My wife’s real name is Karen and you should know that I love her dearly. She is kind, gentle and compassionate. She has a smile that brightens my darkest days. She has a calm and sweet temperament that blesses my soul. God has given me the amazing privilege of going through life joined at the heart with the most pleasant person I have ever met. If you were to ask me how favorably I view my wife, I would be at a loss for words to describe her highly enough.
Not to change the subject (a phrase we strangely use whenever we do indeed change the subject), but at the risk of offending women named Lucretia everywhere, I must confess that there is something about the sound of that name which I find objectionable. It might be the “kree” syllable, which reminds me of “Cretan” or “secretion,” neither of which conjures up particularly pleasant images. I do not demean the women themselves when I reveal my dislike for their name. But the fact is, I much prefer the name Karen. It sounds very much like the word “caring,” which as I’ve already mentioned fits her to a tee.
Now suppose my wife changed her name to Lucretia. Although I would still not care for the name, this action would not change one bit the way that I feel about her. What I am trying to illustrate is that how a person feels about a person, place or thing should never be confused with how a person feels about the NAME of that person, place or thing. These are two completely different ideas, and any research strategy designed to evaluate the two separate ideas must be worded carefully enough to satisfy this crucial distinction.
A recent Lifeway Research study being touted in support of a name change for Southern Baptists reported that forty percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of our Southern Baptist denomination itself. Hallelujah! Jesus clearly warned us, “Woe to you when all people speak well of you…” (Luke 6:26) Since only sixty percent of Americans are speaking well of us, we are clearly keeping a safe distance from the sinful 100% mark Jesus warned us to avoid.
I actually prefer for Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Hugh Hefner and Lady Gaga to think poorly of Southern Baptists and the biblical family values and scriptural principles for which we stand. As we identify with Christ, we align ourselves with ideas such as moral absolutism, supernaturalism, creationism and social conservatism which will always be opposed by the enemies of God in our society.
Although I believe it is unnecessary for Southern Baptists to go out of our way to offend our godless culture, I nevertheless believe that as we live for Christ and preach His Word faithfully, we are bound to attract both followers and opponents, and the existence of these opponents proves only our faithfulness to Jesus and not the necessity for us to change the name by which we are called in order to cater to the alleged preferences of the lost.
All of this brings me to my primary point: The research Lifeway presented does nothing to address the way Americans feel about our NAME, but merely presents the way Americans feel about our DENOMINATION. In other words, a properly designed study to explore the effect of a denominational name change upon the attitudes of Americans at large absolutely requires that we ask them the specific question: “If Southern Baptists changed their denominational name, would you view them more favorably, less favorably, or about the same?”
In the absence of any such research specifically geared to the name change issue, the best we might hope to accomplish is to give Americans a different moniker by which to identify the denomination 40% of them will continue to dislike, just as Jesus told us to expect that they would.
Southern Baptists, please read very carefully. When we ask the wrong questions, we are inevitably bound to arrive at the wrong conclusions.
The idea that changing our NAME will somehow change the way Americans view our DENOMINATION is just as seriously flawed as the idea that I would love my wife less if her name were Lucretia.
My mom’s name is Lucretia. Are you ridiculing my mother?
A little more seriously, I disagree with the premise that a name change is simply cosmetic. Southern speaks to a geographical limit and a cultural identity that we no longer want to limit ourselves to.
I haven’t heard anyone on the name-change side claim that this would change everything, but just because it won’t change everything doesn’t mean that it won’t change something!
My only point, which I thought was impossible to miss, is that the Lifeway research evaluates US not our NAME. Other legitimate arguments can be made, but it is not right to reason that a name change would necessarily address this research–two different topics. As simply as I can put it, we are not our name.
But what if your wife was named Lucretia? Would you like it better if she changed it to Karen?
You guys still making fun of my mom – Lucretia Jezebel Miller?
Your mom’s gonna get you for this, DAVID.
You raise a separate, worthy point. I suppose after calling her Lucretia for 26 years, and since everyone would already know her by that name, I would continue to call her that, overlooking any minor flaw in light of my love for who she is and what she stands for.
My point is not to debate the name Lucretia, but to declare that Lifeway’s research is designed to evaluate a DENOMINATION but not a DENOMINATIONAL NAME.
But you admit that you feel one thing when you hear “Karen” and another thing when you hear “Lucretia,” based solely on the way they sound. Is it possible that others might feel the same way about the SBC? That the “Southern” part brings to mind certain things that they don’t feel like fit with their particular culture? Not saying Southern is bad. I’m born, raised, and live in the South.
It is possible, Wade, but if we want to know the answer to the question, “Will a name change affect the way Americans view us?” then Lifeway needs to do THAT study.
What I am pointing out is that the study Lifeway has ACTUALLY done does not address the decision at hand.
I suppose as long as her last name isn’t McEvil…
Now, Rick. you’re asking Lifeway to do a study that may not offer the kind of result they need to validate the Name Change Task Force’s agenda. what in the world are YOU thinking?
I guess I would not assume that the leaders of LifeWay lack the integrity to make an honest study, Hariette.
not thinking they lack anything. think they have everything they need to do an honest study. just because the study fails to add the things Rick suggests doesn’t make it dishonest. just not in keeping with what they think they’ll find when they conduct it with the questions they ask. that’s all.
in the end, the real test will come when the report comes back and says something of the nature of what Tim Guthrie posted. NO name change is warranted. I think Rick makes a pretty good case for the fact that if only 40% of those surveyed are unhappy with the name Southern Baptist, then 60% are fine with it. So it isn’t the name we have a problem with today, it’s the spirit of love we lack. They will know we are Christians by our love, after all.
I, along with several folks, came to “that little white church on Main Street” in East Hartford Connecticut who had no idea it was Southern Baptist, but fell in love with Jesus because the people who worshipped there, loved Jesus and shared Him with folks in the community. Southern Baptist is synonymous with many things to many people. Depends on who you’re talking to as to whether it turns them off or on. I praise God for the “southern” Baptists who gave to Annie Armstrong so that churches in New England could be built, grow, and minister. And I know a bunch of New Englanders who think the same way.
Hope you have a great day, Dave.
Dave,
Even honest leaders sometimes use pressure and political tactics and such to get things their way. Even good, moral, decent fellas that love the Lord might just say things in such a way that it’ll make people agree with them. The
Let’s not forget about the GCR.
David
If honest leaders use manipulation and pressure to get their way, they are no longer honest.
If you use manipulation, you are a manipulator.
Of course, we all stray and do wrong at times. We all lose our cool and say something we regret or act in a way we shouldn’t have. I will agree to that.
But I’m not willing to give leaders a pass on this. An accusation of manipulation or pressure is a serious thing – a violation of integrity that is no small issue.
To me, manipulation evidences a lack of faith in God’s power and is a sinful, fleshly act.
So, in one sense I agree. We all fall prey to manipulative behavior at times, perhaps.
But I cannot simply excuse it as normal. To me, it is sinful and faithless – a serious violation of biblical standards for leadership.
I:
1. Don’t believe the name is a problem any more than the names “Missouri Synod,” “Southern company,” “Pacific life,” “state farm”, “farm bureau” “Royal Dutch Shell”, “British Petrolium” “New York Life Insurance”, “Hartford Financial” “Southwest Airlines” etc are a problem to the corporations they represent.
2. Believe we have a good brand with the name we have and would confuse a lot of folks (some of whom I have met) around the world who know us as Southern Baptists and who have invited us to work with them.
3. Believe it is a terrible time in the life of our convention to bring up anything remotely controversial if it isn’t extremely important.
4. Believe a riot will start among some of the small churches in my area if an effort is made by the megaboys to do this.
5. Don’t like any name I have heard thrown out.
6. Have several serviceable names in mind that I refuse to share because: a. folks might like them and want to change the name and b. someone might steal them.
Or Mutual of Omaha, Roman Catholic…
Rick,
I agree. It seems those who don’t like us, don’t do so because of our name, but because of our beliefs.
Choose any name. If we stand for Jesus being the only way to Heaven, biblical values and morality, etc., then the same folks are not going to like us.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow – Those tenets that you named are not ones that cause the SBC trouble ; after all, we espoused those when we were in good shape.
Jack,
Some of those tenets are more opposed now, than back then.
Also, while there is always room for improvement, I think the SBC is now in pretty good shape.
David R. Brumbelow
Rick:
You are right. Many people don’t like the SBC because of the good things we stand for. If that’s why they don’t like us, then they’ll have to not like us.
And I also agree that a negative impression of the SBC does not go directly to the name.
But I also wonder to what extent people don’t like the SBC because of some of the things we have done that are not necessarily Christ Centered and Gospel oriented.
Many times it’s not the SBC itself, but one church or one pastor that does something, and it is reflected in how the SBC is viewed.
But having said that, a couple of things cause me to think.
I remember back in the early 90s the SBC had its strategic cities initiative. We were going to plant churches in New York, Chicago, Boston and other strategic cities where we were under represented and there was great opportunity.
I do not know what became of that.
I also cannot name one new SBC church in Manhattan that has been planted in the last 20 years that has a large and influential presence. That is not to diminish the good work that I am sure is going on there, about which I am ignorant.
But I CAN point to the PCA efforts to plant a church in Manhattan.
It was planted 20 or something years ago. It’s pastor is a man named Tim Keller. Tim Keller is a very faithful believer. He has a high view of scripture and has preached the Gospel faithfully in Manhattan. God has grown Redeemer so that now they have 3 or 5 campuses (or something like that) and thousands of people attending. My wife and I visited in 1997. It is a faithful Gospel witness in that city.
We also have friends who live in the heart of Boston and attend a new church plant from the PCA there. It is large and doing well.
I ask myself if I am simply unaware of all the great SBC churches that are being planted in downtown Manhattan or downtown Boston, or is the SBC not very effective in those places.
My suspicion is that the the SBC may not be particularly effective in those places – not because we are hated for being faithful to the Gospel, but because we may not have a bench of church planters that are from those areas of the country and that the church planters we do have are not, despite their strong desire, culturally in sync with those places.
These questions also make me wonder whether we have cultural affectations and methods that sound great to us, but may not ring the same in the ears of other people.
Do we limit ourselves in some ways that are dear to us, but foreign or obscure to others?
The name fits in to all of this. The name may not be the problem, per se, but it may fit into a perception.
So, while I agree with what you have said 1) that the SBC is disliked in some quarters because it has been biblically faithful, and 2) that the survey is really not a “name change” survey, I do not conclude from that that we are not liked for other reasons, too, or that we may be a bit culturally self limiting.
And I think that our willingness to consider this question, and even put the name of our convention up for reconsideration, is a pretty good inidcator of how far we are willing to go to make sure it is the Gospel that gives offense, and not some familiar cultural trapping or box.
Louis,
You hit the nail on the head! I firmly agree!
Add my “Amen” to Shannon’s
“In other words, a properly designed study to explore the effect of a denominational name change upon the attitudes of Americans at large absolutely requires that we ask them the specific question: “If Southern Baptists changed their denominational name, would you view them more favorably, less favorably, or about the same?”
Sorry Rick, But you are using way too much logic here. Don’t you know that one asks questions in such a way as to elicit the response they want?
I can tell you from personal experience that the name Southern Baptist Convention is a hindrance in the Northeast and other places. I can also argue that the real issue of North vs. South was not about slavery because there were more than …a few Northern slave-holding states at the onset of the War of Northern Aggression but to win this argument is at the expense of losing a “hearing” with those that are convinced otherwise. Therefore I would rather not have church-planters need to explain why their denomination was for “slavery.” This is not time well-spent. I am a dyed-in-the-wool, Paige Patterson SBC man, I will not compromise on the Gospel, inerrancy or the Great Commission but if the name is hindering us then let’s change it. Abram, Saul…..hey I’m gonna get a new name………it’s not about being Southern Baptist…..it is about Jesus. I would further submit that it is not “southern” that is causing us to decline in growth, baptisms, sending units and dollars but the attitude that esteems the name to be more important than the task at hand. I call it stodgy, over-zealous and misdirected conservatism that equates inflexibility and traditions with standing on the “Book, the blood and the blessed hope.” You can change the name, stand on the “Book, the blood and the blessed hope” and more ably facilitate the work of urban church-planters, northeastern church-planters and NAMB missionaries.
Fortunately, Ken, since the proposal is an optional nickname anyway, you can already, right now, refer to us as Great Commission Baptists, without ever voting. Just tell your friends, “You know I work alongside a bunch of other Great Commission Baptists all over the world to tell people about Jesus.” There’s nothing to stop you from using this optional nickname now.
If we vote, I will vote “no,” but I consider the very idea of voting on a non-binding, totally optional, unofficial nickname that people can either use or not use depending on their wishes to be a rather pointless exercise.