(Read William’s blog, SBC Plodder, for his unique insights, Here, he asks an excellent question.)
The SBC online world has hemorrhaged articles, opinions, and fulminations that Bryant Wright announced the appointment of his informal committee to look at a possible SBC name change. Not a few have been vehement over the process. Some have called for civility and patience. Others have maintained that the whole business has been orchestrated.
While I understand the objection about process and while I don’t dispute that this has been unfolded in a premeditated and deliberate fashion, I’m curious if there are many who, process aside, object to some degree of name change? Did I miss those who maintain that the Southern Baptist Convention we are and the Southern Baptist Convention is how we should be known and not by any other name?
Could we assume, hypothetically of course, that the legalities are not insurmountable, the cost is reasonable, that messengers get to vote on a proposal twice before it is done and then talk substance?
If so, presuming that we keep “Baptist,” who objects to replacing “Southern” and “Convention” with acceptable terms, and why?
