(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?
If “Southern Baptist Convention” was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, then it’s good enough for me.
I had an interesting discussion Saturday in which the man I was talking to used the same argument. His position was of a Calvinistic-dispensationalist-King-James-only-ist. He said (1) anyone who is not Calvinist is going to hell, (2) anyone who disagrees that the “church age” ended in 1988 is going to hell, (3) anyone who preaches in a church is going to hell, and (4) anyone who who speaks English yet uses a version other than the KJV is going to hell. You, or at least your arguments, keep interesting company, Josh.
(And yes, I realize you are TIC, as am I. But this conversation actually took place last Saturday, as I went into this guy’s
store to possibly make a purchase. I didn’t.)
John
I forgot to add his fifth point: anyone who denies that God loves to hate is going to hell.
John
John, why don’t you pray for that man . . . and maybe go back to his store and get to know him.
Think about it: you were in that store and spoke with that man for a time . . . the conversation stayed ‘with you’ . . . can you ‘go back’ and get to know ‘the person’, and maybe help him in some way?
There are no ‘coincidences’ in the Church.
All has meaning and purpose.
Calvinistic-dispensationalist-King-James-only-ist?
Really?
Exactly what I was thinking. I think he made the whole story up. 😉
Dave & Jeff,
I may be a storyteller, but I’m not good enough to make this sort of stuff up.
Christiane,
Yes, you are right. However, there are two problems: first there are people with whom I disagree and yet still like. This guy went out of his way to insult me and tell me, in no uncertain terms, I was going to hell, and he is not one of the people I enjoyed. I don’t know if it was just hius personality, or “chemistry” or what, but it would take a lot of energy for me to return to his place of business. Even so, I could overcome that; but second, his shop is 45 minutes away from my home and church (on a good traffic day), in the opposite direction from that I normally travel. My life is such that I just cannot see expending that much time on him–not because he isn’t worth it, but because I have so much else I must do.
John
As long as we’re not out tons of money to do it, then it’s not that critical. My objection comes from wondering about not only all of the SBC documents, but any other organization that has legally bound themselves to the “Southern Baptist Convention” and whether or not they’ll be able to afford to update as well.
I like “United Federation of Baptists.” I’ll like to pastor Enterprise Baptist Church myself.
You realize that DS9 will now mean Deep South 9-marks or something like that.
Will the Mason-Dixon be renamed as the Neutral Zone?
It would also allow Golden Gate Seminary to rise in recognition, since that’s where Federation Headquarters is.
Then we’d have Starbase Academy Louisville, Starbase Academy Wake Forest, and so on, so that the seminaries don’t have regional restrictive names. After all, you’d hate to see graduates of “Southern” not be able to preach outside of the south, right?
Mission trip groups would now be “Away Teams.”
I cannot see how “Baptist” is likely to be removed.
I can’t think of a logical argument for keeping “Southern.”
I don’t care about “Convention.”
It would be nice to have “Christ” or “Christian” in the name.
Even if the name is changed, it may end up sounding clunky. I would like a very short reference that could be used in that event.
As for the money, if The Baptist Sunday School Board changing to LifeWay was not a cost breaker, this should not be.
And I know of no one who wants to change that name back.
“It would be nice to have “Christ” or “Christian” in the name.”
yes, it would indeed . . .
but it could also be a good thing to mention Him according to ‘Who He Is’ . . .
‘The Risen Lord’, ‘Our Saving Lord’, ‘Holy Redeemer’,
‘Jesus Christ, Son, Savior’, ‘The Lord of Life’, . . . .
“Even if the name is changed, it may end up sounding clunky.”
Louis, is that something to really worry about, all things considered ?
‘image’ ?
If the Church reflects Our Lord, all will be well. His is the only ‘image’ to consider.
I prefer The Baptist Sunday School Board and Baptist Book Store over Lifeway.
DD
Why?
Do you know if that is wise?
Louis: I agree, but look around the SBC blogosphere a little, and you will see plenty of bloggers/commenters who think this is all really a clandestine plot to remove Baptist from the name.
Louis—I think the cost to the SBC would be minimal. The cost comes in on others this way: Mid-America Seminary, for example, has in their Constitution that all Trustees and Professors must be members of churches that participate in the Southern Baptist Convention. There’s no loophole for “or successor group to the SBC.”
So, one of the concerns is what cost would come to any group like that: will they have to refile incorporating documents? Will property deeds what have a church committed to being a “Southern Baptist Church” have to be refiled?
Stuff like this is what the Task Committee Force will probably be looking at. Lifeway generated a profit from sales and covered it under their advertising budget, but the EC budget runs a little different. I’m curious what the finding on it will be—but that’s why I think we’ll see a dba rather than a true renaming of the incorporated entity.
Doug:
The SBC would probably still reserve the name to Southern Baptist Convention, so no one else can use it.
Many organizations, including churches, could have something like that in their charters.
It’s very easy for Mid America and others to fix that. Doesn’t cost much at all.
I think that’s the kicker on cost: if it can be done with minimal impact on organizations that have contract or constitution requirements related to SBC, then no big deal.
Though I’ve heard some people suggest that “much at all” here is very relative. Much at all to me is $100 or less, but when deal with lawyers and corporate law, it may be more than that.
I am against the name change. I think it is more about changing the paint scheme than about real revival of evangelism. It’s like a church adding visitation to its schedule but only visiting members and boasting how they are involved in a evangelistic rebirth.
If the GCR was about getting more money to the IMB and church planting (and I am not sure that was really what it was all about) then why are we now going to spend money to change the name. If my church is spending more than it is taking in, and I decide to ask the church to pay to sod the yard, plant some trees and plant some flower beds, I’d be told that has to wait until we are able to pay our staff.
If the GCR process bruised people in our churches (for example to vow of silence for its minutes), why bruise more people with a fight about the name change. IF I have just been thru a debate about music, why would i want to go thru another fight about trying to change the time of the services.
This is not the time for this issue. We don’t have the money that ought to be going to make those legal changes. This debate at this time doesn’t make sense unless there is another agenda at work. I think the name change is not about “Southern” or “Convention”, but it is about being Baptist.
It’s a free country, Tom, so you can believe it’s about “being Baptist” if you wish. You may even be right. But before I would affirm that you are right, I would have to see or hear some evidence.
John
Tom:
Saying something is not worth the time or worthy is not really an answer. That’s just putting off an answer.
You actually answer the question later in your comment – you say there is another agenda at work – to remove Baptist from the name. And you are opposed to that.
If you don’t object to removing “Southern” or “Covention” why not just say that, and say loudly, as you do, that you object to removing “Baptist.”
Isn’t that what your concern is really about?
Changing coporate documents, signage, etc. is not a difficult thing.
I’m on the record as thinking the name change would be a good thing. However, I have seen a few very good reasons to proceed with caution.
1) Tom’s argument above has some merit. SBs too often act as if a name change is going to somehow change the nature of the beast.
I still think a name change could be a good idea, but lets not act like it will actually change everything.
2) The money argument. If this is going to cost a truckload of money, lets wait. I would guess that a dba arrangement would be the cheapest, but the lets not invest millions into a name change.
3) The legal argument. Some have advanced the notion that our name is chartered in such a way that changing it will cost us certain advantages we shouldn’t give up. I’m no lawyer, but if there are significant legal obstacles, maybe the change isn’t worth it.
In other words, my position is that a name change is a good idea, but not worth it if it costs too much or causes too many problems.
I agree wth what’s been said about a name change…concerning all the aruements about why its not a good idea. Legal issues…costs issues….and “is it really gonna make a whole lot of difference?” issues.
I think its a huge waste of CP dollars, and time and energy, for a time when we’re supposedly trying to do more to fulfill the Great Commission.
Now, if you want to change the name, then go for it. I wont lose one minute of sleep over this issue. But, its ridiculous in my opinion. We did a whole lot of reaching out beyond the South for years and years with the name “SBC.” It didnt seem to hinder anything for generations.
I like Dr. Lemke’s name, if we’re gonna change it….the “Fellowship of Christian Baptists.” Unless, of course, this is all about getting that narrow name of “Baptist” out of our name, instead of it being about “Southern.”
David
“Fellowship of Christian Baptists” huh? That would exclude all the non-Christian Baptists.
Actually, Lemke’s suggestion was: “Fellowship of Baptist Christians” which is precisely, exactly, verbatim what the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship calls themselves.
yea, you’re right…I got tongue tied and word twisted…it was FBC, or Fellowship of Baptist Christians….I like it.
Reminds me of the “People’s Judean Front” and the “People’s Front of Judea” And we all know what happened to them…
Dave and David:
I have not seen the real arguments about the legal nature of the charter and the supposed cost. I have heard them, but I have not really seen any strong analysis.
Everyone in the world would understand not changing the name if we lose something in the 1845 Georgia charter. That would be an easy sell not to change the name. But I would need to see that argument, and for me, for it to be persuasive, would need to be clear and free of hokus pokus.
And if that’s the case, a d/b/a could be used. No problem there.
If that were done, there would not even need to be money spent on changing the name. Might even be cheaper.
Based on my limited expertise, the dba route would be the least expensive. That would be a small filing and then paying for new stationery as we go. It also wouldn’t impact on anyone’s existing contracts because the legal entity names would still be valid.
Would that need a constitution change? Because if not, it would also be easier to pass in NOLA.
Dave,
I agree.
But I think that the name change proponents can do away with the concession that it won’t change everything.
Of course it won’t.
But because a name change won’t change everything or fix some other problems doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.
I think that we can stick to the issue of whether to change the name, and argue that on the merits.
There are other problems etc. that the convention can work on.
But those problems shouldn’t prohibit a discussion on, or even cloud, this issue.
Should they?
Agreed. I think…. I know that is dangerous… that the task force is actually looking at each of these issues. It very well may be they come back and say it will cost too much (not only $) and leave it as it is.
I am enjoying this dialogue. The issue of “why now” is solid with what we just went through. However if there are geographical obstacles to sharing the gospel with the name, as Dr. Patterson said “who wouldn’t want to eliminate those?”
This task force is tasked with finding answers to all these questions from what I understand. No small task. They are all also serving on their own dime. It wasn’t appointed by the SBC so thus no funding. Each accepted knowing this.
Well, it’s not lookin’ like I get to have any assumptions for this discussion, as in (1) assume the cost is reasonable, (2) assume the legalities are managable, and (3) assume that we keep ‘Baptist’ (and just for Tom (4) assume that a name change would ignite the flames of authentic evangelism).
Can I have a redo and just ask:
Who is wedded to “Southern”?
Who is locked in with “Convention”?
And why?
I thought I said that I wasnt locked with Southern and Convention. I even suggested a new name. IF, we’re gonna do something so silly, and even more silly, think that’s its gonna fulfill the Great Commission to change the name. lol.
William, what you’re getting from many is not that anyone is fired up about losing Southern and Convention….that’s not the issues in this….
David
Personally, and I hope no one kills me here, I’m not wedded to any names. I thought Rick’s suggestions below were among the better name changes.
Great Commission Baptist Convention. (Problem, there is a Great Commission Association – not Baptist – currently extant).
Baptist Gospel Partnership – that is about the best name change suggestion I’ve seen.
Dave how can we come up with a name that ends up GCR?
Global Convention of Regenerates
I am not wedded to the name southern. Someone once said that if we were naming this again, we would never consider using “southern” I agree, but I doubt that Mutual of Omaha or New York Life would have made those cities in their name if they were doing it now. But their companies are branded that way and it hasn’t hurt them.
Let me approach this a different way. Every pastor knows that he has certain leadership “silver bullets” in which he can say “Would you do this for me as your pastor?” Or “i made a mistake and I am sorry.” But we can’t shoot those bullets very often because they run out quickly and when they run out, we get run out. So why are our leaders using their silver bullets for this instead of using them to go from convention to convention and drum up support for evangelism and church planting?
I really don’t care what the name is (as long as Baptist is part of it). To be honest, I just think it is a stupid use of our Convention’s energy to move people towards a name change in the hopes that this will be the solution to our evangelism woes.
Let’s just don’t treat it as a silver bullett argument.
Let’s just treat it as a name change.
That’s it.
I have no illusions that Baptist will be removed from the name. I can’t imagine that in 2011. 100 years from now, that will be new generation. They can do what they want.
I’m not locked to “southern” or “convention.” I just don’t piece meal it that way. Why bother changing our well known brand, “Southern Baptist Convention?”
It will not affect evangelism since churches who feel that way already remove SBC references and even “Baptist” references from their church names. Seriously, is there a lost person out there about to pray the sinner’s prayer if only we changed our name?
The argument is made that some church plants would join us in associations and conventions if we only changed our name. To any churches offering such ultimatums, I would ask, “If you agree with our work and our doctrine, why let a name get in the way?” I would also ask our current membership why we would allow those outside the SBC to drive our policy decisions?
Frankly, it is not a traditionalist hard line need that I feel to keep the name SBC, but rather the lack of a compelling, convincing need to change it that leads me to believe this is just as much a waste of time as the convention said it was seven years ago.
Great Commission Baptist Fellowship? Gospel Centered Baptist Association? The Baptist Gospel Partnership? The Missional Baptists of America?
Any change will have less name recognition and will not sound much, if any, better than what we have. I know we’re not just in the south anymore. Big stinkin’ deal! Coke doesn’t have cocaine in it anymore either. Should they change their name to Brown Sugar Water? Or can we all agree that would be a mistake?
I’ll agree, there is not an overwhelming compelling necessity to change the name. But neither is there an overwhelming compelling necessity to keep the name is there? Couldn’t every one of your arguments be reversed? Is there a sinner who will not be saved if we change the name?
So, we neither HAVE to change the name or NOT change the name.
The question is whether it will help us in any way to be more effective and present ourselves in a better way in our now non-regional efforts at ministry.
My position is: 1) It would be better NOT to have the word Southern in the name.
2) I’m not sure whether the benefit derived will outweigh the costs and difficulties.
3) I’m waiting with anticipation for the report of the task force which will hopefully answer some of the questions.
“I’ll agree, there is not an overwhelming compelling necessity to change the name.”
Ah, then the horses are almost in the corral, Cowboy Dave!
Should not the “burden of proof” here be placed upon those proposing the change? If there is nothing compelling us in either direction, why bother, right? Add in the legal, financial, branding and historical factors and the traction for changing it simply isn’t there, right?
Tie goes to the runner, or in this case, to the largest non-Catholic denomination in America, which millions of people have come to know as the Southern Baptist Convention.
Now, would everyone please just get some sweet tea and go outside on your porch and rock in your rocking chair for a spell? If you’re not careful, you may ruffle a few feathers south of the Mason-Dixon line insinuating there is something wrong with “southern.”
Even Jesus was born in what was once the SOUTHERN Kingdom!
“Even Jesus was born in what was once the SOUTHERN Kingdom!”
And baptized by a Baptist! Well, that settles it for me!
Conventional wisdom says we should leave it alone.
I’m not sure this is supposed to be about winning and losing (or ties), Rick, but about being more effective. I think we could be more effective by changing the name, if our goal is to become a significant force outside of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
Rick:
I have heard from Christians who labor in other parts of the country that are not from SBC backgrounds that “Southern” is not appealing, and it makes people think that there is some regional emphasis or culture to the church. And they don’t find that appealing.
So why not change it?
What’s the big deal? It could be done at the next meeting without problem.
We have a brand. Sure. But I do not believe it is a brand that is known or appreciated outside heavily religiously steeped circles.
Why not have a better brand?
We will not lose “customers” or people who know and appreciate the brand. All of our churches will get it. None of our current “customers” will somehow be confused.
I don’t see any downside to this, and there is a potential upside.
“… it makes people think that there is some regional emphasis or culture to the church.”
There is. It is our heritage. We do indeed have a culture, just like the Greek Orthodox Church hosting a Food Festival this weekend. We have a Baptist identity and we are not ashamed of it.
People up north are sometimes confused and even offended by southern ways. Here’s one example. My wife had a professor from up north who questioned why people down here always bring other people food — casseroles, pies, etc., as an expression of friendship or consolation. She didn’t like this at all. She reasoned that she could feed herself just fine and didn’t really know or trust what others put in her food.
So do we have to stop baking casseroles, too?
I don’t find it appealing to make changes because people OUTSIDE our organization don’t like something about us. I know the trendy philosophy is that if we listen to Lost Larry he will show us how to do church right, but I just don’t buy it. THEY should not dictate our name or a complete change in our philosophy and identity.
I agree Paul wrote we should “become all things to all men so we might save some” but we all admit there are limits to this application, right? We don’t become murderers to get thrown in jail to win the murderers. Somewhere along the way this trend of accommodating the culture will face a stop sign.
This issue may be that stop sign.
“It could be done at the next meeting without problem.” Nope. It will have to be presented at two consecutive meetings to change the name and bylaws, etc.
“All of our churches will get it.” 1/3 of our Executive Committee did not get it.
I don’t see any real upside, except that SOME people up north might “feel better.” Believe me, some people down south would feel better if we moved on to more important matters.
And the downside would be further dividing the convention over matters we’ve settled many times before.
Rick:
I just read this.
That is exactly where we disagree and I see a problem.
You wrote, quoting me and in response to me:
“… it makes people think that there is some regional emphasis or culture to the church.” (Me)
There is. It is our heritage. We do indeed have a culture, just like the Greek Orthodox Church hosting a Food Festival this weekend. We have a Baptist identity and we are not ashamed of it. (Your response).
I believe this is the crux of the issue.
You are proud of a Southern heritage and actually want that reflected in the name of your denomination.
I am proud of my Southern heritage, but do not think it is wise to link my Southern heritage with my church and my efforts to proclaim the Gospel.
I would like for them to be separated. I would like for all the churches in the SBC to have that option. But with “Southern” in the name, that is not possible.
You know, when our church started a food pantry and started feeding people and praying with them about their needs, and when we started going out into the community door to door, meeting people and loving them and sharing Jesus with them and finding out ways we could help them, the name of our church wasn’t a big deal nor was the denomination we belonged to. I know it could be a big deal in the Northeast, but if you do a great job loving people, having warm fellowship, and have biblical preaching, I think we can break down a lot of stereotypes people may have about Southern Baptists. We are who we are. Let’s use the name to show how God has blessed us and enabled us to grow into a nationwide denomination with worldwide reach through our missionaries and partnering overseas conventions.
Bill Pfister
Or we could have a name that doesn’t evoke stereotypes over which we have to overcome.
I really like the rest of your post.
If the argument is that Southern moniker is a hindrance outside of the South/South West, then why wouldn’t Baptist and/or Christian be even more problematic in black areas or even most other nations? Isn’t the whole name change movement about being a “brand” that can be used globally? Though in many parts of the world, if you are not a Muslim or Jew, you are a Christian, even if you do not believe in Christ.
That’s why I think there will be a push from some to hide/mask our identity. I think that would be a tragic mistake. The early church embraced the name Christian even though it was intended to be derisive. The same can be said of Baptist. I am a Baptist Christian and am unwilling to forsake either Christian or Baptist: It UNASHAMEDLY is what identifies Who I believe in and what I believe.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Is a church that shares all our beliefs and practices but does not use the name Baptist in the wrong?
Absolutely not! But wouldn’t that make them a Baptist? 😉
Ron,
We are not Southern. Not only is it confusing and a possible turn off. It is not accurate – especially in light of what we want to be.
We are Christian. That’ s a name from our savior and the first century. That’s why I would like to use it in a new name. It has world wide appeal.
We are also Baptists. That communicates things about our polity and such.
When we say we are Southern or a Convention, that really does not communicate accurately, in my opinion.
Louis,
Actually, Convention is very accurate. That is exactly what we are, a convention of Southern Baptist churches. We meet once a year (Convention) to conduct our business. I would disagree that Southern in our name is confusing. It might put some off, but confusing? No. If anything, it is such a recognized name all across North America and even the world that I think it would take us the better part of a century to build world wide name recognition that we currently enjoy. It also won’t help that everyone outside of the SBC, especially the media, will continually call us “(Insert new name here) formerly the Southern Baptist Convention”. We will never get away from the name even if we change it.
I agree about Christian, but I think there will be some who will argue that “Christian” in the name will erect barriers for us to do mission work in many parts of the world. Some of those same people have been saying the same thing about Baptist and Southern for quite some time. Yet I have not seen one piece of evidence that someone has rejected the Gospel because of the name Southern Baptist Convention.
Blessings,
Ron P.
I for one am not going to be upset if the entire thing is changed, including Baptist. Almost always Baptist is a hindrance not a help. It says nothing distinctive to who we are.
The comical thing is that Baptist is just a shortened version of what it once was. Something people often forget.
“It says nothing distinctive to who we are.”
Wow. Just…wow.
A perspective from one with an EFCA background…
At a conference a while back as the EFCA was going through the process of updating its Statement of Faith, one particular motion started a HUGE firestorm. That motion was to remove the word “premillennial” from the statement to allow amillennial and postmillennial folks (and churches) to be members. Personally, I was all for it.
Now, where this relates to the current discussion is this: missionaries for the EFCA commented that hardly any new EFCA churches were being adopted in Africa and other similar countries simply because most of the people there were amillennial. They agreed with every other point in the SoF, but not that one.
The point is – if the EFCA were looking at simply a name change, that wouldn’t have helped anything because you would still need to profess premillennialism. However, removing the word “premillennial” from the SoF would have enabled other churches to join the denomination. In order for the EFCA to expand in places like Africa, it needed to change what was required for membership, not just change the name. (They ended up keeping “premillennial” despite wide acceptance to remove it.)
I guess my $0.05 here is that if changing the name makes more people come, that says more about the world in which we live than the convention to which we belong. We purposefully left “evangelical” out of the name of our church because many, many unchurched people thought “evangelical” meant “oh, you dance in the aisles and speak in tongues and scream and cry during service? I don’t want that.”
What does “baptist” mean to people who are unchurched? “Southern”? If the unchuched person is your goal, those might be interesting questions to ask. The next question to ask is “am I so wedded to the word that I am unwilling to remove that stumbling block if indeed it is one?”
I’m not suggesting to remove the offense of the gospel, but simply want to make it offensive for the right reason. That said, I am so familiar with the term SBC that calling it something different would be strange even for this non-SBC guy. 🙂
Jeff.
To your point Jeff, we are not discussing the offense of the gospel. We are talking about the offence of the name. It is funny how we start there in this discussion but then we talk about changing anything BUT Baptist. Which may be the most misrepresented and offensive part of the name. Right after Southern.
Interesting the way people thought of Evangelical in your context.
And what exactly is offensive about the name “Southern?” The fact that people from the South bought slaves from people from the North 160 years ago?
Should we also change the name of Southern Seminary? Can we still call a left handed pitcher a “southpaw?” Is this some new regional political correctness running amok?
I’m fine with those who disagree with me on this issue claiming that the name “Southern” is not as accurate as it could be, that it is not properly descriptive. But offensive? Come on!
Methinks if someone is offended by one of the four directions they may need to visit the nearest institution with padded walls and white coats.
Rick,
It’s not offensive in and of itself.
But think through how you would explain the name of our denomination to someone.
Why was “Southern” used to begin with?
It was not a neutral, regional name, as Southern is typically used.
“But think through how you would explain the name of our denomination to someone.”
In 24 years of ministry, not one of the souls in any of the churches I have served have asked me to explain the name of our denomination to them. I’ve prayed with them, laughed with them, cried with them, taught them, baptized them, married them and buried them but I have NEVER been asked to explain our denominational name. It’s just not that important to them. And that’s why it’s hard for me to accept that it’s so important to the fine folks who are coming to Jesus north of the Mason-Dixon line.
I guess that’s because you have ministered in the South where the SBC has been for over 150 years.
Nothing wrong with that.
But we are talking about areas outside of the South.
I would be interested in hearing from people on hear who have led churches outside of the South for say 5 or 10 years.
I remember when Paige Patterson launched the strategic cities initiative many years ago. The idea was to plant SBC churches in NYC, Chicago etc.
i wonder how that went? We would have no trouble attracting people who move to the North from the South.
But I bet trying to attract folks who have been raised all their lives in NYC or Chicago requires some discussion, ultimately, of the SBC and the Southern nature of things.
Are there any folks out there who have had 5 or 10 years real experience with this – church planting in places like NYC or Chicago?
Anyone?
A bit of history:
According to the “Handbook of Denominations” (5th edition), “the first Protestant missionary board in America was the American Board, made up of Baptists, Reformed, Congregational and Presbyterian churchmen. In 1814 the Baptists organized their own separate General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions. [Now, THERE’s a name fer ya!] This convention marked the first real denominational consciousness of American Baptists.
“It was followed by the development of what came to be known as the American Baptist Publication Society, various missionary societies and the Baptist Young People’s Union.
“These organizations were on a national scale. Their unity was disrupted first by a feeling that home missions agencies within the body had failed to evangelize southern territory, and later by the question of slavery and the Civil War.
“The great division over slavery came in 1845, when the Southerners ‘seceded’ to form their own Southern Baptist Convention in order to carry on more effectively the work of the Southern Baptist churches. From this point forward there was to be a Northern (now the American) and a Southern Baptist Convention. The division is still in effect.”
In the section under “American Baptist Convention,” it is said that in the early 19th century three entities “mutually maintained” — the American Baptist Home Mission Society, the American Baptist Missionary Society (later renamed American Baptist Foreign Mission Society,) and the American Baptist Publication Society. “Separate appeals for funds to support all these competing societies created confusion and dissatisfaction and led eventually to the formation of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1907. It changed its name in 1950 to the American Baptist Convention.
In the section under the Southern Baptist Convention it says a Northerner suggested the Southerners leave, and one month later, the SBC was formed.
In that same section it says Northerners operated as a loose confederation of churches for the first 65 years, til they organized into a convention in 1907. SBs did so from the beginning and that is the reason for the SBC’s tremendous growth.
I have no point to make; just thought I’d add this historical stuff. I just wondered why and when the NBC changed its name. It makes sense for the Northern Baptist Convention to have become the American Baptist Convention, since its three entities already had the name American.
Sheila
There is a highway being proposed that will extend through my community southwest of Birmingham. It is known as the “Northern” Beltline. Doesn’t offend me at all. I don’t think of the road as being rude or pushy or having a funny accent. I mean, it’s just a name.
Again, Rick, in that case, “Northern” was used to distinguish a location of the highway, as far as I can tell.
“Southern” in 1845 had a different purpose. The regionalism was connected to the support of slavery.
Are you denying that? Do you really not see that?
Are we really going to play the race card in New Orleans the same year we elect Fred Luter as President and try to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention because our Baptist forefathers preceded the rest of America by fifteen years in what is falsely called the “Civil” War? (If you want to change the name of something, that’s a much better place to start.)
What was civil about it?
Certainly slavery was wrong. Are we wanting to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention because two centuries ago Baptists in the South wanted to send missionaries from the South who felt called to spread the gospel but Baptists in the North refused to send our missionaries due to the presence in the South of the immoral institution of slavery, an institution propped up by slave traders from the North? Are we really heading down this road, fighting this battle all over again?
Are you insinuating that those who favor keeping “Southern” in our denominational name are somehow in favor of supporting the institution of slavery which existed 166 years ago?
“Do you really not see that?”
No, I do not see that. The reason I am a Southern Baptist has nothing to do with the fact that there was once slavery in America. It has everything to do with the fact that a denomination whose heritage and culture is rooted in the South were the people who shared the gospel with me when I was lost.
I predict if the issue of race somehow becomes the prevailing argument for a name change, we will not be opening a can of worms, but a can of anthrax. It could get very ugly.
Would those northerners find THAT appealing?
Rick,
There maybe some positive reasons to change the name of the SBC. I’m a long way from being convinced that changing the name would be good, but I am open to being persuaded. However, if the campaign to change the name goes negative with the use of racial politics — as we have already observed — then New Orleans will be a sad day for all Southern Baptists, regardless what spin is put on it.
Rick:
I am not at all saying that you or others who like the “Southern” in Southern Baptists are in favor of slavery or racism. Of course I don’t believe that. And I haven’t said or implied that.
I do think that you and others believe that “Southern” is completely benign, and thus, should be used. Hence, the references to other companies that use Southern in the name in this argument.
My point, again, is that there are many people who do not see the use of “Southern” in the Southern Baptist Convention as benign. And historically, it was not benign.
You are not capable of understanding or seeing that.
Also, please go back and read what I sad about “You really cannot see that.”
It was a reference to the fact that historically, the use of “Southern” in the SBC was to distinguish the convention of churches in the South as those that supported the South’s efforts to maintain slavery.
Here is what I wrote:
“Southern” in 1845 had a different purpose. The regionalism was connected to the support of slavery.
Are you denying that? Do you really not see that?”
And you say “No”. You don’t see that is the history of the use “Southern.”
And then Howell says that to bring this point up and discussing it is “going negative.”
Does that mean Howell believes that it is illegitimate to point out that the purpose for using “Southern” in the original founding of the SBC was to identify churches that supported slave holders’ rights and slave holding in the South?
That is really just a historical fact. That’s not being negative.
I think that the better argument for you guys is just to say that it is not what we would chose now, but we are not like that, and it now has a benign purpose.
But to deny the historical nature of the name that is so obvious, or to try to place a discussion about that, and whether it is a good strategy to continue using that name, as beyond decent debate because it’s “negative” is a kind of psychological denial.
The use of “Southern” for many people outside the South implies that there is something about the SBC that is Southern, and that the name is not simply a historical artifact.
At it worst, for those who know the history, it conjures up racism. At its most benign, it is unnecessary regionalism.
I know that both of you love the Lord and that racism is the furthest thing from your minds. You cannot believe that anyone would think of you as being racist or the SBC being racist because of the good experiences you have had in SBC churches.
I suspect that neither of you has lived outside of the South for any length of time. I could be wrong about that. But it just sounds like you are oblivious to the possibility that anyone could ever find an objection over “Southern.”
But I have been in business and social settings where this has come up. One meeting, in particular, was a business meeting with claims professionals who adjust personal injury claims for insurance companies. The group was talking among themselves and somehow the word “Baptist” came up, and one of the black claims reps said he was a Baptist, but not a “Southern” Baptist (emphasis his, not mine), and he implied that black people should or were not “Southern” Baptists.
Had I not been in this meeting or had other discussions like it, I would be oblivious to this issue, also.
The SBC has already gone on record repudiating its own founding. That was a good and necessary thing. I did not think so at the time. But the more time that goes by, the more I see that to have been a benefit.
Rick, you are right to point out that racism existed in the North. That is true. But the denominations in the North did not perpetuate any hint of racist origins in their names, as we did in the SBC.
Again, we can say it’s not that big a deal to us because we know each other and what our churches emphasize today.
But if that is the only test, it leaves out our entertaining the possibility that others don’t see things the same way that we do.
I really do not understand all of the effort to save “Southern” in the name of the SBC. It makes no sense to me, especially when it’s carried to the point of either wanting to deny history or claim a discussion of history is off limits.
Louis,
I would not say that it is illegitimate to bring up the SBC’s history — including slavery and racism connection. Do I believe that it would be “going negative” to use this as a major argument for name change? Absolutely. Bart Barber has a a great post out about some of these issues. If people want to argue for a name change, that’s great. If they want to use (as some already have, including Dr. Mohler, Jonathan Akin, Jonathan Merritt, et. al.) the negative connotations of “Southern” because of the slavery/racism angle, then they are obviously free to do that. But, I’m not sure that’s going to be a persuasive argument.
For a supposedly Gospel-minded people who believe in God’s grace and redemption and that God can forgive the greatest of sins, we sure have a strange way of showing that in the case of the SBC and her name. Glad we don’t use the same strategy with individuals. Will be involved in a Dave Ramsey simulcast event today, so won’t have much time to respond during the day. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Louis,
Thanks for the dialogue. Let me try to boil my thoughts down in a concise fashion: I would rather teach the world that today “Southern” does not equal “racist” than to concede whatever pejorative connotations the word has developed and abandon it for something else.
I appreciate the dialogue, too. Very much and think highly of you and your thoughts.
“Are we really going to play the race card … ?”
Most long-time Southern Baptists know that the convention has already addressed our tarnished past. Over the years, the SBC has passed 11 resolutions pertaining to race relations, including a 1995 resolution apologizing to all African-Americans and repenting of past attitudes and acts of racism. Today, there are 3,400 predominantly African-American congregations affiliated with the SBC, with an estimated 1 million members. The “Southern” in SBC doesn’t carry that connotation when viewing SBC’s landscape today. We’ve put our behind in our past on this issue. Repenting of racial sins is part of our legacy as well. That card doesn’t belong on the table any longer.
Max: How many African Americans have a position in the SBC?
Debbie: At least 3,000+ pastors and soon-to-be President of the convention. There are countless other African-Americans who hold church staff positions, as well as state convention and associational roles. If you are referring to key SBC leadership positions, we could be doing much better in that regard to select leaders representative of membership ranks (including other minorities, rural churches, church plants, etc.).
Debbie: As of the SBC annual meeting this June, there were about 800 African-Americans who serve in denominational roles throughout the SBC. This includes about 600 church planters funded at least in part by NAMB. Of the 200 or more serving at the associational, state and national levels, probably fewer than 25 play influential roles, however.
Sheila
The question about what blacks would think of the term ” southern ” or ” Baptist ‘, they already have a lot of churches with the name Baptist in them and seminaries of their own that provide well qualified ministers and some of those are in the north east . The music they have, they have never given up either and a lot of it is ” old Baptist ” tunes as we know them with a rich history. This whole thing could be so big and mean so much if we don’t let naysayers disrupt an honorable goal for secular reasons.
You guys may have a point concerning the way black people think of our name. Perhaps, if “Southern” Baptist Convention is truly offensive enough, the SOUTHERN Christian Leadership Conference, whose first President was Martin Luther King, Jr., will have no choice but to file a protest or stage some rallies!
Rick Patrick , Are you serious or just joking or just getting caught up in what this really means to others and can’t work it out in your own mind ?
No, actually he was pointing out a very logical fact that if it’s OK for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to have Southern in the name and they not find it offensive then there is no logical reason for them to be offended in the Southern in our name. Anyone who is offended by it can, how you say, “Get over it”.
Joe Blackmon , I understood completely what Rick Patrick was doing and I put a response named diretly to him . Next time you want to answer for somebody you might try sitting on their lap.
Joe, I had to take off my housecoat and leave my basement for a while, so thanks for answering accurately in my absence.
Jack made some comment about you sitting on my lap, but please don’t. Just for the record everyone, I would rather change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention than have Joe Blackmon in my lap, and I’m quite certain that the feeling is mutual!
Joe:
Are you also saying that you see no difference in the history and use of the term “Southern” in the SBC and “Southern” in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?
You might not like the verbal double standard that exists here, but it exists for a reason.
When Joseph Lowry (sp?) and others founded the SCLC, it was not for the purpose of supporting the rights of slave holders and slavery. When the SBC was founded, that was the purpose.
Even the SBC has acknowledged this and apologized for it.
Trying to equate the 2 uses completely ignores the distinctions between what the 2 groups were trying to do and their purposes.
I am a Southerner. I am proud of men like Robert E. Lee, James P. Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly Sr. and Jr. They were great men in the their day.
But they were racists. That was a fatal flaw that they had. We have them, too, and so did the other men of their generation.
The race issue in the U.S. is a huge issue and sets us apart from many countries. I am proud of the U.S. for resolving that issue. Many people suffered and many people died to solve that. I know that you agree with me on that.
That’s why it is so important, especially given the SBC’s history that we do not say and do things that show we truly don’t appreciate the seriousness of how Africans were mistreated in the slave system, and how it was wrong of our ancestors, however noble they were in other areas of life, to have fought to maintain the slave system and the Jim Crow system.
Saying that we can’t see the difference in the use of the “Southern” by these 2 groups really shows a tone deafness to history and social concern.
Rick,
Fo’ shiggidy.
Louis,
Actually, I do see your point. I was just being disrepectful to Jack as much as anything although I think the use of Southern in the SBC has grown beyond that original intention. For my part, I’m not really freaking out one way or the other about the name change.
Jack,
Go play in the street. Preferably a busy one.
Anyone who is offended by it can, how you say, “Get over it”.
But yet scripture says “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed” (2 Corinthians 6:3).
If we continually look to offend the lost we are going to lose the opportunity to witness to them. The Gospel offends some, but to go out of our way to offend like your words do on purpose is in my opinion a sin.
At the least it’s wrong. The infighting and silly threats need to stop, threats do nothing anymore. The Bible also says not to offend a weaker brother so I’ll stop here.
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference did not chose its name for any regional, racial exclusionary purpose.
The SBC did.
I disagree that “Southern” in SBC was to justify slavery so much as it was to justify sending out missionaries even from a culture with moral flaws.
Today there is abortion in America. If southern states managed to outlaw it, would you support denying Northerners the opportunity to answer God’s call to missions?
Apart from all that, I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to say that the word Southern is offensive when applied to one organization and completely acceptable in another.
I pay my electric bill to Alabama Power, which is a subsidiary of Southern Company. That doesn’t make them racist either. Are we really supposed to dredge up all historical references to the word Southern, interpret them, and assign blame or
absolution in each case? I prefer a more consistent use of the word Southern, meaning “from, toward or concerning the South.”
No, Rick, we don’t have to drag up all the uses of “Southern” by various companies and such.
We only have control and a say-so over the name of one organization. That’s the only one we should really examine.
But other people keep bringing up these other organizations to try and justify the continued use of “Southern” because other organizations use it.
I have a new name…Galactic Baptist Convention…just in case they’re really out there!
David
PS. I saw this one somewhere else. Its not original with me. I also saw someone have a name which abbreviated out to BORG…so, we could be the Borg…lol
Er, ah, this is one of the choices on my name designer page:
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/09/sbc-name-change-designer.html
If you are going with Galactic, why not make it Galatic Baptist Confederation? A bit more sci-fi appeal. More mission minded SBCers might like Inter-Galactic B.C. or Trans-…
Galactic Baptist Federation – I like that. I REALLY like that.
William,
You present an interesting question. Sorry that it has taken me so long to join the discussion today. While I continue to object to the process, I cannot say categorically that I would oppose a name change under any circumstances. But, the burden of proof for changing the name, IMO, is on those who would seek to change the name, not those who would seek to keep the name. I would not say that the burden of proof should be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but it should at least be “clear and convincing.”
Part of burden is to present valid, credible evidence (written or testimonial) which would persuade the jury — in this case the assembled messengers of the SBC in Annual session for a least two consecutive years — that a name change would be the “right” thing to do. There obviously would be some evidence that some messengers would give greater weight to and other evidence that would be accorded less weight. There is a way to present the evidence that would be helpful (true transparency and no sealing of records would one of those ways) and there are spokesmen that would be more persuasive than others. For me at this point, Dr. David Dockery would be much more persuasive than others who might be inclined to argue the case in front of the messengers. Sometimes you need humble, not erudite.
Lastly, I would say that there is at least one piece of evidence, that if presented (and it’s already being presented informally by some, including at least one on the Task Force), would be both explosive and divisive. Doesn’t mean that you don’t present it, but it may lose you the jury (messengers). What evidence might that be? That the racial bigotry related to the Southern Baptist Convention’s founding — namely slavery — and the SBC’s (mainly southern rednecks) who have practiced racism throughout most of Convention’s history, makes it imperative that we change the name. There may be positive reasons to expand our witness, but if the race card is played, then all bets are off!
By the way, what church planters begin their witnessing encounters with anyone by saying, “Hi, my name is ________. Before I get to sharing about Christ, let me tell you that I’m from a Southern Baptist Church (even though we don’t have Southern or Baptist in the name of our church) and, by the way, in case you didn’t know it (which they probably didn’t), the SBC was founded because a bunch of racist, southern bigots wanted to send missionaries to the uttermost part of the world. Now, let me share about Jesus.” As they say in Dixie, that dog won’t hunt! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I certainly have no problem with a name-change. Labels carry baggage. I think it would go a long way to broaden people’s understanding of the church.
I didn’t think I’d like it but “Great Commission Baptists”doesn’t sound that bad.
Or, how about “Go Ye Baptists”
Well okay, Ill put my two cents worth in, I’m totally against any name change whatsoever for the following reasons:
1.) I’m not in any way convinced that the problem people have is with the name Southern or the history behind it, but rather the conservatism that the SBC has come to represent. The North is more liberal and their disdain for the SBC stems from the theological conservatism prevalent in the denomination. BTW, thank God for that conservatism!
2.) You can change the name to whatever you wish and virtually anyone who knows who the SBC is will not be fooled. For all intents and purposes the name the denomination fromerly know as the Southern Baptist Convention will be the result, and it would be deceitful to try to tell anyone otherwise.
3.) We can teach people who have legitimate concerns about the name that the denomination began in the Southern U.S. prior to the civil war etc.
4.) The SBC has been the most evangelistic protestant denomination on the face on the earth, you’ll have a tough time convincing me that the term Southern has hindered in any truly significant way.
5.) The whole thing looks like a market driven exercise in the flesh to me. Do we really believe that changing the name of the SBC is going to produce more converts. What would our Calvinist friends have to say about that?
6.) I don’t think that it can be credibly verified that other denominations who have changed their names have been positively impacted by the change.
I’ve got several more but I’ll end it there. In my mind, there is not a single good reason to change the name.
John Wylie:
These are very good comments. This is the line of argument that I would use if I were on your side of the table on this issue. These are very well thought out arguments.
1- the SBC is hated because of conservatism and biblical fidelity. A name change will not help that.
2 – no one will be fooled. But more importantly, we should not be trying to fool people anyway.
3 – we should teach the history. We will have to do that regardless of the name we choose. Wouldn’t it be great to say in that teaching something like this, “And the SBC grew beyond the South. We are no longer Southern. We wanted a name that truly reflected who we are and how we want to continue to reach beyond the South.” That would be true. It would be accurate. We would not be trying to fool anyone. Also, we could say, “And because we were also wanting to get rid of any vestige of offense or the less noble aspects of our founding, we changed the name of the denomination.” That would be true, too.
4 – the SBC has been evangelistic. Not sure about “face of the earth” honors, but I know what you mean. Internationally, SBC probably means little. Because internationally people don’t pick up on regionalism as much as they do domestically. I don’t understand all of the differences and emphases between the different states in Mexico, for example. I would defer to people who have lived and worked in the Northern and Western areas of our country as to whether our name is a hindrance. I suspect that they would tell you that a name change would be a blessing. It would be one less thing to explain, I’m sure.
5 – it is market driven. I believe that when it came to everything except the truth of the Gospel, that the Apostles were market driven. There is obviously a point where trying to communicate accurately and effectively becomes idolatry. But there is a lot of good thinking and strategizing that can be done that is not bad. I think the IMB guys and the NAMB guys do that every day as they think of creative ways to reach people. There is nothing wrong with that, generally. It can become silly. And it can become wrong. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
6 – I don’t know of another large denomination that has changed its name. Some churches and ministries have changed their names, and they report good things. I believe that Dr. Draper and Dr. Rainer would say that the change to LifeWay was a good thing.
If I had any power to change things, I would certainly change “Missouri Synod” of the Lutheran denomination. That is a great example of what we are talking about.
I, also, think that “Church of England” is a horrible name. That has to be a stumbling block in some countries with people who are proud of their own country and church and don’t want to become English or join the Church of England. But the history buffs in that church are clearly in charge – except when it comes to doctrine, unfortunately.
I think that a name change would greatly help those 2 groups. Don’t you?
John Wylie:
Here is my primary reason for changing the name:
The name of an organization should reflect and communicate clearly who that organization is and what it wishes to be.
“Convention” is a technical term that nobody cares about really. I am not sure that most people know what it means. Most people think of a meeting, as in the Democratic or Republican conventions, rather than an ongoing organization. So, I don’t think that “Convention” is a good term.
“Southern” is not accurate as to who we are or who we want to be. we are beyond the South. We would not chose that now if we were starting a denomination. I understand why they used it in 1845. I don’t understand why we use it today.
So, I think that is a good reason for changing the name.
I believe a name that identifies who we are and does not create unnecessary issues.
Of all the names I have heard, I like – “Fellowship of Baptist Christians.”
It’s not national. It’s not regional. It maintains our doctrinal heritage. It has the name that we really want to be know by. And it is completely accurate.
I am not wedded to it, obviously. It is clunky.
But, as you can see, it is not a “sexy” or marketing driven trick. That would be a name like – “Converge”. “Synergy.” “Empowerment” or something like that.
I could even swap out “Fellowship.” That will become dated over time. But I am too tired to figure it out now.
I have found this a very interesting topic and I have enjoyed talking with all of you.
“Of all the names I have heard, I like – “Fellowship of Baptist Christians.”
Are there “unChristian” Baptists? :o)
Well, David Goshee, Bruce Prescott, James Dunn, umm and that’s just off the top of my head. 🙂
Lydia,
There are Assembly of God Christians. There are Methodist Christians….Presbyterian Christians, etc.
The name of Fellowship of Baptist Christians just shows which flavor we are.
David
Who is David Goshee?
If you mean David Gushee and are trying to lump him in with Bruce Prescott and essentially call him an apostate, I’d say you couldn’t be more wrong. While I disagree with Dr. Gushee on an number of issues today (mostly secondary in nature), I believe the man is truly saved. I think if you actually knew him and interacted with him, you’d be much slower to throw this sort of accusation around.
Yes!
Sometimes I act like one!
Oh, I also don’t like “Great Commission” in anything. It communicates to us. It is an insider term, however. It is not a biblical term. It is hot now. It needs explanation. And, it is clunky, too.
Louis,
Thank you for your kind response. I really respect your thoughts on this subject.
Same to you!
How about “People of Destiny”?
oops, that has been done. It is now SGM.
Have you met Southern Baptists?
I think people of density is probably more accurate.
POD
Louis: The name of an organization should reflect and communicate clearly who that organization is and what it wishes to be.
bapticus hereticus: Given this, how many religious groups really wish for a name change? Nonetheless, here goes:
Persistently Less Influential Even In The South With Little Presence In The North Or Anywhere Else For That Matter But Still Wanting To Be The Baptist Group Of The World Conservative Calvinists And Non-Calvinists That Have Learned To Appreciate Each Other Christian Church
You have a way with words, as always!
I am open to changing the SBC name. I think that defending a name becasue it has “southern” in it is majoring on the minors. I am glad that Wright started the debate. His agenda is to determine if the SBC name is a barrier to our evangelistic mission. Nothing more.
At the same time, I have yet to hear a name that was a meaningful improvement. Name changes are tricky things. The new name has to be an improvement, descriptive, and still be a banner that the members of the organization want to march beneath. A change for the sake of change is an awful idea.
Maybe with a few months, if we can keep from hyperventilating, a good name alternative will surface that will meet the needs of the next century.
Peaches:
I agree with what you have said. I haven’t found a name that just “glows” in my opinion. But SBC doesn’t really either.
Maybe whatever name we come up with won’t really be used that much. Maybe the local churches’ names will be the real important thing.
And we can use entity names, which I think are good.
I think that “International Mission Board” is better than “Foreign Mission Board” and I think that “North American Mission Board” is better than “Home Mission Board”. Those are not bad names. I really like the shortened version – IMB, but I don’t like NAMB. And it sounds really bad when you say it – “NAMB.”
Well, if you change the name, and it doesn’t work out, you can change it again.
Sometimes ‘hyperventilating’ happens over things that should not cause people so much grief. Try to put all this in perspective. A ‘name’ is important, but it is not all-important. Change it once, no-like ?, change it again, everybody’s happy.
As long as something can still be done to make things better, why worry?
Suppose something happened and you had consequences that could not be altered as a result?
Meet little Landon Carpenter asleep on his father’s shirt, surrounded by his father’s boots and picture and cap:
http://i.imgur.com/Lb9NS.jpg
Landon’s father was killed a month before his birth. The child sleeps. And his father rests now also.
Some things can’t be changed.
Perspective? Good to have. Keeps people balanced about what is REALLY important.
That picture made my day.
That picture broke my heart.
How do you convince a group comprised mostly of Southerners to drop the name “Southern”? Impossible.
Bill Mac:
That is the $64,000 question. You may be right.
It depends on whether those Southerns can either let go of seeing the proclamation of the Gospel as somehow being mixed with their cultural pride and preferences.
The “Southerners” who go to the mission field get it. They not only have to drop the Southern part, but they also have to drop American culture as part of the Gospel. There are people who specialize in those issues in seminaries and at the missions agencies.
You have identified the issue, in my opinion.
I just noticed one of Rick Patrick’s first responses where he identifies “Southern” as being a good thing and part of who we are – a Southern Pride type of argument. Like the Greek Orthodox Church (there’s another bad example. That HAS to hurt there mission. You are asking people not only to accept Christ but to become Greek. But I do like the Greek pastries!).
I think that the only way to help people come to a change of mind and heart is to hope that they move to a place where they don’t see the need to use their church or their denomination as an extension of their Southern pride.
Churches in the SBC like evangelistic success and effectiveness. An appeal to that is the only way. But if the attitudes about Southern Pride are deeply rooted, we see only what we want to see.
i suspect (and it is just a suspicion) that most missiologists and others who work in cultural transference of the Gospel and people who have actually spent a lifetime working in the U.S. outside of the South would say that a name change would be helpful to ministry in other parts of our country.
But people who are really proud of the “Southern” in SBC, if they are inclined to do so, will reject the evidence put before them.
The potential for the Gospel and growth has to become more attractive than the maintenance of their heritage. It’s really a Galatians type argument on a much smaller and less important scale. Heritage vs. stumbling block to the mission and work of the church.
Louis,
There is no question where you stand on this issue. You have put forth some fairly strong arguments for name change. While I’m sure this was not your intent, some (including me) could find some of the language that you have used — “those Southerners” and “Southern Pride” — as problematic and not at all persuasive. If you or others want to continue down this path, then that is certainly your right and I would defend your right to do so. But, there might be more of “those Southerners” lurking on Voices than you might imagine. And, “those Southerners,” hard as it might be for some to comprehend, just might love the Gospel and our Southern heritage. I’ve even heard of a few of “those Southerners” who are smart enough to know the difference between the two 😉 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell:
I am a Southerner, too.
I am not a Southerner that wants to mix my Southern heritage into the Gospel or my presentation of the Gospel.
I don’t think that most of the folks on here want to do that explicitly, either.
But, then you get the occasional comment that essentially says, “Yes, we do.” That is, that the “Southern” in SBC is important to them (and not just because it tells people where we were founded so they don’t become confused).
I am not “going down this road” to start a fight.
I am just trying to make sense of the various things people say on this blog relative to why they want to keep the name “Southern”, and some of them are Southern pride arguments.
That’s what Bill Mac was saying in his statement – that you will never get Southerners to take “Southern” out of the name.
I cannot figure out why the name is so important. Do any of us go to the “Southern Baptist Convention” church?
The only thing I am concerned about is the fact they ignored the process after the messengers had voted it down before. I wonder what else they might decide to do since they sealed documents after promising transparency. Just does not bode well for trust purposes.
Louis, I have not seen you this animated before over an issue. This seems to be a hot button issue for you.
I have been vocal. I just find this issue interesting. It’s really not something I go around talking about.
And as you can see from my lame name suggestion, I haven’t given much thought on the new name.
Whew! I’ve got to stop reading this thread and head to dinner! My dear wife has been working hard on the fixins’ – wish I could invite you’all over. Baked Alaska, Boston baked beans, Swedish meatballs, Chicago deep-dish pizza, Philadelphia cheese-steak, Texas toast and Parmesan cheese on everything … followed by German chocolate cake and Boston cream pie. And I’ll get up in the morning and buffet myself again with Belgian waffles and French toast!
I know what you’re thinking, “that guy must be a Southern Baptist … he sure eats like one!” I love foods with geographic names because I know what to expect. But, after it’s all said and done, my body won’t remember what it’s called as long as it met my need.
Max,
You have given us some “food” for thought! Thanks 🙂
Ron,
And thank you, brother, for your perspective on this matter over at SBC Tomorrow, http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/09/the-sbc-name-change-and-the-three-rs-by-ron-hale-.html
The ‘Greek’ hurts the Greek church’s mission, you say. Of course it does. And I’ve argued for a name-change since it would broaden people’s sense of the church, extending it beyond it’s cultural and geographic roots. That’s perfectly sensible.
Louis,
I agree with your assesment of the problem. It seems a bit doubtful that the southern pride elements of the convention will be able to see a name change as anything but a rejection of their heritage.
I do not feel what is being called “Southern Pride.” However, I do feel the absence of what I will call “Southern Shame.” There’s a difference. I think White Guilt is a form of false guilt and we all know the ultimate source for false accusations. I am not to blame for my Great-Great Grandfather Jeter’s slaves.
If someone tries to guilt me into a name change because America practiced slavery in the 1800’s, they are offending my intelligence, not some alleged sense of “Southern Pride.”
Rick:
Your earlier comments clearly express Southern pride and heritage as a reason for not wanting to change the name.
Here is what you wrote:
“… it makes people think that there is some regional emphasis or culture to the church.” (that’s my statement)
There is. It is our heritage. We do indeed have a culture, just like the Greek Orthodox Church hosting a Food Festival this weekend. We have a Baptist identity and we are not ashamed of it.
I don’t find it appealing to make changes because people OUTSIDE our organization don’t like something about us. I know the trendy philosophy is that if we listen to Lost Larry he will show us how to do church right, but I just don’t buy it. THEY should not dictate our name or a complete change in our philosophy and identity. (Your response, emphasis in original)
. . .
“Thanks for the dialogue. Let me try to boil my thoughts down in a concise fashion: I would rather teach the world that today “Southern” does not equal “racist” than to concede whatever pejorative connotations the word has developed and abandon it for something else.” (Your statement, again).
I don’t want the SBC to be known by Southern cultural distinctives, like the Greek Orthodox Church is known for its bake sales of Greek pastries.
And I don’t believe in false choices. We don’t have to leave “Southern” in the same so we can teach people to get over their concerns as a lesser evil than giving in to perjoritive connotations.
What’s wrong with just using a better name that accurately describes who we are? I really don’t understand the resistance to that concept, except for statements that you posted above.
“I don’t want the SBC to be known by Southern cultural distinctives, like the Greek Orthodox Church is known for its bake sales of Greek pastries.”
Too late! We already are! We have a “brand,” a culture of dinner on the grounds with fried chicken — lots of fried chicken — casseroles, sweet tea and pies. We drink coffee, not beer. We listen to country music, which in its best moments is still about love and family and life and not simply about sex, like the majority of rap music. Sadly, we are perhaps more passionate about our football on Fridays and Saturdays than we are about the Lord on Sundays. At least, we are apologetic about that fact. The point is, Southern Baptists are southern, at least in terms of identity and culture. Not all of us, of course, but most of us. And it doesn’t keep us locked up. We’ve made it all over the world with our current name. It’s hard to believe that the name is holding us back.
Louis, you’ve quoted my statements about Southern identity, history and heritage, which of course I stand behind. However, I object to the label “pride” with regard to these statements, since I consider it unfair. Yes we have a Southern heritage, a Southern identity. I refuse to apologize for it. I just don’t call that pride.
I might be tempted to call “pride” the attitude of those folks up north you mentioned who have a problem with Southern culture. Maybe THEY are the ones with a little too much NORTHERN PRIDE??
I think my main disagreement is with your statement that a name should only reflect who we ARE right now and who we WANT to be in the future. Most organizations are named based on who they WERE historically, which gives credibility to their heritage and stability to their future, preventing them from succumbing to the latest fads of culture. (In the same way, people are often named after loved ones in their family, to anchor them to their heritage and remind them of what they stand for.)
Your final question, “What’s wrong with…a better name” assumes there is one. In addition to the cost and legal concerns, any new name will not enjoy the many GOOD things Southern Baptists are known for–and these things do exist.
I believe if we change names, for at least 40 years, people will refer to us as the “Fellowship of Baptists (formerly the Southern Baptist Convention)” so we won’t really get away from the name anyway. It’s our past, and although it has moments of failure, I don’t believe we should run away from it.
Thanks, Rick.
Apart from the cost and legal concern (which I really haven’t seen a case made for, it’s just mentioned), your comment here clearly identifies the central issue in this matter.
I did not use “pride” in a bad way. If you can come up with another word, I’ll be glad to use that.
Have a great day.
Maybe “profound and undying appreciation for our Southern heritage and roots.” It makes it sound more like the good thing that it is. “Pride” just makes us sound all puffed up.
Rick Patrick , You need to educate yourself on how many Nascar race tracks and country music events and stars are in the north. Check the names of the drivers who don’t identify by both their first and middle name. We aren’t ” inventing ” change just joining in. And who knows you might enjoy a Clambake , Lobster Roll or Oyster Roast that SBC churches and others already have there when in season , and when after the first frost ( which they get first ) collards are familiar. When it’s really cold your cowboy hats will just disappear because your ears will get cold and a good motorcycle racer will adapt easily to snowmobiles. You will learn a trick or two as will they.
Ok, I do not qualify with SBC heritage. I hate country music, fried chicken, nascar and watching sports on tv. Does it count if I drink green tea with splenda?
Yet, I love Lobster, clam bakes and rolled oysters! Yum.
Shucks! Somebody almost beat me to it, suggesting Galactic Baptist Convention. I was contemplating Intergalactic Baptist Convention and almost had that fatal heart attack, when I saw Galactic as I skimmed this blog and its responses. As to Southern, the fact that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference has Southern (glad someone thought of that) in its name should teach us something about the fact that we just have to accept the good and the bad that comes with our territory, our region, our back ground. Speaking as one who has studied Black History in undergraduate work, in my M.A. program, and in work toward a Ph.D. in Black History and did do my project for the D.Min.on Christian Love & Race Relations, I can say from my perspective that you just have to accept the fact that not everyone is gonna love you and your background, associates, etc. Truth be told, Southern Blacks and Southern Whites are actually closer to one another than they are to their counter parts up North, or at least that was the way it was back 40 years ago…as I discovered during my studies at Columbia Univ. By the way the church that made the movies has now made one with a Black (African American…Black was the term when I began my studies) church. They are working together. How about that. And in Georgia, too! Albany, no less.
What we need is a Third Great Awakening in which we come to the realization that God is not done with this world yet, and that His grace is greater than our sin. Indeed, where sin abounds, grace superabounds and overwhelms it. I am a Southerner, my generations go back as far as I can trace them to the 1600s and one branch of my ancestral paternal family surely met the other branch shortly after they came ashore. In fact, one member of the family coming ashore probably met an untimely end at the hands of those relatives. Even so they got together. And Yes, some owned slaves. On the maternal side, grandmaternal, one family owned 200 slaves. Interestingly enough, neither side seem to suffer too much from thinking blacks were inferior, etc. In fact, to the contrary, they were viewed as tremendous people. As my Dad said, “If it hadn’t been for a black man who came into our home when I was a child and took care of me and my sisters, while both our mother and step-father were in the hospital with the Spanish Flu, we would probably be dead.” And he was talking about that taking place in Arkansas around 1918. And my maternal Grandpa told how a Black man saved his life in Detroit….One uncle who had picked up some of the usual prejudices against Blacks apologized to me, when I pointed out some facts about Blacks, “I’m sorry Jimmie Don, I am just a poor ignorant white man.” I almost cry, when I think about him responding as he did. I won him to Christ and was supposed to preach his funeral, but was unable, to my grief, to make the trip due to a car problem.
None of this is easy, but this is the long, hard way we must travel with our Black neighbors in order to achieve a true peace based upon real understanding. One of the things we need to jettison is the idea of any one being inferior and superior. Motivation to accomplish things in life can be tapped in practically anyone that lives, and we must learn to do that, no matter, what the cost. And the church is supposed to be where we are truly brothers and sisters.
Just down the road about a mile or so from my house is the church where the first missionary to China from the SBC came. On past that church about another mile is a family cemetery with a tombstone which tells of a member who was excommunicated from that church, because he opposed the treating of Blacks as equals in the church. What that meant, I have yet to explore though I have an idea about it. Can any of you imagine inscribing such a thing on your tombstone? But I think it was of the Lord, for it told me my findings concerning Blacks were a reality. They became great Christians, so great that sometimes the Whites would buy their freedom and, in at least one case, they made a Black man, a former slave, the pastor of the church in which, I suppose, his former owners were members!!!!
Some of the greatest Christians I know today are African Americans, to use the term that is now more socially prominent and acceptable. God being our helper, I think they will be one of the reasons, one of the very means that God will use to renew all of mankind for a 1000 generations and a thousand thousand worlds in order to express the reality in Rev.7:9 as a bit of humor to enliven His distressed followers in all generations.
Dr James, You have given some food for thought. As I was reading I thought of the name “Christian” and how it was meant to be an insult when first uttered. But not long after, it came to be defined as “those who love one another”.
Lydia: Where do you read in scripture that the word Christian was first used as ridicule? I disagree. I read where it was by divine appointment by God himself. The word called in Acts 11:26 is translated other places to mean revealed, warned of God, and spoken by God. Christian was not first used as a tool of ridicule.
The word Christian means Christ follower as was first used in Acts 11:26. In 1 Peter 4:14-16 it reads:
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (KJV)
By God’s design and control.
By God’s design and control people who were not Christians gave the name Christian. It was not kept in scripture because it was a derogatory name or a name that was insulting. It was based on observation that these people were Christ followers. Scripture interprets scripture Joe.
If you read Acts 11 in its entirety, when they ministered in Antioch, their ministry had great divine power(vs. 21), the hand of God was with them. In fact the name Christian also signified the meaning anointed ones.
Some people golf, some people play tennis…..
I was at the Credence Clearwater Revival where Jeremiah – NOT THE PROPHET – was declared a bull frog. Joe was also there and I observed that they were good friends.
Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, said of beleivers: ‘vulgus Christianos appellabat,’ which means ‘the vulgar call them Christians.’ (Annals 15, 44),
You can get confirmation that it was first considered an insult from reading history. I think Acts 11 bears that out as they were first called Christians in Antioch. Believers usually referred to one another as saints, brother, sister, servants, disciples, etc, as we see throughout scripture.
Peter uses the term ‘as a Christian’ in context to suffering and says do not be “ashamed”.
But Lydia, you didn’t provide “proof” for what you’re saying. What, you say you cited the source? Well, I know that, but for The Debbie you’ve got to provide an internet link to the first page of a Google search, or as she calls it “research”. 🙂
Joe, I have this strange fascination for the political and cultural world the early Christians lived in and probably would not have remembered the Annuls if I had not recently been reading about this ancient historian and his friendship with Pliny the Younger, who actively persecuted those “Christians”. You will, however, be upset to know that Pliny persecuted two Christian female slaves whom he said were “deacons”. :o)
I know this is being taught in certain places Bill, but I disagree. I see no evidence of this in scripture. If you can show me I would be glad to change my mind.
The only reason I bring this up is Lydia used it as an illustration in this post.
Thank you for the information Lydia, I will check it out. It is not something I could see before, I could be wrong and will certainly check the resources.
“If you read Acts 11 in its entirety, when they ministered in Antioch, their ministry had great divine power(vs. 21), the hand of God was with them. In fact the name Christian also signified the meaning anointed ones”
Debbie, I think there is a disconnect in our communication as I agree with your points above but they have little to do with my original comment. The point I was trying to make was ‘who” called them Christians at first and why. They did not refer to themselves as Christians. Peter uses the term once in connection with their persecution and tells them not to be ashamed and to Glorify God with it. Which they did whe persecuted.
When Tacitus wrote that the “vulgar” called them Christians, he is referring to the “common people” (Gentiles)\ who thought “Christians” were superstitious.
Agrippa used the term as an insult to Paul in Acts 26.
“By God’s design and control people who were not Christians gave the name Christian. It was not kept in scripture because it was a derogatory name or a name that was insulting. It was based on observation that these people were Christ followers. Scripture interprets scripture Joe.”
I am afraid I am having trouble following your meaning as you seem to be conceding my original point here. It was meant to be insulting by non Christians but God had other plans.
thank you for sharing that with us, Dr. Willingham,
that was so beautifully written
You know, the sad thing about all of this is that in a year when we will probably be electing a Black man as President of the SBC for the very first time ever, now we’ll be hearing how we need to change the name due to racist beginnings. Wont this be great? I mean, we’re gonna be hearing people get upset over changing the name….we’re gonna hear people being accused of being racist, if you dont vote for this…we’re gonna be talking about racism in the SBC’s past….all while electing the very first, Black man as our President.
Wow.
David
Southern guilt is another and quite different thing from Southern Pride. While someone might like to peddle a little southern guilt my long experience as a Southerner tells me that very few Southerners feel Southern Guilt over slavery. I have no problem seeing slavery as a grieivious evil while realizing that I was not part of that world.
The Southern Pride is engaged when we are told that specifically Southern is not seen as a positive in many parts of the county. While living in the Northeast, I regularly realized that my accent marked me to some as being slow and none too bright. In a meeting I offered to pull off my shoes and socks to show my ringworm scars and that seemed to quiet the most offensive of the anti-southerners for a bit.
The question is whether Southern Pride should be a reason to keep the SBC name or if we are about a larger, kingdom purpose.
Peaches:
That is the question.
None of us is guilty for slavery. That is absurd. And no name change should be an attempt to assuage any guilty feelings.
The name of an organization should reflect what that organization is and what it wishes to be.
Everyone concedes that we are no longer Southern. And everyone concedes that we want to reach out beyond the Southern United States and plant churches all over North America and other places that will become members of the SBC.
But, when the idea of changing the name is brought up to reflect these agreed upon truths, there is great resistance.
And it always boils down to whether we are wanting to add to our Gospel mission the duty of being keepers of history or whether we somehow want to infuse some remnant of Southern identity in our efforts.
No one wants to own up to that, but when the surface is scratched ever so slightly, these attitudes come tumbling out.
Bill Mac is probably right.
But we can try.
I don’t object to a name change, I just don’t see the necessity for doing so. It smacks of YFC purposely removing the name of Christ.
There was no necessity to change the Foreign Mission Board to the IMB or the Home Mission Board to the North American Mission Board or the Baptist Sunday School Board to LifeWay.
We are stewards of the resources we have. We should think proactively and strategically and logically. Even if what we are deciding is not a “necessity.”
Louis,
I always enjoy your postings. You are consistently generous with others. I wish I read more of that from other people.
When I was in the Navy, I was under the Medical Command, world-wide. Every 6-8 years, someone wanted to change the name of the command. We started with BUMED (Bureau of Medicine and Surgery), then to Military Medical Command and then…. yep, back to BUMED. The only thing that happened was a huge amount of resources were spent and one or two people got a feather in their caps for their vision!!!! Over and over it happened. People were transferred to support the new vision. That is enormously expensive. Navy Medical Titles were changed on thousands of Navy medical directives and every medical delivery site had to copy yet more thousands of these instructions. But none of it mattered. We still operated the same way we always had. We just spent more time in administrative tasks when we could have been doing real medicine. It was just silly and the taxpayers supported this nonsense.
Sometimes change is needed. I understand that. But I’ve watched over the last 10+ years as churches and ministries grow more and more dependent on wall street marketing firms. Unless anyone can show me a real cost-benefit analysis, I remain skeptical. Yes, Louis we should be good stewards of our resources. Can you show me how changing our name will do that?
I stopped supporting YFC financially when they removed the name of Christ because some marketing firm told them the word ‘Christ’ turned people off. Dear God in heaven, what are they thinking?
Just my 2 centavos.
Thanks, Katie. Your posts are always good.
But that’s really an impossible standard. Cost/benefit for a name change? How could that be measured with any certainty for a religious denomination? Even the Madison Avenue firms that do that for retail companies admit there is a big amount of guess work.
I really just approach this from logic and straightforward thinking.
The name for the SBC was selected in 1845. It was a great name for that time. It communicated exactly what those men were and wanted the convention of churches to be.
It just seems logical for the SBC to update its name. It’s over 165 years later. There is an admission by all concerned on this post that “Southern” and “Convention” are not either accurate or descriptive or attractive.
The only objections seem to be for people who are fond of history or certain cultural distinctives.
I would suggest changes for lots of religious groups in the U.S.
I am a big believer in organizations doing things that help them achieve their objectives.
Lydia is right to warn about a fixation on following whatever ad-men tell you to do.
But a common sense, straightforward name that better describes who we are and want to be is not something to worry about.
In some ways, it really is not a big deal – until you see the level of resistance to discussing it, and then you have to wonder if we don’t have some provincial thinking that does color, and perhaps harm, our ministry.
The resistance from this quarter comes from going around the messengers who have voted down a committee to study a name change quite a few times. The resistance from me is about the elitism. It is a lot like forgoing a primary and then telling folks, well you can not vote for the candidate we chose for you in the general.
It has nothing to do with the name. If the messengers voted for it to go to committee, I would stand behind that decision. But they were not given that chance.
Debbie:
I believe that the name for some is sacred or very close to it.
Lydia, I note that your objection is to the method here.
But for most, I suspect that even if Bryant Wright were officially censored by the Convention, the unofficial group disbanded, and THEN someone suggested a name change, there would still be opposition.
The name of this post is “Process aside, who has a problem with a name change?” So, I have taken all of the opposition here, on this post, to be answering that question.
Maybe I could ask this? The word Christ is not in our name of Southern Baptist, neither is the name Christian. So I guess my question would be how would keeping the name exalt the name of Christ, how would not keeping the name not exalt Christ? How would keeping the name further missions, how would not keeping the name hinder missions?
Or is the objection cost, is the name Southern Baptist sacred? Even the name Baptist? I believe in baptism by immersion but shouldn’t our emphasis be on salvation and one way to heaven through Christ and spreading that message than the mode of baptism which is not salvic?
How many here still refer to a BCM (Baptist Collegiate Ministries) to a BSU (Baptist Student Union)?
Even if we change the name, we’ll still refer to ourselves as the Southern Baptist Convention and others will still refer to us as the Southern Baptist Convention.
So I hardly think a name change is in order but I do think we really ought to take a longer look into ourselves and our convention’s entities’ methods and practices. I think there is much for us to learn about ourselves and who we’re becoming in those pages that don’t hide anything but needed to be hidden anyways.
I think maybe KFC would be appropriate even if I can’t think of any words to go with it…lol
John:
Food is a constant them in this blog when it comes to SBC names.
Wonder why that is??????
Bill:
I agree. We should take a look into ourselves and the entities’ methods and practices. There is much to learn.
But we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Nothing about doing those things that you advocate, upon which I agree, keeps us from looking at whether in addition to changing the names of our entities, we should change the name of our denomination to reflect who we are in 2011.
What I don’t personally have a lot of time for is , “investigating” , ” researching the past, effects ” and all the rest. The New Orleans pastor who is black I’ll bet has rolled this thing around already with other ” movers & shakers “. I don’t think he will except the job if he is not assured he can move forward with all the cooperation necessary to catapult this religious organisation right smack dab into a new realm where everybody is 10x as proud as we might be today. The answer is whether he takes the position or not . He will be able to open doors for us everywhere even in places such as Detroit , Chicago , Rochester, Syracuse in ways that will allow understanding in both directions whether you call yourself ” Southern ” or whatever the “northerners” say besides the New England ” Swamp Yankee”. He will show and exude Understanding in every church or city meeting he attends – before he open his mouth.
There is a denomination that already has the name Christian in it, but they are not always very careful in their usage. Seems like Jim Jones was a member of it, and they are pc on the sexual issues whereas the SBC is not..not even even in caps. abbreviated.
If the powers have a name in mind they will want to “protect” it from usage by others by using it in some form. I remember when Allegheny Airlines changed to US Air – the new name was printed discreetly, almost unnoticeable at the inside bottom edge of their in-flight magazine. If someone sees this clue, it will I’m afraid only be yet another excuse for unwarranted accusations of secrecy. I’ve got a name in mind which of course I think is wonderful ; but, I will hold it so somebody else can’t take it and perhaps “sell” it back to us. There are nasty people out here.
Jack:
I had forgotten US Air was Allegheny Airlines. Another good example.
Of course if promoting the Alleghenies was part of the mission of the company, then the change would disappoint those folks.
Louis , A lot of airlines lost their regional names for different reasons – off the top of my head are Mohawk (NY) , North Central , Frontier, Piedmont , Southwest is still operating , Trans Texas & Eastern . It might be interesting to see how United Church of Christ has faired in the last few years by taking over Congressional Churches that were doing poorly .
“Congressional” is supposed to be ” CONGREGATIONAL “
Aren’t you all just a tad reluctant to entertain corporate marketing strategies on branding for spiritual things? I did this for years in the mega world and it is a slippery slope. What next? Giveaways to try our “products and services”?
“Christianity began in Palestine as a fellowship (a relationship), and then moved to Greece and became a philosophy (way to think). Afterward, it moved on to Rome and became an institution (a place you go) and then to Europe where it became a culture (a way of life). Finally it settled in America where it has become an enterprise (a business).”
Louis,
The name may be “sacred” to a very few out there, but that’s certainly not the reason that the vast majority oppose this. The reason that most oppose the name change is that they see it as a complete waste of time and money and energy. They just dont see it as a necessary thing. And, some of us wonder if it’s not just an attempt to something “more.”
When I first tried to post this comment, it put it up into the middle of the comment thread…like at # 158???????? Strange.
Louis,
The name may be “sacred” to a very few out there, but that’s certainly not the reason that the vast majority oppose this. The reason that most oppose the name change is that they see it as a complete waste of time and money and energy. They just dont see it as a necessary thing. And, some of us wonder if it’s not just an attempt to something “more.”
David
Okay…it did t again….what’s going on?
David:
When I read what you just read, it’s the “something more” part that really stands out as your objection.
I do not doubt that you believe that. I think it would be helpful for you to clearly articulate the “something more” issue that concerns you. Address that head on and forcefully.
Considering a name change is not, as you put it, “a complete waste of time, money and energy.” We have already established that the name is over 160 years old, does not reflect who we are today, is not the name we would choose today to describe ourselves etc.
The name change issue could be addressed simply, easily etc.
It’s the “something more” that is clearly bothering you.
What is that? You may find an ally in me and many others.
The something more….is just what I suspect. I suspect that in an attempt to make us more acceptable to the greater Evangelical crowd; to appear more hip and cool; to “fit” in with the young, restless reformed better…ie. Acts 29; 9 Marks; etc….is where this is all going.
That’s the something more which concerns me. That this is just another step away from sound, Baptist(Biblical) doctrines, which we’ve held dear for a long, long time.
David
David:
Thanks for saying that. It makes sense that you would be concerned about that.
How do you think changing the name of the SBC, alone, would do that? Do you think that there are lots of non-Baptist churches that would join the SBC, but won’t so long as it’s called the “Southern Baptist Convention”?
Or do you think that by changing the name that will somehow weaken people into accepting other changes, and that if the SBC holds the line on changing the name, it will stave off other changes because it will show other churches that the SBC is going to stick with its traditions?
My thoughts on this are that I don’t see removing Baptist from the name as having any chance whatsoever. And “Baptist” clearly describes who we are, so I don’t see a big shift away from that.
It seems that using a new name that accurately describes who we are and who we want to be, as opposed to describing our past and our heritage, would not open the flood gates to other churches etc. In fact, it may be a way to actually affirm what is good that we want to hang on to.
I actually believe the issues that you are concerned about are, in fact, with us and are out there. But what happens with those issues depends on a host of other things.
I am having a hard time seeing how the name change fits into that. But I am not seeing it from your perspective. I am truly interested in how you see the name change playing out toward those other issues about which you are concerned. Any thoughts?
Would it be better for folks who are concerned about the things that you are concerned about to actually articulate and work on those issues, or is it better to sort of fight a proxy war over the name, with the real goal being to prevent these other things from happening?