Jimmy Draper is speaking to the motion. SBC is a worldwide brand. But if the SBC is going outside the South, we need to give then an alternative. Emphasized the difficulty black pastors have encountered.
He’s a parliamentarian who actually sounds like he knows his stuff. One time McCarty said his point was well taken and one time it was not. I think both McCarty and Wright have been fair.
I was never in favor of a name change, nor was I in favor of “Great Commission Baptists.” Not that it’s a bad name, but why change it? Is it really that terrible as people make it out to be? What’s in the past is in the past. It’s over. Done.
Let’s put our focus on getting the Gospel out and allowing God, through his Holy Spirit to do the work through us. I firmly believe we can do that as “Southern Baptists.”
Dale Pugh
It isn’t that bad when you live and minister in the South, but step outside that region and see h
Dale Pugh
Dog gone phone–ANYWHO……it is seen in many areas as a hindrance. Just depends on where you are. Personally, I like the new name and will embrace it whatever the vote is.
I don’t doubt that people outside the South find it a “hindrance.” I can’t help that they feel that way.
But, as I said, we can do the same work, as Southern Baptists, as we can, “Great Commission Baptists.” But the name makes no difference. Our true identity is Christ and him alone.
Smuschany
Just a random thought, and not directed at you in any way. BUT…Why is okay to condemn any hypercalvinist thought that says “Oh your not elect, okay guess I cant minister to you, sure stinks to be you!”, but it is wrong to condemn the thought that says “Oh dont like the name “Southern Baptist”, guess I cant minister to you, sure stinks to be you!”? Something in me just finds this a little hypocritical. Maybe it’s just me.
Now, being the deterministic fatalist that I am, I say in regards to evangelism, even though we as humans dont know who the elect are (ie the ones who will recieve the gospel) we still must proclaim to everyone. Just as, if God really wants to reach a person, no name will get in the way. I just think that we should not let the tradition of a name get in the way of anything. And in my opinion far too many who are opposed to the GCB monicker do so for poor motives. Why should we be fighting over what we are called when there are billions of people out there who need to hear the gospel! Who CARES what we are called when we proclaim the gospel! Call us the “Flying Purple People Eater Baptist Convention” and if we are sharing the gospel than that is all that matters!
Dale Pugh
I understand that. You understand that. The people we’re trying to reach are the issue. No, you can’t help it. You also can’t help that anything with “southern” in it is considered by some of them to look like Swamp People, Duck Dynasty, Call of the Wildman, and Redneck Weddings. The simple sound of a person’s dialect is a barrier to some of them. We all have prejudices and biases. But we aren’t a regional network, and our name shouldn’t reflect that regionalism, in my opinion. I guess it’s a personal preference.
Frankly, we debated the issue far more thoroughly on SBC Voices than on the convention floor. I’m guessing it’s 60/40 in favor. Congratulations, GCB proponents! You outlasted the raunchy TV show by the same name!
Regardless of who “wins,” I’m not sure that we can call a razor-thin majority (either way) a victory. While votes do not have to be unanimous, there should at least be unanimity in spirit. This vote will further illustrate the great divide amongst Southern Baptists. The leadership of the SBC, even if they eek out a win, continues to be tone deaf to a sizable portion of Southern Baptists. If they are not tone deaf, then they have badly calculated the enthusiasm for the “name change.” How else to explain one of our historic highs in unanimously electing Fred Luter and then turning around and having a divided vote on the name change?
I know the leadership tried it’s very best to make it absolutely clear that we are not voting on a name change! It is a “Slogan”… a “Descriptor”… We will still be the Southern Baptist Convention.
We don’t insist on calling our church plants/partners outside of the US “Southern” Baptist, so why insist on this with our church plants in the frontier states?
Also, if the motion is defeated does that mean that sizable portion of Southern Baptist are tone deaf to the needs of our frontier churches? It seams to me that argument cuts both ways.
There maybe very good reasons for a name change, but as one sitting in the hall, I thought that the arguments in favor of the name change were not persuasive. Of course, I am coming at this as someone who was against the process and the name change itself. I voted against the recommendation. You are right that the tone deafness argument can cut both ways. Could we have come up with a way to do this that would have garnered much broader support than a bare majority (if that)? I think so.
That being said, if the name change passes or if the name change fails, it will not change how our church relates to the SBC nor will it change how we partner with SBC churches who choose to adopt the descriptor. I do think that a dual name will not be unifying to the Convention as a whole, but I hope that I am proven wrong. However, I will stand by the main point of my previous comment that a divided vote, regardless of who “wins”,” is not really a win. Thanks and God bless,
“That being said, if the name change passes or if the name change fails, it will not change how our church relates to the SBC nor will it change how we partner with SBC churches who choose to adopt the descriptor.”
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Nate
Sure it will Dave. Churches that use the descriptor are still going to have to tell their members (at some point) that GCB is really the SBC. So the discussion will take place, or the GCB’ers will eventually want to deny all relations. Isn’t that their argument. People don’t want to associate with the SBC in the North…
I agree. I lean in favor of the recommendation (abstained for weird reasons) but I wish this were something that requires more than a simple majority. Adopting it after a narrow vote will help nothing.
Louis
I am for a name change but NOT this name. I voted against. I am not sure it will pass.
If we wait 10 years the desire to change the name will be stronger and we’ll get a better name.
I thought Jimmy Draper’s speech only made the case for not doing this stronger. “We have a world-wide brand that we’ve built — so let’s ditch it. Heck, it doesn’t even impact anything! You don’t have to do it anyway! That’s the beauty of it!” Even after knowing the arguments for this beforehand, after hearing him explain it, this sounded worse and worse to me. I’m not against changing the name if it truly helps us spread the gospel, but not this way. This is too muddled and ambiguous.
Nate
I wonder how excited Mohler will be when he finds out that in the small print on the ballot it said, “If passed The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary will now be called The Great Commission Baptist Theological Seminary.”
Jimmy Draper is speaking to the motion. SBC is a worldwide brand. But if the SBC is going outside the South, we need to give then an alternative. Emphasized the difficulty black pastors have encountered.
Descriptor. That’s the term.
Chris Roberts asks how it will be used by entities. Each entity will decide.
A motion not to consider this motion was soundly defeated.
Bob Cleveland and Micah Fries have both spoken (against and for).
This is going to be close.
R. Richard Tribble has spoken way too much.
Who?
He’s a parliamentarian who actually sounds like he knows his stuff. One time McCarty said his point was well taken and one time it was not. I think both McCarty and Wright have been fair.
I was never in favor of a name change, nor was I in favor of “Great Commission Baptists.” Not that it’s a bad name, but why change it? Is it really that terrible as people make it out to be? What’s in the past is in the past. It’s over. Done.
Let’s put our focus on getting the Gospel out and allowing God, through his Holy Spirit to do the work through us. I firmly believe we can do that as “Southern Baptists.”
It isn’t that bad when you live and minister in the South, but step outside that region and see h
Dog gone phone–ANYWHO……it is seen in many areas as a hindrance. Just depends on where you are. Personally, I like the new name and will embrace it whatever the vote is.
I don’t doubt that people outside the South find it a “hindrance.” I can’t help that they feel that way.
But, as I said, we can do the same work, as Southern Baptists, as we can, “Great Commission Baptists.” But the name makes no difference. Our true identity is Christ and him alone.
Just a random thought, and not directed at you in any way. BUT…Why is okay to condemn any hypercalvinist thought that says “Oh your not elect, okay guess I cant minister to you, sure stinks to be you!”, but it is wrong to condemn the thought that says “Oh dont like the name “Southern Baptist”, guess I cant minister to you, sure stinks to be you!”? Something in me just finds this a little hypocritical. Maybe it’s just me.
Now, being the deterministic fatalist that I am, I say in regards to evangelism, even though we as humans dont know who the elect are (ie the ones who will recieve the gospel) we still must proclaim to everyone. Just as, if God really wants to reach a person, no name will get in the way. I just think that we should not let the tradition of a name get in the way of anything. And in my opinion far too many who are opposed to the GCB monicker do so for poor motives. Why should we be fighting over what we are called when there are billions of people out there who need to hear the gospel! Who CARES what we are called when we proclaim the gospel! Call us the “Flying Purple People Eater Baptist Convention” and if we are sharing the gospel than that is all that matters!
I understand that. You understand that. The people we’re trying to reach are the issue. No, you can’t help it. You also can’t help that anything with “southern” in it is considered by some of them to look like Swamp People, Duck Dynasty, Call of the Wildman, and Redneck Weddings. The simple sound of a person’s dialect is a barrier to some of them. We all have prejudices and biases. But we aren’t a regional network, and our name shouldn’t reflect that regionalism, in my opinion. I guess it’s a personal preference.
I’m in Montana. Never thought the name “Southern Baptist” was a hindrance. Lots of hindrances… that just ain’t one of ’em.
Squirrel
Hey Squirrel……Is being a rodent a hindrance? 🙂
Frankly, we debated the issue far more thoroughly on SBC Voices than on the convention floor. I’m guessing it’s 60/40 in favor. Congratulations, GCB proponents! You outlasted the raunchy TV show by the same name!
The vote was close, but seemed, from various folks, and in my section, to have won narrowly, maybe around 55%. Hard to tell for sure.
Bryant Wright was eminently fair.
Talked to several people I’m the back. In the back, the votes seemed closer. The margin will be razor thin.
Only from the back can one adequately count the votes. That’s where the Baptists really are.
It will be close, but I agree, looks like it passed.
I blame Calvinists
Well you were predestined to blame Calvinists.
I saw Peater (I Am) standing in line to speak against this motion… He was right behind the guy who called for the question… He was not happy… LOL…
Thank Jesus.
Well, he was in line. There were no for/against lines, just general lines. When you step up you press a button saying if you’re for or against.
…But I’m pretty sure I know which button he would push. 🙂
If the name change passes will I still be Frank?
Frankly, you can call yourself any thing you want to, whatever the vote.
Regardless of who “wins,” I’m not sure that we can call a razor-thin majority (either way) a victory. While votes do not have to be unanimous, there should at least be unanimity in spirit. This vote will further illustrate the great divide amongst Southern Baptists. The leadership of the SBC, even if they eek out a win, continues to be tone deaf to a sizable portion of Southern Baptists. If they are not tone deaf, then they have badly calculated the enthusiasm for the “name change.” How else to explain one of our historic highs in unanimously electing Fred Luter and then turning around and having a divided vote on the name change?
Howell,
I know the leadership tried it’s very best to make it absolutely clear that we are not voting on a name change! It is a “Slogan”… a “Descriptor”… We will still be the Southern Baptist Convention.
We don’t insist on calling our church plants/partners outside of the US “Southern” Baptist, so why insist on this with our church plants in the frontier states?
Also, if the motion is defeated does that mean that sizable portion of Southern Baptist are tone deaf to the needs of our frontier churches? It seams to me that argument cuts both ways.
So if the motion looses
Greg,
There maybe very good reasons for a name change, but as one sitting in the hall, I thought that the arguments in favor of the name change were not persuasive. Of course, I am coming at this as someone who was against the process and the name change itself. I voted against the recommendation. You are right that the tone deafness argument can cut both ways. Could we have come up with a way to do this that would have garnered much broader support than a bare majority (if that)? I think so.
That being said, if the name change passes or if the name change fails, it will not change how our church relates to the SBC nor will it change how we partner with SBC churches who choose to adopt the descriptor. I do think that a dual name will not be unifying to the Convention as a whole, but I hope that I am proven wrong. However, I will stand by the main point of my previous comment that a divided vote, regardless of who “wins”,” is not really a win. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
“That being said, if the name change passes or if the name change fails, it will not change how our church relates to the SBC nor will it change how we partner with SBC churches who choose to adopt the descriptor.”
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Sure it will Dave. Churches that use the descriptor are still going to have to tell their members (at some point) that GCB is really the SBC. So the discussion will take place, or the GCB’ers will eventually want to deny all relations. Isn’t that their argument. People don’t want to associate with the SBC in the North…
Howell,
I agree. I lean in favor of the recommendation (abstained for weird reasons) but I wish this were something that requires more than a simple majority. Adopting it after a narrow vote will help nothing.
I am for a name change but NOT this name. I voted against. I am not sure it will pass.
If we wait 10 years the desire to change the name will be stronger and we’ll get a better name.
I thought Jimmy Draper’s speech only made the case for not doing this stronger. “We have a world-wide brand that we’ve built — so let’s ditch it. Heck, it doesn’t even impact anything! You don’t have to do it anyway! That’s the beauty of it!” Even after knowing the arguments for this beforehand, after hearing him explain it, this sounded worse and worse to me. I’m not against changing the name if it truly helps us spread the gospel, but not this way. This is too muddled and ambiguous.
I wonder how excited Mohler will be when he finds out that in the small print on the ballot it said, “If passed The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary will now be called The Great Commission Baptist Theological Seminary.”