludes 3/4 of the country from truly feeling part of it.
Why not the “Iowa Baptist Convention” – that works for me. I’m Iowan. I like it.
Well, you say, we are not all Iowans. right. Neither are we all southerners!
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that many branded stores and restaurants maintain the culture of their origin, not the culture of their destination, and yet remain extremely popular. I don’t think Cracker Barrels need to serve lobster, crab cakes or Brunswick stew just because they are located in regions of the country where those items are popular.
Besides, I think far more people pay attention to the “church” name than the “denomination” name. You could always change that and leave SBC the same. This thing comes up every few years and it never seems to get any traction. I will admit that possibly I would feel differently if I were serving up north.
There is little question that the average person in America cares very little about the denomination of the church.
In Iowa, it goes a step farther. To be publicly affiliated with the SBC tends to be a negative. Sometimes VERY negative. It’s not just Southern Baptists, but “southern” in general.
So, what happens in Iowa is that we are put in the position not only of presenting the gospel, etc, but also explaining what the Southern part has to do with what we are doing.
Let me be clear.
1) I think a name change would help things.
2) I do not think this is the major issue that the SBC faces. It’s not a hill to die on.
It’s kinda like CB’s constant rantings about the superiority of the SEC over the (clearly superior) Big 10. It’s a regional thing. Our name evokes that kind of regional thing.
I have pastored in Iowa for 20 years now and my churches have had Baptist in the name.
Our church is considering 2 plants right now. Neither of them will likely have Baptist in the name. Why name your church something that will tend to make people LESS likely to visit.
On the other hand, our churches will affiliate, cooperate and on the website and in our materials we will make it clear who we are.
We just won’t put it on the sign!
Dave,
See my above reply to you. You made my point without even trying. Thanks bunches.:-)
In all honesty, a name change would not hurt us as long as we didn’t think it was a magic bullet. And as long as folks realize that a lot of the rural churches down South aren’t going to change their signs to show the new name.
And recognize that you’re going to have a closed-door committee meet, come out and tell you what the new name will be, but that’s probably better than asking openly. You see what we’ve come up with, right?
Here’s my temporary last word on this: should the name reflect who we were, who we are, or who we want to be?
Dave:
Exactly. Why use a name that is going to be a stumbling block?
The only answer is that if one is vested in the name for historical or sentimental reasons.
My belief is that substance of the church, its doctrines etc. are non-negotiable, and those things do not change.
What we call ourselves, especially if we recognize that for some it is a hindrance, should change. The only thing that would keep us from doing that is our love for our past denominational history. But then, if we are honest, we have to admit that not many people who are born today, or are from outside our denomination, have an apprecation for that.
So, is our job to foster the appreciation or our denominational name and to teach others that, or to allow matters like that (not our doctrines) to be changeable?
Doug:
I would suggest it is all those things, but in a heirarchy –
1. Who we want to be (and reach), then
2. Who we are, and then
3. Who we were.
It’s not that we ignore the past. We just make it subject to the vision and direction of the future.
Any organization that does NOT do that has prioritzed keeping the memory of the past over the future.
Louis says, “The only answer is that if one is vested in the name for historical or sentimental reasons. My belief is that substance of the church, its doctrines etc. are non-negotiable, and those things do not change.”
Louis swings, “It’s a long fly ball deep to center field. It’s high, it’s far, it’s deep. See-ya! It’s a home run for Louis!”
(For those who shamefully do not know – that the Yankees announcer’s home run call!)
Right.
If we’re going to be limited to something that acronyms well and fits on letterhead, we’ve got to be short-winded.
And who we want to be has to take priority.
Rick:
You are right. Cracker Barrell, however, serves a niche market. And part of its attraction is to not only serve meat and three food, but to appear to be country and a place to serve meat and three food.
The SBC can do that. It can be “that ole fashioned, Civil War loving, ole Southern” type of religion, and it will attract the people who are attracted to that. It will serve a niche market.
It can be successful in that niche market. Cracker Barrell has expanded outside the South and has found some success in other regions.
But as people like Dave can tell us, expansion of the SBC out of the South (or to people who move into the South from other countries or from the North, East and West) is difficult because of the name.
So, do we think it is important enough to change the name, and risk the loss of the niche brand? That really is the question.
If we don’t do it, other groups and churches will do that, and they will have a greater impact as they expand more successfully into these fields.
To all:
I am still interested in this discussion about the Lifeway name change.
Is there anyone on this blog who thinks that we should still have the “Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention” and “Baptist Bookstores”? If so, why?
To those who are opposed to the name change, have you talked to anyone in the LifeWay bookstore division to see what they think of that change? Or have you talked to Jimmy Draper to see if in retrospect he thinks the name change was good, bad, or immaterial?
And finally, I would like to know if anyone on this blog originally opposed the change to LifeWay and now would admit that it was a good thing.
I know quite a few people who either opposed it or said “It wouldn’t matter, wouldn’t make a difference, yadda, yadda, yadda”. I don’t know that any of those people still hold those positions today after seeing the impact of being able to open Lifeway stores all across the country, in regions where the SBC may not be strong.
Back when Lifeway made those changes, I think it was clear the goal was to persuade non-SBC groups to be willing to buy stuff from Lifeway, whether store or catalog, even Sunday School literature.
I wasn’t opposed to it, and didn’t see it as a “loss of heritage” or anything like that. It was a marketing decision, plain and simple.
I didn’t care one way or another about the Lifeway name. It had zero impact upon me personally. I was just pointing out that the earlier name removed the need for such explanations. For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about Guidestone versus the Annuity Board. Someone asks, “Why is Guidestone?” I say, “It’s an organization that provides retirement annuities and other financial services, primarily for Southern Baptist ministers.” They say, “Sort of like a Retirement Board or Annuity Board, right?” Exactly.
Edit: “Why” should be “What”
My sister viewed the change as being a reflection of shame; we were afraid and embarrassed as a convention to call our book store “Baptist” so we hid behind the Lifeway label. I’ve tried to talk to her about it, and I don’t think I’ve made much headway.
Doug:
I agree with you. It is DEFINITELY NOT a magic bullet.
But there is a lot of room on a spectrum of thinking between Magic Bullet status and immateriality.
I don’t think anyone in this discussion has presented it as a magic bullet, but I’ve heard that thinking elsewhere. The name is a problem some places.
It’s not the problem anywhere. At least I wouldn’t think so.
And if we’re Great Commission focused, than anything non-Biblical is negotiable. And disposable. Including the name “Southern Baptist Convention”
And being New York Yankees fans.
Howell:
I do not disagree with your observation about the disagreements among different types of churches in the SBC and how that puts a strain on relationships.
I do not want you to feel the need to “fight” not to change the name. I hope that you have heard that I would not want to change the name until people such as you agreed it would be a good thing to do.
That’s why I like discussions like this. I am interested in hearing why a Christian denomination today should call itself a “Southern” convention. I am not fussing about it. I am really interested in the reasons why.
In 1845 it made total sense. They were starting a Baptist Convention that would not preach abolitionist sentiments as the only acceptable denominational position, or to block people from missionary serivce who were slaveholders or were sympathetic to that position.
But in 2011, what is the benefit of having “Southern” in the name? There is no Southern way of life today that is appreciably different from someone who lives in Iowa. There is no Southern doctrine or cause to defend. And we are not confined to the South, nor do we seek to be.
I suspect that your love for the name is because of the tradition. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I also noted that you said newer churches were ashamed of being in the SBC. Why do you think that is?
Do you find that these new churches don’t believe the Gospel or even some of the denominationally related and nuanced doctrines of the SBC?
Or do you find that the newer churches are solid theologically, but just not similar culturally?
So what is it, specifically, that they are not embracing, and why do think these new churches are not embracing that?
“There is no Southern way of life today that is appreciably different from someone who lives in Iowa. ”
When I was a kid, you could still tell when people came from certain regions of the country more clearly. But that was BEFORE the time of great divisiveness in our country, and the regional differences were matters of food preferences, accent, cultural heritage, religious orientation.
Today, perhaps because of media, all that seems to make people ‘appreciably different’ in their outlook and expression might be traced to whether they follow FOX news, CNN, or MSNBC.
OR, perhaps the differences in the ‘way of life’ determine the choice of network?
Probably a bit of both.
Louis,
At 44, maybe I’m beginning to understand how some of the senior adults in my church feel about all the changes that are taking place in church. Please understand that I am not against trying to share the unchanging message of the Gospel in a way that younger generations understand. Perhaps because of my heritage, I do not have negative feelings when I hear “Southern” Baptist Convention. Am I unalterably opposed to a name change? Of course not. However, I have not heard any persausive arguments as to why the entire Convention needs to change its name. As to the Lifeway example, I could really care less about what its name is. Of course, they too took out Baptist from their name (Southern wasn’t even in the name of the “Baptist Bookstore” if I recall).
Autonomous churches (as Dave mentioned above) are already removing “Baptist” from their name. I honestly do not think that “Southern” in the name of the SBC is the main problem. I think “Baptist” in the name of the SBC is the major sticking point for some.
As to the new churches, I would hope that they believe the Gospel. However, I think that some (not all) of these churches do not want to be identified in any way as Baptist. They might have Baptist imbedded deep undercover, but it is something they would rather hide. As to their theology, I couldn’t really tell you. I guess it depends on how we define “theology.” I think that some of the newer churches identify more with non-SBC groups or networks, even if they remain “Baptistic” in their theology and nominally affiliated witht the SBC. Quite frankly, I don’t see these churches becoming more cooperative just because of a name change.
In the end, Dave and others have made my point. It’s really not about the “Southern” part of the name, even though that is the easier argument to make. It will be much more difficult, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility, for some Task Force, behind closes doors, to come up with a new name that does not even have “Baptist” in it. I can hardly wait for that to happen. Until then, I’ll keep pastoring Bethel Baptist Church and seeing God bring in Catholics and other non-SBCer’s who have apparently been able to find a friendly church home despite “Baptist” being in our name and “Southern” not even on the church sign. Thanks for the dialogue. God bless,
Howell
Same to you, Howell. God bless you and Bethel Baptist Church.
Doug:
You are right. There are lots out there who think that little tweaks like name changes etc. are the answer to everything.
They clearly are not.
And there is a huge temptation to get caught up in thinking that way, especially if one is young.
Louis,
I’m more open than my ramblings may appear. I’m just also open to leaving it like it is. I guess what would really push me over the top is to hear a name that I really, really loved.
Great Commission Baptist Convention? I don’t know. I playfully listed several names that were decidedly worse. Come up with something better and I may come around.
Unfortunately, some of the best names are taken.
There is a Midwestern evangelical denomination called the Great Commission Fellowship. They might raise a fuss. Maybe GC Baptist would be enough different not to cause a problem.
I think at one time that Cooperative Baptist Convention was a good choice. Obviously, that ship has failed.
Rick,
That is one of my biggest questions. I don’t go for the “we have to change the name” argument so much, but if someone can legitimately suggest a better name that we can get most folks to rally around, I would be open to it as well.
Rick:
And I will admit that I don’t have the name. Haven’t worked on it enough. And I will be the first to admit that I am NOT a branding type person.
I was counsel to a bank a long time ago called the “The First Bank of Swainsboro, Georgia.” It changed its name to “The Federal Savings Bank.” Wow. Sounded like they owned the Federal Reserve.
I think the SBC should swing for the fences, even if people howled.
How about “The Chirstian Fellowship.” “The Christian Convention.”
Or “The Baptist Christian Fellowship: or “The Baptist Christian Convention.”
“Cooperative Baptist Fellowship” was not a bad name. But that proves, as many have already said, that a name is NOT a magic bullet. It’s the substance that is the main thing. The name should just not detract or communicate something that is not intended to be communicated.
Should we stick with “Convention” or is it more appropriate to lose that part?
Since “Convention” is technically the 2 days in June, should we not consider that part disposable?
I think “Baptist” describes our theology in a way that we shouldn’t discard. Is there a better way to describe our interactions between churches?
Fellowship, Alliance, Partnership?
Great Commission Baptist Partnership?
Fellowship of Great Commission Baptists?
Missional Baptist Affiliation?
Given our rich history of fellowship:
“Fried Chicken Baptist Convention”
“Casserole Baptist Convention”
“Pot Luck Baptist Convention”
More seriously, here’s a rather descriptive suggestion to name the organization:
“Associated Congregational Baptist Churches of America”
The ACBCA huh? The acronym would make a lot of seminary professors happy I think Just look at the parallelism in that, the symmetry. 🙂
ACBCA would work if some of the bigger churches hadn’t gone to elders.
Maybe ACBCA with a side of E?
Doug:
I don’t think that Convention is essential either.
There may be some parliamentary aspect to that word that accurately describes what we do. But there are other words that work, too.
I don’t like “Great Commission”. That is a descriptive term that summarizes what Jesus told the disciples to do in Matt 28 and the other Gospels. It’s popular in some quarters, not in others. May not be in 20 years or so. Evangelize, Disciple etc. are other words that could be used.
I still think that we could find something that doesn’t use an institutional name like “Association” “Convention” “Alliance” etc.
This sounds REALLY corny – but “Baptists Working Together” is accurate. That sounds so bad I hate to type it.
Actually, LOUIS, your idea of ‘working together’ is a good one in a name. . . you just need to find a way to phrase it, like maybe something using the word ‘endeavor’, or a similar dignified synonym.
(be careful to resist anything that sounds too much like a car commercial)
I’m not sure “Great Commission” would be good, but it’s one I expect to see show up.
“Autonomous Baptist Churches Deciding Everywhere For Good Helping Introduce Jesus’ Kingdom Loudly Making Noises Of Praise Questionably Reformed Saints Trying Unified Varied Works Xenophillic YogaPhobic Zealots”
whoah . . .
A to Z.
Yes, I should have been revising my sermon instead.
Did you make that up?
Yes, Dave, I did.
I got bored waiting on the tornadoes coming through.
I was trying to decide whether to harass you about plagiarizing or about wasting your time.
Now I know. I always like to harass contributors appropriately.
Look, I had two sermons to do, another blog post to write, and 3 seminary classes to work on. What do you expect?
That I would do those things?
Don’t that just roll right off the tongue. Only a preacher would do such a thing. 🙂
Somewhere in this discussion was the statement about “Corporate Sponsorships.”
I served a church that sold the naming rights. Of course, that was way back in the 1950s, but still, they traded a local business man giving them the land and money to build for naming the church after his daughter.
And that church had had money woes ever since. Not sure about now.
Doug
A concept that seems to be missing from this discussion is the culture’s move away from denominational labels and even from established denominations. Bible-believing, intelligent Christians under the age of 35 are beginning to establish and attend churches that lack a specific label. They might even be going so far as to value their lack of a label.
What does that do to our debate here?
Not a lot: whether the culture values or devalues the label, there’s going to be one if we’re affiliated together. You’ve got to call it something, because if you just call it “Christians working together” you start sounding like the groups that claim they are the only true church since they are the Church of Christ.
However, finding a label that identifies our collective work (Baptist Missions Collective? Nah) is different from slapping it on every church.
That could be the real future of the whole setup: the SBC’s apparatus essentially becomes separate from “SBC Churches.” You see this with other missions groups: they have their own statement of faith and their own methods. Churches decide to fund or not fund them, but one wouldn’t define on church on their support of Wycliffe Bible Translators, for example.
So, we see churches move to simply being (well, whatever they call themselves) instead of labeling as affiliated with the (whatever the SBC calls itself) and let each church define itself. You would see more diversity from one church to the next, and there would be a fading of “SBC Identity” (not Baptist Identity, not looking for that fight.)
I’m not sure that would be bad.
So the cultural changes should probably drive more of a structural change than a name change. Although I’m hesitant to make any changes in church simply over a cultural shift, as was said above: anything not explicitly Biblical must be negotiable and disposable.
I like the Baptist Missions Collective, Comrade. Let us unite for the sake of the mother land.
Da, Comrade.
When we push the movement to state conventions, could we call it the Hunt for Red October?
Or is that too much?
Probably our first “Comrade” on Voices.
What? It’s taken this long?
Dude, that’s a cool idea. I don’t know if it is a great idea, but it is way groovy.
Rick (below), I don’t mind being your comrade, but we are good Baptists. As such, it’s gonna have to be masculine, the Fatherland. Makes us German more than Russian, but we can still call each other comrade.
“way groovy”??????
Wow!
What…?
Strange words like “Xenophillic” and “Yankees” get a free pass, but “way groovy” elicits a comment?
Weirdo.
I made up “xenophillic.” “Xenophobic” is “afraid of foreigners” but the “phillic” means something like “friendly” and since we’re all about foreign missions, well, it fits.
I liked “Yogaphobic” the best of all 26.
And with Dave, the Yankees always get a free pass. I’m not sure if it’s better or worse than Cub-addiction.
xenophilic IS a word. Doug did not make it up.
We have one rule on SBC Voices. If you speak of the NY Yankees, you do so with respect.
Several people violate the rule.
I couldn’t find xenophillic in my dictionary, that’s why I thought it was made up.
We speak of the Yankees with all the respect they deserve.
I typed it into google and it came up.
Google? You can’t trust that computer-thingy!!!
By the way, Lifeway is having a customer appreciation day. The coupon is good for “33% of any Regularly Priced Christian Item.”
Do items have souls? Just wondering…or does go under “Holy Kitsch”?
What’s the discount on the “non-Christian” items? And are they just “visiting” Lifeway as “seeker” merchandise?
How exactly do “items” get saved and become Christian?
I am guessing they are “saved” because you get the discount. 😀
They’re “saved” because I let Lifeway hold onto them for someone else—hence, they’ve been “saved” for one of you guys.
Little Rock store is on the West Side. Near to Sam’s, across the road from Starbucks.
Well, if Google is our source for verification, then we can speak of the arrogant New York Yankees. I typed that in and turns out, it’s real.
Wonder what else we can substantiate via Google?
You are in great danger, young man, when you begin to publish this kind of scurrilous and irreverent attack on the greatest team in the history of team sports.
Jeremy, let not your heart be troubled at speaking ill of the Evil Empire. As Paul prayed for his thorn to be removed, so many of us have prayed that Dave’s be extracted. It’s not a thorn, though.
It’s a petrified Babe Ruth hot dog.
Dave, I was simply applying your process for verification of accuracy. After all, if we can use Google to confirm “Xenophillic” we can use to justify other items as well. I did not, as you said, speak ill of your precious Yankees, the sacred Grail of ball-oriented team sports.
Don’t let him intimidate you, Jeremy. Resist the dark side.