“There arises defining moments in our personal lives, our churches, and our
denomination. I believe we are at one of those crossroads. In the
final analysis we must trust our process, our common goal of bringing the Gospel
to the world, and each other.”
Who was the Southern Baptist statesman who uttered these words and what was the context within which they were said? None other than Dr. Jim Henry, former Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Orlando and a former two-term President of the SBC, in his endorsement of the GCR. During his tenure as President of the Convention, Dr. Henry had occasion to visit Southern Seminary and stay in the Seminary’s Guest House. At the time, my wife and I were the hostess and host of the Guest House. During our 2 1/2 years in that position, we saw many chapel speakers, prospective professors, trustees, and former, current, and future SBC Presidents stay in one of the four rooms in this two-story colonial home which served as a kind of bed-and-breakfast for really special guests of the Seminary.
I full-well remember Dr. Henry’s visit because my wife and I worked extra hard to make sure that the Guest House was spotless and that Dr. Henry’s had everything he needed to make his short stay as comfortable as possible. The one thing that we failed to do was to make sure that the Guest House television, which had been sent out for repair, was back in time for Dr. Henry’s first night with us. That generally wouldn’t have been a problem, but the Atlanta Braves were in the World Series that year and one of the games was on that night.
While other guests may have been perturbed that there was no working television on which to watch the game, Dr. Henry was the epitome of grace. Even after our mortifying (at least to us) mistake, the next morning in chapel Dr. Henry took the time to publicly thank us for our hospitality. Not that we were looking for public recognition, but Dr. Henry was the ONLY person to so publicly thank us. I say all that to say this: Dr. Henry, in my mind, is one of the real deals. Whether interacting with him in person or watching his Deacon training material (like our Deacons and I did Monday night), Dr. Henry is one of the SBC’s true statesmen, a Godly man who walks the walk and talks the talk and treats all people with grace, dignity, and respect.
Another statesman is Henry’s fellow Florida Baptist pastor, Bobby Welch, former Senior Pastor of FBC Daytona Beach and also a two-term President of the Southern Baptist Convention. When I served as an Associate Pastor at FBC Poinciana, FL, we took a group to Daytona Beach for FAITH Training. While there, I had the opportunity to meet Pastor Bobby. Later, when I was serving as Pastor of Grundy Baptist Church, a church affiliated with the Baptist General Association of Virginia, Bobby Welch, on his Presidential “Everyone Can” tour, stopped by the Virginia Baptist Mission Board in Richmond to meet with BGAV Executive Director John Upton. It would have been easy for Pastor Bobby to avoid talking to Dr. Upton, the leader of a state convention that many SBC elites have open disdain for, but he took the time to encourage the churches of the BGAV, churches which continue to support CP and the SBC Missions Offerings with millions of dollars each year. With his passion for evangelism and his strong support of the Cooperative Program, Bobby Welch is another man who is not afraid to take principled and courageous stands, despite the cost.
There are undoubtedly other senior SBC statesmen who I could name, but both Jim Henry and Bobby Welch exemplify the very best in Southern Baptist leadership, from the local church pastorate to the Presidency of the nation’s largest Protestant body. If there was ever a time when we needed statesmen-leaders to take to the stage in the life of our Convention, it is now! Apart from his GCR endorsement prior to the June 2010 Orlando Convention and his interview with Baptist Press in the days leading up to that same Annual Meeting, Jim Henry and Bobby Welch, respectively, have been silent, at least publicly, about the ever-expanding radical changes that threaten to divide the churches of the SBC.
During 2010, both Jim Henry and Bobby Welch saw the Convention at a crossroads. The GCR crossroads will be minor compared to the crossroads we are headed for in New Orleans. What sets GCR Part I apart from GCR Part 2 (a.k.a., the Name Change “Study” Task Force)? Quite simply, the current process has been abused in an unprecedented and unconstitutional way by the ruling elites within the Convention who do not think that the rules apply to them. Those in power, who have apparently forgotten that they were once part of the rank-and-file, now believe that they can bring about unity by trampling upon the rights of grassroots Southern Baptists. Perhaps they need to be reminded what Bobby Welch said just last year:
Without a doubt, when churches have that wide, deep and sacrificial level of support overall — they will, of course, respond more favorably and quickly to things that process by way of their base and commitments. Understanding this fact is exactly why I, for two years, practically lived out in that huge SBC environment via bus, car, plane, foot, etc. That, in turn, created an extraordinary grassroots groundswell for something near and dear to their hearts. It was also directly helpful immediately to their personal calling and task at their local church for reaching and discipling lost souls. To most on the field, this grassroots path is viewed and appreciated as a very sharp contrast to what they consider to be the so-called “top down – our idea” approach. The grassroots road is a road less traveled but it is the only path to our only hope — which is “unity of purpose” for the sake of lost souls! (emphasis added)
When our leaders use a “top down — our idea approach” to implement an illegitimate process which will likely result in a recommendation — after only nine months of “study” — to change the name of the SBC, grassroots Southern Baptists will not only distrust the process, but will distrust those who have so irresponsibly forced more radical changes on an already weary people. We stand at the crossroads once again. It is far past time for the SBC’s statesmen-leaders to rise up publicly and say to those in power, “Enough is enough! For the unity of purpose for the sake of lost souls, stop the mad rush towards the radical redefinition of the SBC before the division is too far gone!” So far, the silence is deafening. But, the grassroots Southern Baptists are waiting. Which statesman will speak up before it’s too late?
If the guys at the top are trying to impose top-down leadership, they are doing an awful job. They are including a broad range of voices from all over the SBC spectrum and everything they are recommending will have to voted on at the EC and then at the SBC – twice – by the messengers who are supposedly being bypassed.
In other words, I believe that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. That’s just my view.
It’s a study committee – and an excellent one at that. What’s the harm?
The constitution was not violated – your arguments there were completely unconvincing to me at least. The passage you quoted only referred to special committees elected at the annual meeting but did not apply to nor restrict such committees at other times.
I think that perhaps the reason for the silence is that many people realize that this is just not as big a deal as it is being made out to be. And perhaps they realize that the shrill and harsh words being used by some who share your position (and I appreciate that you have stayed away from such) is unfair. I mean, one person on this blog accused Bryant Wright of “tyranny.” I think people see through extreme rhetoric like that. You are wise to stay away from it, but the fact that others in arguing your position have used it doesn’t help your cause.
A name change study committee is not a radical revision of the SBC.
Even the GCR was not really anything radical. Things haven’t really changed as much.
It is just normal and needed change, and I hope growth. I think we are attempting to manufacture a crisis when none exists.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that in my observation, the current SBC leadership is less elitist, less “top-down” than the leaders of the CR were when they were in power.
I think that some of those men (one in particular comes to mind) believed that they had, by the leadership in the CR, earned the right to rule us.
And I still hope you won’t get sick this year in NOLA and I’ll buy you lunch one day.
Dave,
I will look forward to lunch in New Orleans, even if we will be on opposite sides of this debate 🙂 I would love for you and others to point to specific language in the ByLaws (other than Section 19) which would allow the President of the Convention to unilaterally appoint ad hoc special committees without messenger approval. Arguing that an absence of language therefore gives the President the power and authority to so appoint a special committee, as I previously pointed out, is simply not conservative statutory interpretation. If you believe that “the GCR was not really anything radical” and that “things haven’t really changed as much” then you and I have very divergent definitions of the word radical and the word change. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
My point is that there is nothing that prohibits such an action. The ability to appoint special committees such as this one is usually inherently in the moderator’s role (at church, Assoc and state level anyway).
In the absence of a prohibition of such, I would think it is permitted.
I guess the question is whether we assume that such has to be specifically authorized or whether it is authorized unless specifically prohibited.
Dave,
I think you are comparing apples and oranges here moderator vs. president. You’re telling us that you could as a moderator of a church, Association or State Convention, when not in session moderating the meeting, could on your own appoint a special committee for a church, Association or State Convention? My experience is that moderator’s powers are generally limited to when officially in session.
In this case, the President has powers enumerated to him when the SBC is in session and when not, unlike a moderator. But appointing a special task force isn’t one of them. I would give more deference to your analogy if he had done this while the SBC was in session. But then there is the matter of the bylaws getting in the way again.
Blessings,
Ron P.
I’ve heard discussions of a name change in the seminaries many moons ago. I don’t think this movement is anything new. I think it might actually be a good thing.
Regardless, have a little fun with it, we’re taking (tongue-in-cheek) suggestions here: http://sbctaskforce.com/
Enjoy!
I’ve been wondering about this too.
Dave you are correct…. this is a study committee. A very wide ranging one at that. NOT exactly a “yes” group without opinions.
The idea of a name change has come up often at the convention and has been voted down many times for lack of real information positive or negative.
This approach is simply to try and answer all the tough questions. Cost involved, effects if we do or don’t, legal ramifications, is it really needed etc….
The task force are serving on their own dime since it didn’t come from the convention floor or exec. I am comfortable all these and more questions will be answered and we can proceed one way or the other in better light. Just my humble opinion
You are not correct that this has been voted down for lack of real information. Even Dr. Criswell, who was in favor of changing the name, changed his mind. It was because of all the research and study that was done. More recently (1999) the EC under Morris Chapman had SBC attorneys look at the legal implications of changing our name. It could be very costly from a legal/financial/polity standpoint. Lots of information exists as to why it is not wise to change the name. It may be that we go ahead and bite the bullet in spite of those issues, but that should be for the messengers to decide whether or not to study the issue yet again.
Blessings,
Ron P.
“This approach is simply to try and answer all the tough questions. Cost involved, effects if we do or don’t, legal ramifications, is it really needed etc…. ”
And to do that, it will need money. Unless there are experts in such things, who can produce the answers needed for 2011 for free, on the unofficial “no cost” committee?
Let me just say…once again…for anyone who cares…that I will not lose one minute of sleep if we change the name….not one minute. But, I really think its unnecessary and a huge waste of time, energy, and CP money that could be spent on much more important things.
But, even if they want to change our name to the Bugs Bunny Fellowship of Churches….I wont lose any sleep over this issue…as long as we stay true to the clear teachings of the Bible…sound doctrine is my greatest concern. I will lose sleep and die on that hill.
David
David,
What an ironic twist! As a Southern Baptist Pastor and a messenger who has attended the last 12 annual meetings, I have called a press conference tomorrow to announce the formation of an unofficial “Name Study Committee” I appointed on my own authority to consider the very name you mentioned — Bugs Bunny Fellowship of Churches.
The Bylaws do not prohibit me from doing so. Our polity places the local church at the top. Now, it’s not an OFFICIAL committee, mind you, but the folks at FOX and CNN will never really notice that distinction. The convention will still have to vote on my Mickey Mouse proposal since I did not form the group with convention approval to begin with.
Listen, folks, if it was only an advisory group, there was no need for all the press. It’s the most “official” unofficial group ever formed in Southern Baptist life. It was an “end run” by President Wright. Ask forgiveness because you won’t get permission. I don’t like it. I don’t appreciate being disenfranchised from the process of deciding whether or not to form such a committee as well as input into the selection of the study committee members.
SbC Pioneer,
Do you see any small church pastors in this group? Do you see many rural Pastors? many small town Pastors? I dont.
Also, probably 90% of the SBC is made up of either small churches, or small, small town/rural churches. So, how does this group picked out to decide on this reflect the SBC? Or, does this group look like a bunch of SBC big wigs?
David
Well stated Howell. The CR happened because of the grassroots movement of messengers within the Convention. Leaders of the CR were making rounds in the churches telling them what was happening in our institutions. Great statesmen within the SBC were standing up for God’s Word. The people responded and acted. That can not be said about the GCR or of this unconstitutional task force. This task force is an end run around the messengers and I say again, needlessly poured gasoline on an extremely charged and explosive issue. It’s also why I wrote that this was brought to us on a garbage can lid. It may be for the best to change the name, but the way it is being done is absolutely wrong.
Blessings,
Ron P.
I think that I can tell you why Jim Henry and Bobby Welch haven’t said anything.
They don’t care about maintaining the name of the convention.
The man who led Bobby Welch to Christ was my pastor for 2 stints, for many years. Neither he, nor Bobby, really cared much about titles, names etc. They wanted to win the world for Christ. They figured the churches could do that with a variety of methods, programs and names. My pastor was chided in the early 1960s for Sunday School methods he employed. Bobby Welch has that same heart beat.
Jim Henry is the same way. He pastored at Two Rivers in Nashville and at Orlando for many years. He was known not for preserving history, but for making history. I bet it would not matter one bit to Jim Henry what something was called.
On the “legal” aspects of this argument, I am not convinced either. Typically, whether fully described in bylaws or other corporate documents that exist, the President of an organization can do whatever he thinks is necessary and reasonably related to the organization’s duties etc. After all, he had a board to answer to if they don’t like what he does.
It seems unreasonable to assume that a name will appear from all quarters of the various grass roots of sbc life.
There are some grass roots that are really in favor of it. My church, for example, is only 18 years old, but we have favored a name change for all 18 years.
So, I am not worried that the group has been formed and that ideas may be discussed there.
I will say that whatever comes out of that group will have to undergo a real sales process. And that’s where the disagreements will begin.
On one side you will have people who believe that the name is unnecessarily regional, no longer reflects who we are or want to be, and thus, is not serving us well.
On the other side you have people who are really into history and value that. They will not acknowledge that the name can be a stumbling block, mostly because they are from the South and they appreciate the name. They really cannot see how changing the name will benefit anything. But they can see how it changing the name will cause the SBC to loose a part of history.
But the silence of those 2 men you mentioned is not surprising. They are innovators. Not prersevers of a denominational flame.
They may eventually speak out against it, but if they do so, I predict it will be to keep the peace. Not because they think that the name of a denomination is sacred.
Ron:
If the group that Wright has convened makes no recommendations, but simply publishes a summary of its discussions, then some messenger from some church, somewhere proposes an official task force – and this time, it passes, would you take the position that there is something wrong with that? It’s not grass roots, or it’s too top down?
I hope that you are saying simply that you believe what Wright has done is not right.
And I hope that you are not saying that anything anyone in the convention might do at a convention is also wrong – because of what Wright did.
That, to me, would set up a situation where any effort, no matter how started and no matter who started it, would be unjustly criticized.
I am truly interested in your response.
I really don’t think that this issue is going away. We are likely to see it revisited every couple of years or so. It may take a few years, but I know very few younger people who would not be open to any innovation.
“The Bylaws do not prohibit me from doing so.”
Absolutely. Go for it! Surely no one here woudl have a problem with it? And some of us are wondering what else the by-laws do not expressly prohibit that might be coming down the pike.
“If the group that Wright has convened makes no recommendations, but simply publishes a summary of its discussions, ….”
Hopefully in full and not some of the discussion “sealed” for 15 years. :o)
But then, the very make up of the committee means it WILL BE a recommendation. It cannot be anything else but I appreciate your spin on it. And how can they answer any serious questions without the money to study cost, legal ramifications, etc?
Just a note: I don’t think their silence is deafening. They probably haven’t commented on the name change for the same reason I haven’t – no strong opinions one way or the other.
Louis,
I think what Wright has done is wrong and unconstitutional. I think he has opened up Pandora’s box for a possible challenge to the task force itself at the Convention or a move to vote to restrict future Presidents from doing such again. I hope not, because we don’t need such a fight. Again, it would have been better if he had brought this to the messengers. But that ship has sailed. However, he can fix it by abolishing the task force and asking the messengers to appoint one. But I doubt that will happen. So, to answer your question: If a messenger proposed a task force based on the summary of this task force, I would not say the messenger acted wrongly, nor the messengers of the SBC if an official task force is voted for favorably. But it would be such a divisive vote solely because of the “fruit from the poisonous tree” of how this came about. In other words, the mere acting on anything this task force says or does (positively or negatively), will be divisive in and of itself and have nothing to do with the wisdom of changing our name. This was needless and unwise.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Thanks, Ron for the thoughtful response.
I believe that if the group is still in existence at the time of the convention, if there are people who feel as you and Howell do, they should make that motion.
If the group is concluded with their work, however, there will be nothing to address.
Then, if any messenger wants to propose something, whether based on the group’s findings or recommendations or not, that proposal should be considered on its own merits. Any such proposal should not be voted against to get back at Wright. If it’s a good proposal, vote for it. If not, vote against it.
That’s the way I feel about it.
Louis,
Like you said in another comment, I don’t think the task force will make any recommendations to the SBC, but rather to the EC. I think most messengers will look at any possible name change with a serious heart no matter which side they might be on.
In principle I do not have a problem with getting Southern out of the name. But I am not naive and know that there is a movement in and outside of SBC leadership to abandon the name Baptist. For some this appears to be the main goal. I have heard more objections to Baptist over the years than I have Southern. But I cannot get past the legal/financial/polity implications of any name change.
The only way to avoid the hundreds of millions of dollars diverted from the CP and missions would cost (not all born by the Convention but by churches and institutions) is to use a DBA. But then we are still at the same place that has faced the SBC on this issue for the past century. What name would unify us and not cause unknown and unintended consequences? I don’t think such a name exists. The best I have heard is from Dr. Steve Lemke on SBC Today and that is Fellowship of Baptist Christians. But the people who want Baptist out of the name would fight that.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Hooey, Howell. I love you bro, but your title is exactly wrong. I don’t buy the argument that there is any silence by elder statesmen or that anyone is stifled by the process.
Patterson, Mr. Conservative Resurgence Elder Statesman, is on the committee. Mohler is far more a prominent statesman in the SBC as Welch and he’s on the committee. Jimmy Draper is as elder an SBC statesman as there is. He’s on the committee. Tom Elliff is elder, former prez, easily an SBC statesman. He’s on the committee. There are statesmen crawling all over this thing. Maybe they are silent because they don’t see it as you do. And they all agreed to serve on this committee.
And for crying out loud, only SBC messengers, in session, can change anything and anyone who can scratch up enough money to get there, will get to vote not once, but twice on any change.
Wright may have orchestrated this with likeminded SBC folks. Big deal. Shoot, let’s presume that he absolutely orchestrated it and would have been foolish not to have done so. Who wouldn’t ponder a move that many see as positive, necessary but at the same time a vast minefield.
He has also allowed a full four months of blogging madness until this committee is supposed to report anything, virtually leaving the playing field to bloggers until the XComm hears it. There is a virtualy certainly of nine long months of blogging madness before the next convention when anything gets put up for a vote.
But…let ‘er rip brother…that’s what makes this so interesting. 🙂
Maybe they haven’t weighed in because there is not anything yet to weigh in on. There is no recommendation. There is no proposal. There is no plan. Instead, there is a group charged with trying to discern if maybe there should be a proposal, there should be a recommendation, or there should be a plan.
Louis, Brent, David T. and others,
Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been, but let me try to clarify why the silence is so deafening. It is not necessarily because of the name change itself (although that aspect cannot help but be a part of the discussion). The silence is deafening because of the unprecedented way in which the rights of the churches of the SBC have been violated through the Presidential appointment of an “unofficial” task force that presumably will “study” a name change and then report (officially or unofficially???) to the Executive Committee in February and then to the Convention.
No one questioned Jim Henry’s or Bobby Welch’s passion for the lost. For all I know, both men would be fine with a name change. However, what strikes me about their leadership qualities — and I certainly could be wrong — is that they would view the process within which this Task Force has been named as ill-advised, unwise, and, as Ron P. rightly notes, pouring gasoline on a fire so as to divide the Convention, not bring it together. What continues to amaze me, but shouldn’t at this point, is the liberal interpretations of the SBC ByLaws that would give the President seemingly unlimited authority “to do whatever he thinks is necessary and reasonably related to the organization’s duties” even if there is no language in the governing documents to give him such authority. And William, I will indeed let ‘er rip! 🙂
I just don’t see how the rights of churches have been violated, Howell.
My church will send messengers to vote on this. Our voice will be heard.
I will say it again, if these guys are trying to do an end around the churches, they are doing a remarkably bad job of it.
David,
That’s why we are on opposing sides of this issue. We simply do not see what the other person is seeing. If I saw this issue the way you did, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion (and the loads of fun that comes with it 🙂 ). As for “these guys” doing an end run around churches of the Convention, I give them far more credit and far higher grades than you do. A bad job would be to repeat a play that has failed in the past and is likely to fail in the future. A remarkably good job would be to repeat a play that has worked well in the past and has a high probability of working well again in the future. At least that’s what I’m seeing, but you probably are seeing something different. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Thanks, Howell. Good response.
I don’t think that the committee will actually report to the convention.
I believe it will all be press and meeting around the country, like Draper’s young leaders initiative.
But I could be wrong.
The end run is not on the issue of the name change itself. It is on the issue of overstepping presidential authority to create a convention task force and selecting the members who will comprise it without convention approval prior to the beginning of their work.
Though related, these are two distinct issues. The messengers your church will send will NOT have an opportunity to vote on the creation and membership of the task force, but only on their recommendations.
You say your voice will be heard on the issue of the name change, and I agree. So will ours. However, our voice will NOT be heard on the issue of the task force creation. That ship has sailed. That is why many of us are concerned that our rights as messengers to vote on convention task forces have been violated.
“for the sake of lost souls…” People will die and go to hell if the SBC changes it’s name? Unlikely.
As an outsider looking in, I have to wonder, why elect leaders (president, etc) if they aren’t allowed to lead? Is it just so that when something goes wrong, you have someone to blame?
Say Obama signs an executive order saying I cannot carry a firearm. It would be thrown out as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because there exists a mechanism for reigning in on the abuse of power. It is our system of checks and balances.
Yes, leaders must be allowed to lead. But there are limits to their power. Or at least, there should be.
Clark,
Please go back and reread the quote in context. It’s about “unity of purpose.” I suppose that if you think that the approach to change that has been employed by President Wright is one that is “unifying” the Convention, then there’s not much I can say that would change your mind.
Jeff,
I’m quite certain that you must employ the same principle when it comes to President Obama’s leadership. After all, he was elected to lead and we (Christians, Conservatives, Congress) should just let him lead, even when his actions may not be supported by the Constitution or principles we hold dear. I appreciate your consistent approach to elections, the rule of law, and leaders 😉 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell and Rick –
We did elect Obama, and we do need to let him lead, but that does not mean we need to agree with his decisions. And honestly, as long as his actions are consistent with the Constitution, we can only really disagree with him on moral grounds. (The examples you guys even gave were “taking away my guns” and “actions not supported by the constitution” which could both be argued to be outside the scope of his authority). However, the “against principles we hold dear” argument smells a lot like “we need to vote on the color of the carpet because that’s the way it’s always been done!” If the constitution gives the president the power to do something, aren’t we duty bound to uphold it?
For example, the president can veto legislation. We may not like what he vetoes, but we need to uphold his authority to do so. Abortion is murder. Dollars to doughnuts if that bill came across Obama’s desk, he would veto it. Because you are such a strong constitutionalist, you MUST allow him to do it no matter how repulsive it is, even if 100% of America wants it to be a law.
I guess, the main issue is not “The president of the SBC wants to change the name”, but rather “Does the president of the SBC have the authority to change the name?” If the answer is “Yes he does”, then he could just change it unilaterally. If the answer is “No he doesn’t”, then he needs to bring it to a vote.
I don’t know all the ins and outs, but what has he done specifically that goes against either of those scenarios?
But, as it pertains to the SBC (well, actually not just the SBC – almost every single Evangelical denomination) it seems that the most common complaint is a “top down, shoving this idea down our throats” reaction – to just about every decision that is ever made at a level above “my church.”
I am from an EFCA background. In my church, we (elders) wanted to change the way membership was ratified to be more like larger EFCA churches in our district. Do you know what the most common complaint was? “You are trying to ram this down our throats! That’s not how the EFCA does membership!” That reaction EVEN THOUGH A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE CHANGE and even though it was how many EFCA churches were doing membership, and it was completely allowed within the bylaws and constitution of our particular church.
Now, I am all for calling it on the carpet if there really is a ramrod attempt to circumvent the process/constitution/whatever. But, in almost all examples I have been involved in, the intent was not to ramrod a change to circumvent the will of the people – it was that the leaders recognized a place that wasn’t working and wanted to make it work. In almost every case, it was more about people holding onto a broken tradition than wanting to change it to something better.
Can the president of a seminary suggest a name change? Yup. Can the president of a company suggest a name change? Yup. Can the president of a convention suggest a name change? I don’t know, but my gut would say “yup”. Can these different presidents enact a name change unilaterally? Again, I don’t know, but I’d be inclined to say “yup, unless it’s against the rules.”
Howell, one more thing. You have used the term “unprecedented” repeatedly (“unprecedented power play,” “clearly an unprecedented,” “not only unprecedented”).
You may find a significant precedent in the link below and without too much effort.
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/09/appointment-of-sbc-name-change.html
Wow. I’m curious to read more of what happened with these “groups”, etc. and their results. This precedent certainly, at face value (not knowing all the specifics of the appointments, etc.), seems to go vastly beyond what Wright has done.
The September 23, 1992 archive has the report of Young telling the executive committee what he was doing and them affirming it.
http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7254,23-Sep-1992.PDF
William,
Facts are our friends, but each case does not always have the same set of facts or the same precedental value. Without trying to sound (too) lawyer-esque ;-), I would say that Ed Young, Sr.’s (not to be confused with Ed Young, Jr.) study groups are not “on all fours” with the present case. Do you know whether or not the nine study groups were formed to study an issue that the messengers, in Annual Session, had previously voted down? And, just because Ed Young, Sr. appointed ad hoc special committees without messenger approval does not necessarily provide the precedent that would cover Bryant Wright’s actions, IMO. But, others may (and I’m sure will) disagree with my opinion. Thanks for the link. God bless,
Howell
Don’t be moving the goal posts here, Howell. Your point about lack of precedent is toast, bro. Give it up.
By your reasoning, Young would have been castigated, villified, and hung in effigy for unilaterally appointing so many committees to study such a wide range of issues. You are going to be increasingly isolated from reasonableness if you continue down this road.
…just friendly, non-lawyerly advice. 🙂
You will get a vote if anything is proposed here, two votes actually. How many do you want on this.
William,
Thanks for the friendly, non-lawyerlyadvice. As I might have said in an earlier life, I’ll take it under advisement 😉 In any event, I appreciate the single, twenty-year old precedent that you sighted. Of course, what you and everyone else who seem to be okay with the process put in place have failed to provide is any language in our governing documents which give the power to the SBC President to appoint ad hoc special committees. To cite that the ByLaws are silent on this issue (which is not really the case given Section 19 plus the other sections which explicity set forth what committees that the President CAN appoint) and this silence therefore gives the President the power to appoint one or nine or 99 special committees or task forces is at odds with conservative statutory interpretation. I’m sorry if you feel I have somehow moved the goal posts because I did not accept your 1992 precedent — with different facts and with no constitutional authority cited — as binding on the consciences of this Convention almost 20 years later.
Lastly, I’m not sure why Ed Young would have been castigated 13 years into the CR, particularly when most of the moderates had fled the scene following the creation of the CBF. Different era, different response. Thanks, bro, but I think I’ll stick with the most recent precedent, that of the messengers in 2004 rejecting a name change study committee, coupled with the language of the ByLaws, as to what is and what is not persuasive precedent. No Griswold (not Clark) vs. Connecticut (that’s a reference for Louis 🙂 ) and penumbras for this conservative! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
William,
You probably owe a Thank You to the great archivists Taffey Hall and Bill Sumners of SBHLA for making available the BP collection that just allowed you to score a big BOO-YAH on the Rev. Scott, Esq.
The “unprecedented” argument is now shot. I’d be curious to know, however, if Young’s executive move was at the time unprecedented or whether perhaps there is a history of the president appointing committees. $5 says Sumners knows. Someone should e-mail him. I’d bet this topic has been discussed in the EC building over the last week.
Aaron,
Perhaps “unprecedented” is now shot, as you say, although no one to date has been able to point to language in the SBC Constitution and ByLaws that would authorize the President to create and appoint members to an ad hoc special committee. If you know of any such language, I would be much obliged if you pointed me in that direction. I could not tell from your comment, but would be curious to know: Have these archives been publicly available and easily obtainable prior to the last week, or were they just released Hall and Sumners of the SBHLA? Given that I am not the first nor the only Southern Baptist to have used the term “unprecedented” in describing the actions of Byrant Wright, the SBHLA’s actions, if recent, would certainly shed more light on this subject and not merely allow William to put the smackdown on yours truly 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Well, I think you have a point about the Constitution itself.
That is, of course, a different argument than the history argument.
The Baptist Press collection has been available for at least two years now. Not sure how many people actually use it – I have spent probably well over 100+ hours using it for my dissertation research. SBHLA also announced recently that in partnership with Baylor U. Libraries the annuals of the SBC are now available online.
I am sure though, that if anyone knows the answers to these questions, it is the archivists at SBHLA.
I’m only on the receiving end of BOO-YAHs, such as the one I suffered last night from my daughter over a Jeopardy! question.
Just as an observation: Young might have been castigated and vilified for the action. But it was pre-blogger days, so you didn’t hear about it….
However, this does show that study committees have been appointed by Presidents before. Jimmy Draper was in charge of that group as well, so he would have been aware of the precedent. Which rounds off one corner: Dr. Draper could have pointed out that this had been done before to Wright, giving him the idea that it was ok. After all, we’re Baptists: if we’ve done it before, we’ll do it again.
I still think the process was started off badly. Probably a portion of that thought is knowing that ExCom members had no idea this was going to come up, while Task Force members were tweeting vague hints of ‘Big news coming’ before it was released. That bothered me, and still does.
Of course, it bothers me that Ozzie Guillen put that he was going to the Marlins on his blog before the White Sox had released him, so I’m just grumpy like that.
Anyway: if this process smooths out and is handled openly, really does come to the convention floor for two votes, and is framed on clear grounds, not the “we prayed about it so don’t question it” grounds that come through sometimes, then so be it.
The unprecedented issue is, if not a dead horse, a lame one. One can back away from it by pointing out that old BP articles aren’t always easy to find and that this hasn’t been done in 20 years, but you’ve got to shift to a better ground.
Can we now wait and see what happens in the ExComm in February about this whole thing? This group is going to be reporting back to a committee that was 1/3 against them even meeting, so they’re going to have to be clear and convincing. If that meeting goes into secret session or forces through a dba-type change with 51%, then there’s a real problem. If it reports out to the SBC for real votes for the next 2 years, then let’s deal with that in that process. If it feels heavy-handed there or gets secreted out, then we can determine what to do. If the report is that millions of missions dollars are going to go to “rebranding” instead of Gospel, then let’s fight that, because that would be beyond stupid. But until February, we’re not going to know anything. So, at this point, we’re not really disagreeing anymore between those who go for change and those who go for heritage. We’re really just throwing stuff at each other and getting nowhere.
Seriously: there will be no change in direction on this until February. If God is weak and needs us to blog it out until then to accomplish His will, we’re in deep, deep trouble. Pray for wisdom, pray for healing, and pray that no resources intended for Kingdom work get wasted in this process.
Somebody that’s in NOLA, though, ask for it on a ballot vote. I really don’t think important issues like this should be “estimated” by the chair like tends to happen.
Definitely shoots the primary focus of that concern.
I am curious: that’s been 20 years, how are we doing in those areas?
Although that’s for another discussion, I suppose.
If these guys , who know each other well had arranged a conference call and discussed a name change; and it was then evident that more time would be required; and had just hung up but agreed to put their best thoughts on paper and talk again – there would be charges of secrecy, underhandedness and of a clique trying to run things. So they made themselves this committee perhaps so they can deduct expenses and told everyone what is going on – and they still get bashed from some here who couldn’t run a hot-dog stand or even start to research the subject without a book already on the shelf at the library titled, ” Changing the Name of a Corporation” or taking some mail-order crash course of the same subject. That’s true because I can see the way you think – like someone who is working on this job for nothing , who has some smarts but didn’t get your permission first. Grow up. Anyone that’s not retired and is working in/for a church could do much better with their time by trying to improve their workplace and not “blog” all day long. You’re wasting your time while these guys work – for nothing. SBC has real problems and at least these people are thinking about it now. Why wait months just to play ” Mother May I ” . I’m retired.
Well, all this name-change business found its way into USA Today just recently. People can now know the largest Protestant denomination can’t figure out what to call itself.
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide….
It’s great that USA Today published an article about the consideration of a name change by “some” associated with the SBC. Can’t buy that free press. Richard Land can’t get it.
Land recently wrote an article on Bush and Perry. Neither figure stood out against the other despite the differences cited there.
Louis,
Do you speak for you speak for your church? I dont recall a public position from Grace Community Church in Nashville on this issue.
BTW- In my opinion this is a perfect of you doing politics in the church. You just reject the politics of those whom you disagree with on any particular issue!
No one speaks on behalf of their churches on blogs, Robert. We all speak for ourselves. Whatever issues you want to bring up with Louis, please take them to him privately.
sorry…that should be… Do you speak for your church?
Drop it, please.
Mr David Miller,
1. He has publically stated that that no one speaks for church then in this post he argues that his church has wanted to change the name for 18 years. Its not a personal matter for me…others like Lydia have pointed this out in the past.
2. The discussion is relevant to the topic at hand because this modus operandi is the same modus operandi as many in Convention. It clearly violates the congregational authority of the messengers of the convention.
Leave it be or deal privately with him. This is not the place, Rob.
Not the place for what …….
really dont understand?
Davemilllerisajerk@hotmail.com
Here is the money quote
“There are some grass roots that are really in favor of it. My church, for example, is only 18 years old, but we have favored a name change for all 18 years.”
Which word of my request did you not understand?
Apparently none of it…
Seems par for the course some days, other days this site is like the bar scene from the first Star Wars film…
LOL . . . you nailed it
As long as Solo shoots first, I’m OK with it… 🙂
Let’s not change our name but instead use a symbol to represent us like Prince did. Then people can refer to us as the denomination formerly known as the SBC.
Aaron,
That’s exactly what I was telling someone yesterday! lol.
David
The Convention formerly known as….I like it.
it’s brilliant !
Also, is it not amazing that the SBC has spread to every state in the Union, and into many, many, many, foreign countries; in SPITE OF OUR NAME? I mean, we were the SBC while spreading out beyond the Mason-Dixon line. We were the SBC while going west of the MS River. We were the SBC while starting Churches in Honduras, and Zimbabwe, and India.
Why didnt the name hinder that growth and reaching out?
Maybe the name doesnt hinder as much as some think. Maybe doing away with the name “Baptist” is at the heart of this issue. I dont know.
David
I don’t think anyone has suggested that the word Southern is a massive stumbling block. Obviously it is not. But, as Dave and myself, and others serving outside the South have reported, it is a stumbling block in different circumstances. It makes things a little more difficult. Now, that may not be a good enough reason for changing the name. I can live with that.
You (and others) have suggested that this might really be about getting rid of the name Baptist. Do you have any support or proof of that assertion? I haven’t seen it anywhere. I suspect that most of us in favor of dropping Southern would raise the roof if it were proposed to drop Baptist. Maybe I’m wrong.
Bill Mac,
Not trying to be argumentative, but the fact that Vol began his statement with the word “Maybe”, indicates a speculation and not an assertion. Therefore he is just positing the question, “Is it possible this is more about the word Baptist than it is about Southern?” I think that is a valid question, in light of the fact that many SBC churches, particularly new church plants, are not using the name Baptist. Vol didn’t make an assertion, he said at the end of his statement “I don’t know.”
My new name suggestion is Dixie Baptist Convention. That would not be a stumbling block.
It’s hard to tell whether or not you’re just trying to be funny or make the argument that Dixie Baptist Convention basically carries the same meaning as Southern Baptist Convention. If the latter is your purpose I don’t think it’s a valid argument. I could see where the term Dixie could be offensive to some harkening back to a racist past (although the North was really no less racist), but the term Southern although used in many respects the same way really doesn’t necessarily invoke the same response. Let’s be honest most of the disdain that Northerners have for the SBC centers on theological rather than geographical or even historical issues. The North is more liberal than the South is and as such you can call the convention what you wish and it will invoke the same disdain.
William and Josh C.:
Thanks for the good info in SBC history.
The argument that this kind of thing is unprecedented is not correct.
In my opinion, the bylaws do not prohibit this kind of activity. But that’s just an opinion.
The history now supports that opinion.
I can now imagine how the debate would go at a Convention if this is brought up. Not well. Chapman, Draper and others would get up and defend what Wright has done, and would say it has been done before etc.
I guess someone could write the Convention lawyer and ask for his opinion on how to interpret the bylaws. I am not interested, but Howell or someone else could do so.
Bill Mac,
In answer to your question about support or proof of the assertion that some might want to drop “Baptist” from the name of the SBC, I would direct you to Lifeway’s Chief Researcher, posting at SEBTS’s Between the Times blog, in which he cites the Baptist General Convention’s change to Converge Worldwide as a model for how to do name change (http://betweenthetimes.com/2011/09/22/how-one-baptist-denomination-addressed-their-name-change-because-of-their-church-planting-focus/). That’s not definitive proof, but that could give you some indication of why there is at least speculation that a broader name change is at least on the table.
Louis,
What would the world be if lawyers all had the same opinion? A lot more peaceful, I suppose! 🙂 You bring up an interesting point at the end of your comment. Who is the final authority on interpreting the SBC Constitution and ByLaws? I would say that the messengers would be, although one would have to possess outstanding parliamentary skills in order to challenge a ruling of the Chair (in consultation with the SBC Attorney) which perhaps would interpret the ByLaws to give the President (and others) more expansive power than is contained within the language . Might make for an interesting discussion in New Orleans. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I think we can with great certainty agree that NOLA SBC will be interesting.
That’s a good question.
In some regard the messengers are. But not all.
I was at Dallas in 1985 (I suspect you were there). The Chair made a ruling that the Moderates’ attempt to substitute the Committee on Nominations (maybe Committee on Boards at that time) report of trustee nominations with the Baptist Executives and State WMU leaders, or something like that, was a violation of the SBC bylaws. The Chair made that ruling, not the messengers.
A Baptist couple from Alabama (the Crowders) sued the SBC over the Chair’s interpretation. I think Crowder had been the person that made the motion.
I haven’t read the opinion in a long time, but I think that the federal courts said that the SBC was the interpreter of its own bylaws and not the federal courts, so the lawsuit was dismissed.
So in that case, the Chair’s ruling about the meaning of an SBC bylaw made the decision. The messengers did not vote on competing versions or interpretations of the bylaws.
I am not sure the issue here is the same, but it probably is. The EC and its officers are interpreters of the bylaws at this point and haven’t found the President to have violated them.
If a motion was made at the annual meeting to censure the President or declare his act null and void and disband the committee on the basis that it violated a bylaw, I think that the matter would be referred for a decision to someone on the platform. I suppose the SBC President. The Parliamentarian would make decisions about parliamentary procedure, but I am not sure that the Parliamentarian would read an SBC bylaw and interpret it relative to a motion.
Anyone on the platform, the presiding officer (the President) or the Executive Secretary and Treasurer of the EC (Dr. Page) would affirm the right to do this I think.
Wow, your question really made me think through this, but I am not sure I have the right answer.
I do not believe that whether a particular action violates an SBC bylaw would be a matter of messengers voting.
Anyone else have any experience with this?
Louis,
Dave is old enough to have been in Dallas in 1985, but I was just finishing my freshman year in college 🙂 I’m not sure how one could sue (like the Crowders) over an interpretation made in an Annual Meeting. I think that this comes down to parliamentary rules. The Presiding Officer/Chair (in this case the President or one of the Vice-Presidents), if challenged on a ByLaw, would make a ruling based largely on what the parliamentarians and/or Convention attorneys advised.
At that point (and I think only at that point), if the Chair ruled one way, a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair would be in order. The messengers would then vote to either uphold the ruling of the Chair or to overturn the ruling of the Chair. That would be a round about way to do it, but it seems that this would be about the only practical mechanism in place for the messengers to voice their disagreement with a particular interpretation of the ByLaws.
I’ll have to do some research to see if this situation has ever happened in the past. Thanks for your well-thought out response. Sorry I had to make you think 😉 God bless,
Howell
Ouch, that hurts. While I was in Houston in 79 and made several of the “Big” conventions in the 80s, Dallas was not one of them. Good thing, I’m claustrophobic and hate crowds.
42,000 messengers or something like that. Razor thin voting margins. Wish I’d been there.
Howell:
I dont’ believe it works that way.
The messengers can vote to change bylaws (but that takes more than one meeting, it is laborious), but the messengers cannot vote against a ruling the messengers don’t like.
The bylaws that are in place before the meeting have to be followed. And the chair, or designated Parliamentarian, is the final arbiter of those.
That prevents a meeting and an organization from being taken over at one meeting.
Those are my thoughts. Let me know if you find something different.
The Crowders claimed that their consitutional rights were violated, or something like that.
I’m not sure I’m getting all this – caught between two legal minds and all, but I think I have been at a convention (back in the CR days) when people challenged rulings of the chair as to propriety and the body voted whether to overrule the chair’s ruling. It seems to me like it required a 2/3 majority or something like that to overrule the chair.
Maybe I just don’t understand the discussion.
Louis,
There’s no question that the ByLaws in place have to be followed. The question becomes, “What do the ByLaws mean in a particular situation?” I would disagree that the Chair or Parliamentarian is the final arbiter of the meaning of the ByLaws. While I’m not sure of the practicality of such, in theory the messenger body can appeal certain decisions of the Chair.
Hypothetically speaking, if a motion was brought to the floor which rebuked the unilateral appointment of an ad hoc special committee or clarified that the President did not have power to make such appointments and, the Chair ruled the motion out of order, an appeal from the decision of the Chair could be heard. An appeal requires a second and is a debatable motion. It requires only a simple majority vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair. Do I believe that such an appeal would likely succeed? Probably not. But, it might be worth a shot to find out in New Orleans 🙂 Thanks for the dialogue on this. God bless,
Howell
Howell’s blog has given us food for thought, and, as one who has taught American History, Political Science, Philosophy, Church History, Baptist History, Systematic Theology, etc., I think he has given us the best, the most solid view of the SBC’s Constitution. The President, even with the precedent cited from Ed. Young, Sr., is still limited in what he can do, and the quicker we get back to that reality the better it will be for us. Otherwise, we will lose our denominational and theological positions and be at sea…just what some folks really want in order to make their biggest inroads into our ranks.
As a historian, I do truly prefer the present title until the Convention by very careful following its own constitution and legitimately appointing a task force to study the name change issue and then making a decision. I am not happy with end runs as they are a part of war’s tactics and strategies, i.e, Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville and Lyons and ? at Wilson Creek. Also Ron Phillips, Sr., has a telling observation about the cost of name change. Besides, the loss of the name Baptist would be inestimable. Too many stand to profit by the disgruntles in any name change…unless the new name had practically the unanimous support of all Southern Baptist Churches and ministers.
Thanks for the nod Dr. Willingham, but I have to give credit to Peter Lumpkins posts about the problematic issues with a name change.
Blessings,
Ron P.
I was in Dallas when there were 45,000 messengers…and, I was in Atlanta the next year, I believe, when we had 40 something thousand again. Those were some wild, wild times….
Also, you couldnt find a restaurant without a huge line and wait anywhere….bathrooms were very crowded…and, the convention hall air was thick…it was intense…to say the least.
David
One thing is for sure, conventions were more compelling, exciting and tension-filled back in those days.
Yeah, those massive conventions with hordes of messengers trying to squeeze in lunch somewhere. Here’s a tip: Look for a Hooters. You could always get a table at a Hooters.
not anymore… 🙂
Tom, 🙂
Sad thing is..you might be right. There was a day when the bars nearly closed down when the SBC was in town. Now then, there may be some who are actually renting out the bar for an SBC After Glow….
At a SBC, one year…way back…before I’d ever heard of a Hooters…all the restaurants were packed…lines out the doors of this Union Station type of thing. Well, I saw a restaurant with no line…hardly anyone in it…I grabbed my wife and children and headed for that place….we stopped in our tracks when we saw the “waitresses” …and realized at that point why no one was filling this place up. Needless to say, my wife did not want us to go there….
lol
David
Bars closed because of the Convention David. Really?
Would dropping the name Baptist do anything to make us not Baptist? I don’t think so. It’s a name. I just don’t see the big deal.
There is a reason the numbers are dropping, they were dropping before even Frank Page was President. It seems some are saying in the good ole days when we were a strict, tight bunch there were many messengers. I don’t buy that. If I’m wrong in what is being said forgive me, but that is what I am reading.
I don’t see where the “good ole days” were fun filled and exciting. There was backbiting, behind the scenes character assassinations, and infighting that was dirty and corrupt.
I lived them, Debbie, and I think someone has given you some slanted information about what was going on.
Or things going on that even you didn’t know were happening. It was not an up and up clean Christian organization on the inside.
Dave is right…Debbie has gotten some bad info somewhere.
Also, how in the world did we do so much for the glory of God in the past with a name like Southern and Baptist in our official name? I mean, just think of all the churches that have been started in Arizona and Utah and Illinois…and even New York City…all the time with us having those excitement killer words in our official name. How in this world did we ever send out so many missionaries…and into so many countries…for all these years…with such a buzz killer name?
David
I lived them, too.
I am sure that in any organization one can find scoundrels, people with mixed motives etc.
I guess we could look at Washington, Jefferson and the Continental Congress and say, look at all the bad stuff that was going on. And there would be some merit to that.
Or we could say, look at the birth of a nation and all that was accomplished.
I was there in ’85, ’86 and ’87 and other years. I was in suites where men like Rogers, Draper, Vines, Stanley, Pressler, Patterson and others relaxed together and prayed. I was also in the hall.
Aside from the general recognition that the best of us is a mixed bag of emotions, motives etc., and that is true of all people, there was no question that those messengers who came to those meetings and the men and women who helped rally and lead them were interested in seeing that the SBC was biblically faithful, as they understood that.
I know that there are groups of people and some in the new generation that cannot understand or grasp that, but that is true.
Dave and David, you are right on the mark.
David,
The Debbie….wrong about something….are you sure about that?
🙂
My information is quite accurate.
The SBC has been dirty politics for too many years in the past. Good times is not how I would describe them for many. We are changing now and I hope our best and God glorifying days are ahead of us. Time will tell.
How do you know its accurate?
Dave: I know.
I think what you are saying, Debbie, is that you believe what you have been told about the CR days. Right? I will admit there was stuff going on, but there were a lot of good people who stood strong for the Word of God.
There might be more to it than you have been told. That’s all I’m saying.
And God blessed us in some of those areas despite not because of.
There was a day, when the SBC came to town, that the bars NEARLY all closed down. I can remember reading in the papers and watching on the news how the bars didnt have the big crowds, and were hurting financially…during the SBC. They would make statements that during other conventions, the bars would be full…and they’d make a lot of money. But, during the SBC, they would not. Even some bar owners would complain to the news media about it.
I was there. I saw it. I heard it.
But today, well….sadly, the world wont see that difference, I’m afraid. Today, some people think they need booze, in order to have a good time, or to deal with life. I wish we could still make that kind of a statement to the world…we dont need booze. We have life in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit gives us what booze could never give….real life…abundant life.
David
I doubt there is a lot of boozing among the messengers at the SBC annual meeting.
I dont know…not according to what I’m reading on blogs and hearing certain people talk about nowadays.
David 🙂
David, when you saw me at that Southwest Grille, I was drinking unfermented grace juice. I swear I was!
🙂
I didn’t know Southwest Grill had a wine-bar !
David,
I agree with you about trying to find something to eat in Dallas in 1985.
I think that I stood in a line for McDonald’s for what seemed like a day.
David:
We are seeing the inevitable tension regarding change in any organization.
I don’t disagree with you about Southern Baptists in the past and all they accomplished.
The questions relate to the future and what is the best way to proceed.
I do not believe that any name, form etc. of human description is so sacred that it cannot be changed. I don’t believe that you do either, but I think, for me, that is a starting point.
So, for me the question becomes, is the name accurate, appropriate and communicating who we are and what we want to be?
I do not believe that a name selected in 1845 with the sole purpose of distinguishing the churches in the South from the northern churches over the slavery issue is the best name for 2011.
I appreciate the history. I really do. And I agree that a name is just a name.
But there seems to me to be no compelling reason to hang on to a name that no longer describes what the convention is.
The hard part would be what the name should be. But changing the name, for me, is really a no-brainer.
My only reservation, however, is legal. If a name change would affect the benefits of being chartered by Georgia in 1845. Some say it would. I really don’t know. But even then, the Convention could adopt and use and assumed name or like a d/b/a.
“We are seeing the inevitable tension regarding change in any organization.”
Louis, As a certified strategic planner and change agent for many years, I can tell you that HOW change is implemented has a lot to do with the “tensions”. It is not ‘inevitable at all when the processes people have agreed on and trust are not violated.
For me, it is not about the name change. It is about the heavy handed process of ignoring what the messengers had already voted down before. That will create tension and rightly so. It is not who we have claimed to be.
Why not take it to the messengers for a vote…again?
Louis for SBC President.
My first convention was in ’59 or ’61, I forget which. The next was Kansas City in ’63. Being on the low end of the totem pole, I made us of SBC housing and wound up with a room mate from a church in northern New Mexico, a former Oklahoman gone to the mountains for his TB which he got over. His church sent him to save the convention, and he was an old western baptist preacher who had won one of the members of the Doolin gang to Christ in Oklahoma. Quite a thrill for me. So we saved the convention for both the conservatives and the moderates (they were called liberals then), because we did not know that the moderates had their view written into that 1963 confession in the phrase, the criterion for interpreting the scripture is Jesus Christ… As my Hebrew professor chortled to me in class one day in ’73. I attended the SBC in Norfolk ’77 (?), St. Louis, Dallas in ’85, Atlanta in ’86, San Antonio ’88, New Orleans ’90. Thanks Dr. Phillips even if it was from Peter. I might buy a change of Southern, if the whole convention does it above board, etc.. But giving up the name Baptist is another matter. That one is an absolute zero, nada, zilch, nothing doing, no way jose, ain’t, won’t, never mind. That is like the word Christian, a title from our enemies, minus the first part (Ana like as in Anabaptist, meaning rebatizer. We dropped the Ana because the Bible calls for only One Water Baptism). Some fellow in a church back in the 1700s came before a local Baptist church, asking for baptism as he wa sure now that he was converted contrary to the first time he was baptized. The church refused his request, asking, “How do you know?” Our present title identifies us theologically, practically, spiritually, historically, politically, socially, ecclesiastically, educationally, etc.’lly. The largest, soundest (though always with problems) Protestant mission and evangelistic force in the world that I know of. What most people don’t know is that this is a baptist nation, having more people in baptized by immersion than any other nation on earth (as far as I have been able to determine). And if you count by those who would say that if they were to identify their religious preference you would find the numbers competitive with the Roman Catholic claims. To make any changes which might prove detrimental to such a mighty force for the Gospel cause would be foolish, such changes being equivalent to blowing a hole in the church ship like that damage done to the USS Cole.
Besides, if God grants our prayers for a Third Great Awakening, we will definitely need a large and powerful institution to help us deal with the problems that will inevitably accompany such a huge influx of new professions. Since Rome is continuing its syncretistic ways, we need one outfit that will seek to maintain some semblance of loyalty to the original concepts even if it is unpopular until the masses gain an appreciation for such devotion.
Lydia:
I do not disagree with you.
But I can answer your question, I think, as to why Wright would do what he did.
I believe that there are significant elements within the convention that would like to see a name change. I believe that those people, churches etc. would like to see a convention wide discussion about that.
As I mentioned earlier, I have had discussions about that with people over many years. All have been informal, but almost to a person, they have all agreed that it really doesn’t seem to make sense that the SBC would hold on to the old name, especially since it was born out of such a terrible set of circumstances, when examined today. (Debbie, talk about mixed motives. I am sure that the men who met to form the SBC did so to honor the Lord. But I also feel certain that they wanted the South to hold on to slavery and Jim Crow after that. That’s a pretty good example of how we are a mixed bag, even at our best).
But none of those people has such a bee in the bonnett about it, that they are going to lead a charge to change the name of the SBC.
I believe that Wright thinks the discussion should be had and he would like to be a part of it.
I feel certain that Wright would have run this up the flagpole at the SBC etc. before he acted or he would have been shouted down the minute he did this. Maybe he didn’t. That would really be incredible.
So, I believe that Wright, the EC and perhaps others with whom Wright has talked decided that waiting until the convention votes to start talking about this at the national level may be forever.
I think that Wright got permission, and found a way to start the conversation.
I agree with you, however, that it was not the smart thing to do.
I am hoping that this conversation goes on a while and that it even outlasts Wright’s Presidency. It would be good for Wright and others to hold a series of meetings around the U.S. to talk about it, like was done for the GCR.
Whether it’s all premature, who knows.
I would not have done it this way, for sure. I agree it has increased the tension. Wright is betting that is for now, and that once the conversation is started, it will be hard to keep fixating on the initial procedure.
But I don’t believe what Wright did is beyond the SBC bylaws.
I have to ask you a question about the substance of the ultimate issue being debated with your background as a certified strategic planner and change agent.
Do you think it is wise for the SBC to continue into the future with the name it has? I can’t think of any equivalent. A large organization wanting to be nationwide, or larger, using a regional name. Especially one that has as its origin the support of slavery.
What would your advice be on that front?
Louis,
I do disagree with the process, but that cannot be undone. Could I be convinved that changing the name would be positive for the Kingdom? Yes. But, arguments appealing to “our” racist past and origins in support of slavery will not be the most persuasive argument to make. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Maybe it won’t be the most persuasive.
I agree it’s not “our” racist past. It’s just that our convention’s name reflects that, unnecessarily.
Loius,
How about these regional names
Southwest airlines
Norfolk Southern
Union Pacific….Omaha is nowhere near the Pacific!
Northwestern Mutual
Mass Mutual…do they only sell insurance in Mass?
Southern National Corporation
Southern freight
Yes. One can always find exceptions to what is the better practice.
And just because one corporation does something doesn’t mean…
Do you see any reason why it would be good for the SBC to keep Southern in the name? Especially, when racism was at the origin of the name?
I think the past is past…..I like what Ken Starr about his presidency….“I tend to look forward and not in the rearview mirror”.
Grace for the Road ahead!
Not sure how you define “better practice”. Statements do not constitute facts.
I think we will find that those oppossed to the SBC dislike what we stand for and a name change means little if nothing to them.