Process aside, who has a problem with an SBC name change? (by William Thornton)

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

How about “People of Destiny”?

oops, that has been done. It is now SGM.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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