It is February 20 and over the next two days the Executive Committee of the SBC is meeting in Nashville. One item of business at that meeting will be the report of the Task Force appointed by SBC President Bryant Wright to examine the potential name change. I don’t know when in the agenda of the meeting the name change will be dealt with, but sometime today or tomorrow we should finally know what we have been arguing about for the last five months.
My guess is we will be talking name-change a lot over the next couple of days. There are several issues that we will be examining.
- What name (or names) is the Task Force going to recommend?
- Will the Executive Committee pass the recommendation? You might remember that there were some members of the EC that were not thrilled with the process. However, with the firepower on the Task Force it might be hard to muster a majority at the EC to stop the process. My guess now is that the president’s recommendation will pass.
- Will two SBC Annual Meetings pass the recommendation?
I am not a prophet and my attempts at prognostication about convention business would leave me in grave danger if the Old Testament penalties for false prophecy were enforced. So, what I would like to address is not what I think will happen, but what I hope will happen.
Here’s what I would like to see happen over the next couple of days as the Task Force reveals its recommendations.
1) I hope that the Task Force brings forward a compelling alternative to SBC.
I’ve been an advocate of a name-change for a long time. But the problem I’ve had is coming up with a name that is compelling, that isn’t already taken and that would be an improvement on the current name.
If they follow the pattern set by the BGC (which is now known as “Converge”) or go the LifeWay or GuideStone route, my support may dwindle.
The recommended name needs to be a doozy – one that people will look at and say, “Yeah, that is what I want my denomination to be named!”
2) I hope it passes the Executive Committee.
One of the common themes of the anti-name-change forces is the “been there/done that” argument. Certainly, the SBC has voted not to study the issue in the past. But as far as I know, we have never had an actual name to compare to SBC. Our votes have been theoretical.
But now, we will have a specific alternative (or alternatives) to examine. I hope it goes to the SBC and gets voted on. I’d like to see the convention act on the issue – one way or the other.
3) I hope that people receive it prayerfully and consider it openly.
Consider this, if you will. As I write this (late Sunday night) no facts are known. There has been some speculation, but it is really nothing more that gossip and rumor. Tomorrow, we will know the facts. But it bothers me that a large percentage of people are already opposed to the name change before it has even been recommended.
Some were offended at the process the president used. Others are just tied to the traditional name and don’t see the need to change it. But I would hope people would rise above that and at least listen to what the Task Force brings forward. There are some pretty bright people in that group. If the kind of unanimity that has been claimed to exist is a fact, then the recommendation might be worth our consideration. Maybe it won’t be.
But we won’t know until tomorrow. Why don’t we wait until the facts are out before we make up our minds? It is folly to judge without the facts.
4) I hope we can have a reasoned and cordial debate.
I’m not real optimistic here, but I’m hoping we can talk about whatever recommendation is brought forward without rancor, sarcasm, innuendo or accusation.
5) I hope that the “Powers that be” eschew pressure tactics and manipulation in promoting their recommendations.
I hope and pray we will not see a repeat of the full-court press put on by the GCR Task Force. As a supporter of the GCR, I was embarrassed by the pressure-tactics used.
This is clearly an issue on which reasonable, spiritual and biblical people can disagree. It would be wrong for the Task Force to lay claim to the will of God or act as if those who disagree with their recommendation don’t care about the future of the SBC.
6) Let’s keep the whole thing in perspective.
Folks, we need to realize something. Changing the name of the convention will not bring balance to the force, make the lame walk and the blind see, or usher in the millennial reign of Christ. It’s just a name change. Maybe it is a good idea. Maybe not. But its just a name-change.
On the other hand, please don’t try to convince us that the name-change will ruin the convention. Please. If removing Southern from our title will bring everything crashing down around us, we are obviously focused on the wrong things.
Can changing our name help? That’s what we need to discuss. But it will not solve all our problems nor will it ruin everything.
Changing the name of the SBC is not going to usher in the millennium, bring balance to the force or heal cancer. Don’t act like it is the solution to the problem. And, those who oppose the name change are not trying to destroy our denomination.
I really have no idea what is going to happen, but this is what I hope happens. How about you?
How does “Continental Baptist Convention” sound to you? Better than that, how does an estimated $20 million price tag sound?
Tim
Dave,
Can we have a “Name Guessing” Contest? I read about domain names saved for International, Evangelical and Continental, but based on recent SBC history, my guess would be either “Great Commission Baptist Convention” or “Gospel Baptist Convention.”
In other words, name it after something we all support, like the Great Commission or the gospel. That way, anyone who opposes it appears to be either an idiot or an infidel. I can hear the rhetoric now, “Do you care more about being ‘southern’ or about the ‘Great Commission’ of our Lord?”
Yeah, sure, that’s my position. I believe in passing the grits and forgetting the lost. Thanks for revealing my true heart.
I fear this kind of manipulation and the “pressure tactics” you mentioned will be in full display in the Big Easy this summer.
I’ve guessed all along that the recommendation would be a DBA like “Great Commission Baptists.”
That’s pretty close to my guess.
Probably because “Yankee-Hatin’ Baptists” would be misunderstood as disliking more than just 25 people.
AS in, more than just dislike for the Baseball team. Just to make it clear.
I’ve been thinking we might have Dixie Baptist Convention, but Howell would claim it was named after him!
In the end, any change in name that is not accompanied by a change in culture is all fluff and I think the world will see right through it. If we’re going to drop ‘Southern’ from our name let’s also drop the Southern from our extrabiblical stances. Nominal changes are just that–nominal. If we are seriously interested in reaching the world without unnecessary hinderances I can suggested some much better placea to start.
I think the culture is already changing and in many ways has changed…the name change is catching up to the present reality not hiding it.
In my mind, the whole “lipstick on a pig” issue is a red herring. (how’s that for a double metaphor 🙂 )
I’m not sure what change you are referring to. There are still several things I think that the whole ship called by SBC (that means churches, not just figureheads) have failed to recognize as cultural biased.
(1) We fail to divorce religion from politics. I am about as conservative as it gets, but the unwritten bond between SBC churches and evangelical Republicans is a huge turn-off to outsiders.
(2) Alcohol. I know this is playing with fire here, but alcohol is a cultural issue, not a biblical one. Go North. Go to Europe. They view abstention as weird, not principled. And the fact that it’s forced abstention and not convictional is even worse.
(3) VBS, Sunday School, Door-to-door evangelism, parachute church planting, etc. The whole gamut of what church “looks like” in the South is not universal, even though this is the only church that many of our SBC pew sitters will stomach supporting with their Cooperative Program funds. Like I’ve always told people, it doesn’t work to simply export Nashville to New York City. I’m excited that NAMB is making changes here, but we’ve all seen the resistance that’s received as well.
Bravo, Todd Benkert. You get today’s mixed metaphor award.
PS, sorry for the spelling mistakes. It’s kind of hard to review well on my phone.
Speling misteaks are unfurgivible.
I hope that the study committee presents an accurate portrayal of costs, etc. that will occur with any name change, including for SBC-affiliated institutions. That seems like one legitimate area that opponents will focus on, and the recommendation will mean more if people can see that this has been taken into consideration.
and ditto on the God’s will talk.
I, too, would like to know precisely what this will cost. That is one of the things that would cause me to go the other way. I’d like to see a name change. Is it worth 1 million? 5 million? 20 million?
At some point, whatever value it has is nullified by costs.
Dave,
One thing that is of interest to me is that the mainstream church (the members) seem to know nothing about a name change going on in the SBC. Our pastor hasn’t even mentioned it one time and we seat about 750 each Sunday. Friends that I have in other area churches know nothing about it either. Why hasn’t this committee recommended to the pastors to tell the church what is going on? Why isn’t fliers or pamphlets or inserts in bulletins available? I hope I am wrong, but I get a sense of “elitism” sometimes when it comes to the “higher ups” within our organization and the changes they make without the proper notice recommendation. I mean that in a nice way, too.
Bruce,
I can’t speak for anyone other than myself. I pastor a fairly small congregation in an out of the way corner of North Dakota and I haven’t said much of anything about the name change. The main reason being that whether they change the name or not, it won’t change a single thing about what we are doing as a church here in Langdon. I am not going to waste a lot of energy on something that may or may not happen.
Thanks for responding Jeff.
The point I was making was that we seem to be lead by pastors only. They are the only spiritually mature and educated to handle this kind of thing. The bigger the church the more mature the pastor seems to be. The idea is that our congregations are not mature enough to get involved, or so some think (Higher ups). I have always been concerned about the spiritual gap between the pulpit and the pew in the SBC. No one is doing stats on that. The church is not made up of only pastors, it is made up of people who make up the entire body. I may be a toe and that is okay, but toes help balance the entire body when it comes to standing against the wiles of the devil, too. If the people cannot be told these things because they wouldn’t know how to act or respond, maybe we need to focus more on discipleship than evangelism and strengthen the body. The SBC is declining for a reason. Maybe this is part of the reason. We may need to see where our members stand on the issue to see where we need to mature.
You make an excellent point about the pastor-leadership phenomenon in our denomination. Again, I am unable to speak for other places; but the DBC is primarily driven from the pastoral level of involvement. To the point that a church’s involvement in the denomination at the state level really is a reflection of the pastor’s involvement. At one time, my church had essentially nothing to do with the state convention. That was the previous pastor’s decision, primarily based on some issues that had developed between him and some of the previous state staff.
It would be great to get more people, who aren’t pastors, involved in the life of the SBC and the state conventions, but I don’t think the lack of involvement boils down to a spiritual issue. I would wager that there are other factors in the mix.
It’s pretty simple. Part of my job involves going to meetings. I don’t have to take time off work to go. It’s part of my job.
I get an expense account to go to meetings.
I would guess that the percentage of people at an SBC annual meeting who are paying their own way is pretty small.
Would I take vacation time and pay my own expenses to attend an SBC Annual Meeting? Not that likely!
If I were involved in the process, here is what I would do:
1. Have a study committee that would actually study. Then report the results of the study. I would think a study of this nature would involve privately interviewing/surveying large segments of the SBC (e.g. SBCers in areas outside the South, non-SBCers, SBCers in metropolitan areas, SBCers in rural areas). I would report the results by category etc. I am conerned that the study committee really just sat around and talked and reinforced each other’s prejudices, whatever those may have been.
2. Report the results of the study to the EC with one of two recommendations – the study committee recommends changing the name, or the study committee does not recommend changing the name.
3. Make a recommendation at the convention to authorize the study committee to become a committee that will gather information on names etc.
3. If the recommendation passes, then I would allow Baptists from across the SBC to suggest names to the committee. I would also allow the committee to employ professionals who do this type thing to work with the committee. Pastors, as a group generally, are about as bad a lawyers. They think they know everything. They can preach, the can design church brochures, they can design and decorate church buildings, etc. The truth is that this committee would be well served, if the convention wants to change the name, to employ people who are actually skilled in this. And I mean really good, top notch people. Not the brothers in law or friends of committee members.
4. Then I would take the top 3 names that emerge from this work, and I would allow the convention to choose from them.
That would be a cautious, democratic and informed course.
As it looks now, the process appears to be too fast, may not have the support of a large number of people, and we may end up with a clunker of a name too boot!
I told a friend recently that this reminded me of the movie “The Natural” starring Robert Redford. When Redford’s character breaks his homemade bat (that he had used for years) on a foul ball in the bottom of the 9th, he asks the trusted bat boy, Bobby to select another bat for him. He says, “Pick a good one, Bobby.”
I think that might be my most fervent prayer on this. That whatever the process, whoever is involved that we “Pick a good one”.
If we change the name and it’s a clunker (and all of the names I have seen are clunkers in my opinion), it will have been worse than doing nothing at all.
And I will go on record, again, saying that “Great Commission Baptist Convention” is about as bad as it gets.
What time is the announcement today? Afternoon or tonight?
I gots things to do, thinking about making a quick trip to Austin to see some Baylor-UT basketball. But I would be near the computer to follow the Twitter activity and such when the announcement is made.
I’m hoping someone has the info, Aaron.
And I agree with Louis that everything I’ve seen offered so far is a complete clunker.
Good post, Dave.
Good luck with holding back the rancor and innuendo. Baptists are awash these days with both.
For the record, I still like the idea of keeping the name, “Southern Baptist Convention,” and, “SBC” and moving on to other things.
David R. Brumbelow
My prayer is that former opponents to a name change will actually consider the report and not reject it out of hand.
YEp.
Will this name change be the means for the bust up of the largest mission force in history? Why did Billy Graham want to be associated with the SBC?
I hope that it’s rejected at the EC mainly for two reasons: 1.) The name change is not necessary and 2.) The EC even entertaining the question is giving the same credence to an unofficial task for that an official task force would get.
Give John the gold star!!
The Task Force was an extension of the office of the president and the recommendations will, I suppose, be his.
Dave,
It will be his, UNLESS, they say we shouldn’t change the name. 🙂
Tom gets the gold star!
My greatest fear WRT this whole matter is that the SBC will indeed select a name change, and then think they’ve accomplished something. With the biggest failure of the SBC being a failure to make disciples, I’d imagine there would be much more pressing issues we’d want to address. Which we’ve yet to do, despite Tom Ascol’s motion that finally passed in Indianapolis, which seems to have changed nothing.
Were I a Pastor, I think I’d be all for a name change, as that would take the heat off me, so to speak.
Oh yes .. somebody should count the cost of changing every bit of printing worldwide, that has the SBC name, plus all the corporate filings in every jurisdiction in which the SBC has a presence, plus every bit of signage. $20 million is the only studied number I’ve heard. And that doesn’t count what churches will have to spend on Constitutions & By-Laws, which they’d likely have to do in order to avoid being affiliated with a non-existent organization. I think all of these factors might mandate adopting a “d/b/a”.
If it was The North Pole Association we could keep Southern Baptist because everything would be “South”.
If there is no restructuring within we cannot change a name and make a difference. That is a “Marketing” procedure and that isn’t what we are about.
Hows this for a name?: I posted this article on my FB page and one of my GARB friends said she always referred to us SBCers as “The Other Baptists” 🙂
Of all the ideas I’ve ever heard, that is certainly one of them.
Bob:
It should definitely be an assumed name, as I have said before. Someone has mentioned that having a Charter in Georiga from 1848 has some significant legal benefit. I don’t know if it does, but to avoid any concern, just use and assumed name.
Bob:
I have heard the $20 million figure bandied about. But I have never seen it broken down.
I don’t believe for a moment that it would cost that much.
If it really costs 20 million, I think support would fade pretty quickly!
Just think of how many jurisdictions there are, in the WORLD, in which the SBC has a presence. Think of hiring lawyers to file the necessary papers in each and every one of those. Think of reprinting everything .. from books on the bookstore shelves to every brochure or pamphlet, changing every sign with SBC’s name, worldwide. At the international, national, state and local level.
$20 million would not be at all surprising.
Louis,
I do think a well researched and detailed estimate of the cost to change the name of the SBC is very much in order since the affiliated churches within the convention will be paying the tab on this.
That estimate should also be well circulated among every church affiliated with the SBC prior to New Orleans and Houston.
In addition, the cost estimate should be as exhaustive as possible in relation to any and all costs involved in the changing of the name of the SBC.
To all:
Can we dispense with the straw man?
No one, not even the most ardent name change proponents, have said 1) that a name change will solve our growth problems, or 2) that a name change is the most important item on the agenda.
Everyone concedes these points. No one is asking for a name change based on these arguments.
It would be nice if we just discuss the merits of the name change, and not points that no one is trying to make.
Louis,
If we dispense with ‘all’ of the “strawmen” we may then have to dispense with a great many of the promoted reasons as to why we need to change the name of the SBC in the first place.
Thus, we may just come to the conclusion that we should abandon the whole project completely, for the whole argument for changing the name may be a strawman in and of itself.
My first experience with this debate was in 1980 when I was a church planter in Vermont. So I know it has been going on for that long. My thoughts are this:
When are we going to quit majoring on the minors and take ALL OF OUR RESOURCES, minds, bodies, monies and focus them on the priorities of the ministry God has given us.
I think God could care less what were called and I also beleive the lost of our country could care less. There was a time when names meant something, but that isn’t true anymore. People are used to big, all-American names, being taken over by companies whose name you can’t pronounce.
Leading the lost to Christ, in today’s world is about 3 things. RELATIONSHIPS-RELATIONSHIPS-RELATIONSHIPS. 10 minutes after you lead someone to Christ I don’t bleieve they will remember what denomination you represented, only WHO you brought into thier lives. God Bless-pastor Al
Actually Al,
Leading people to Christ is about: THE GOSPEL, THE GOSPEL, THE GOSPEL. It always has been. it always will be.
Your right for step 2. Without Relationships, Relationships, Relationships, there will be no opportunity to present the Gospel, Gospel, Gospel. LOL
Bruce:
I agree that “Marketing” is not what we are about.
But we have a great stewardship, and we try to communicate with all of the assets we have.
Southern Baptist Convention was chosen originally with that goal in mind.
LifeWay was very much marketing, and I believe that the folks in the bookstore division and people who understand marketing would say that was a smart move.
Changing from the “Foreign Mission Board” to the “International Mission Board” was a good move, too. “Foreign” had negative connotations.
We would not have an “Oriental” or “Negro” mission project or board.
Those are extreme examples, but they are examples of how a name should communicate accurately and effectively.
So, you are right. We are not about marketing. But I think it is good that we consider the names we have and choose for our organization and entities.
Wanting to choose a new name is no more idicative of being a craven marketeer than wanting to keep the name is indicative of being afraid to change or idolatrous.
I think that we can consider and even approve, or reject, a name change without getting caught up in extremes.
Thanks.
I agree with you. It is just some of the reasons I’ve heard that have come to surface would concern me. When change comes in pieces and not in an overhaul it would promote a political atmosphere at the top. Our government does the exact same thing. Change the name to allow broadness, but lets get lean at the same time to be more effective. Let’s be good stewards of God’s money at the same time.
Good thoughts Pastor Al. I agree.
But we don’t have to major on it to consider it, do we?
This morning I got a call from someone. The first question I was asked is, “Are you Christianity?” Yeah, we still get that question about Baptists up here.
I would agree with Louis about dispensing with the strawmen and simply ask this. Why change our name at all? Is it simply because some people have a negative connotation of SBC? A name change won’t change that. Is it because SBC is too “regional” or “geographical”? Last I checked, the S hasn’t stopped us from going to the ends of the earth.
Maybe it is because I live in North Dakota, where the conversation just doesn’t come up all that much. We talk about cooperation and the cooperative program for missions. We do our dead-level best to work together as much as we can because we can’t go it alone. It won’t matter at all whether we are called Southern Baptists, Frontier Baptists, Global Baptists, Ring-tailed Baptists or Crazy Wide-eyed Great Commission Tunnel Vision Baptists as far as I can tell. We will keep doing what we do.
AMEN-As a former Church Planter in Vermont-I found no issues with it, except the Independant Brethren LOL.
I have, in Iowa, found the name to be a hindrance – a hurdle we must overcome.
It’s not that it cannot be overcome, but its less than helpful.
Does anyone actually know when the name-change recommendations will actually be announced?
Soon.
I am sure that proponents (Todd, Dave, and others) of a Name Change would love for opponents to “actually consider the report without rejecting it out of hand,” but I must concur with John Wylie and Rick Patrick that the EC should decline to forward the report to the Convention. That won’t happen, but it would send a message about how to not do things in the future. Louis has some good suggestions, but none of them will see the light of day.
I fully expect that the Task Force will recommend a name change via a d/b/a instead of a change in the Constitution. This would seemingly require only a simple majority at one Convention instead of the 2/3 majority at two consecutive annual meetings. I say seemingly because there will be parliamentary hurdles to overcome and some folks will be more prepared this time for the manipulation, pressure tactics, and parliamentary shenanigans that are very likely to be employed by the establishment. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Would a d/b/a even require a vote at NOSBC? Realistically, since it’s a simple business matter, could not the EC simply do it without waiting?
Doug,
I suppose they could, but this would lead to a full-scale rebellion against the ruling elites. If nothing else, the establishment has some great political strategists. They want at least the cover of saying that a majority of messengers voted in favor of the d/b/a. This will be hardball religious politics at its best and worst.
I don’t expect that it would be done that way. Just trying to keep it straight in my mind.
Part of this whole discussion, though, comes back to this question:
What do we do when good ends are accomplished by questionable means? That’s the question that needs to be answered, really. This is just more of a case study in it. Because changing the name, especially via dba which would allow anyone to continue using “SBC” thus mitigating the cost question, really wouldn’t hurt, would it?
That’s why you haven’t heard vast sermons on the issue or anything else: it just does not matter that much in our churches. It might matter in outreach–in fact, there’s probably no outreach that will be harmed by changing the name. How this is done is really going to be the issue. Not if. How. Because I think we should honestly expect a committee suggestion that is accepted tonight and forwarded in June and done.
On a side note, will be become “GCBCVoices.com”? Have we cyber-reserved the potential new names or will we stay SBCVoices.com no matter what?
To be fair, I am technically not a proponent of a name change (yet). I am generally inclined toward a name change and want the issue to be studied thoroughly and whatever proposal comes out to be prayerfully considered. I am willing to be convinced that a name change is not the best idea if that is what the study committee concludes. My gut feeling, as a northern Southern Baptist, is that the name is a hindrance to ministry and would welcome a name change. But, that is just a gut feeling based on anecdotal experience not careful research by a study committee commissioned to examine the issue.
On the other side, it seems there are many that are not only inclined toward not changing the name, but opposed to it to such an extent that they will not even consider arguments for it and will probably reject whatever proposal results without weighing the details of the report.
Two points, here, Howell.
1) I support a name change, but only conditionally. If they come up with a good name to recommend. Honestly, I haven’t heard one yet that I think is an improvement. The good ones are mostly gone. Also, they need to show that the change could be done within a reasonable expense and I have to be convinced that the name change is worth the expense.
So, I am a qualified and provisional supporter.
2) I am bothered by your last lines above. I think that there are some good and honorable men in what you style as “the establishment.”
If they use manipulative tactics to promote this, I will join you in condemning that. But I am bothered that you have already laid the charge of likely “manipulation, pressure tactics, and parliamentary shenanigans” at their door before they have even begun the process.
I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask people to pray and seek God’s will before responding in this matter.
Dave,
Even good men are not above manipulation and pressure tactics with the GCR being a prime example.
I haven’t seen anyone saying we ought to not pray about it. Prior to it’s report, you’ve expressed a desire to change the name (depending on the name change proposed). There are a few others, myself included, who think that this name change is another step in the wrong direction for the SBC. Of course, we are going to be praying about it. We’ve put life and money into the convention, we want it to succeed. If a name change will help us reach Zimbabwe or Osprey more effectively, then change the name. I just think it’s spending money and leadership capital that could be better used elsewhere.
But we will be praying no matter our position.
Again, as I said above, I’ve been advocating a name-change for a long time. But I am not an unqualified supporter. I need to see that the name is an improvement over the current name and I need to see what it will cost.
I just think its wrong to assume wrongdoing on the part of the leaders. Maybe they will fulfill many people’s expectations and resort to manipulation. I hope not.
Dave,
How we view politics in the SBC will continue to be from different perspectives. If I would have “assumed wrongdoing on the part of leaders,” I would have said that I knew manipulation and parliamentary shenanigans were a given. Instead, I said such were “very likely.”
Both Tom and Jack make points which support my educated guess. In some ways, the stakes are even higher in the great Name Change debate than they were in the GCR process. I hope that I am wrong, but somehow I think that we will end up defining manipulation and parliamentary shenanigans differently 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, my gut feeling is you are not wrong. The name change stakes are much higher.
If we were in a different time perhaps a name change could have significant positive effects. I do not think our Convention is strong enough at this time to take on this challenge–in my opinion.
Should I be proven wrong and the name change actually happens and the results are a renewed fervor for winning souls and strenghtening churches . . . then, I’d gladly accept my errant position and embrace another Great Awakening.
SBC has money problems we know nothing about . If the Total cost was $ 20 million which has been bantered about ? Will you ever know where that amount of money was spent ? What we do know by their admission is that the books have been cooked . Being financially pressed just smacks spending $ 20 million to “change a name ” !
When I was pastoring in Texas some years ago, there was a little bit of a push and shove going on between the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptist Convention. It had to do with Sunday school booklets of all things. BGCT wanted to produce their own and it was said that SBC thought this an affront.
People in the BGCT began to float the idea of creating another national convention out of the BGCT and separating from the SBC. (Big Texas talk, I guess.) The name being floated was The Baptist Convention of the Americas.
Okay, all that story and no point. It’s just a name I remembered.
I’ve heard things like Fellowship of Baptists in America floated.
Dave Miller – I would love to hear more people like Howell express their determination to get a fair hearing not only of this issue but of all issues in the future . How many manipulated ram-rodded meetings do we have to witness before it’s O.K. to be weary or on the look-out ? We can either have a positive effect or Predestination has already determined the outcome. I admit – I’m confused . Which is it ?
I believe the issue of the name change is just fodder. How much will it cost the SBC, the state conventions, associations and even the local churches to eliminate SBC and start using something else? What about the confusion it will create for non-churched? What practical value does it bring to the work of Christ and being Kingdom driven…..? We jumped off from Acts 1:8 to GCR and in my opinion Acts 1:8 works and is a biblically ordained mandate unlike the book written to explain GCR. At the end of the day, the task force like everything else in SBC life seems to be tainted or tilted to mega churches. These might have the largest worship attendance but the bulk of SBC churches are around 100. Who stops to think about the lifeblood of the SBC?
Jeff, Al and Dave:
I am really interested in your opinions, inasmuch as you have ministered outside the South.
I see that it is mixed.
Most of us from the South don’t see a problem with “Southern” and can’t understand why anyone would not associate with that?
Dave – you mentioned “Fellowship of Baptists”? I like that because is simple.
However, it is close to the CBF name, so there could be confusion.
I even like “The Baptist Convention”, if you can believe it.
I still like “Baptists Together, a Fellowship (or Convention) of Baptists” and just call it Baptists Together.
But what I like better is having a well thought out process that allows for reflection and input.
Honestly, as much as I’d like to see a new name, I still haven’t seen one that is a vast improvement over the current name. I am not for name-change just for the sake of change.
Louis,
I know Dave has mentioned problems with the Southern moniker in Iowa before, and I have heard people say that it has caused issues in the Dakotas before. It has just been my experience that it rarely comes up. The reality of the majority of the communities in the Dakotas is that if you are a Baptist church of any kind, you are probably the only one in town. Yesterday we had a family visit that had come from a couple of different places and a couple of different Baptist traditions, but the stark truth is that we are the only Baptist church of any kind for at least 30 miles or so in any direction (including north into Canada). At that point, people tend to be less picky about what kind of Baptist you are, they are just happy to find people with some common ground.
If we went out of our way to make a big deal about the Southern part of our name, I am sure it would turn a few people up here off. We don’t hide it, but other than having it on our sign, we don’t go around advertising it either. It isn’t a case of being disingenuous as much as it is a case of it being irrelevant.
As much as I don’t care about getting the name changed, if they could find something good to change it to, I wouldn’t put up much of a fuss about it either. At least then, we could stop talking about it and prayerfully find something important to work on.
Jeff, I know that most Iowa churches don’t really publicize their “Southern” affiliation. We are Baptist, and we don’t hide our SBC affiliation, but we don’t really talk about it much.
“””“Baptists Together”””
This could raise serious charges of false advertising 🙂
I really wish we’d just name ourselves the “KFC.” I dont know why…not really..I just like it.
David
🙂
I’ll bet you would!
Volfan:
I got some KFC 2 weeks ago. On the bag when I got it, it had “KFC/KGC”. The KGC was for “Kentucky Grilled Chicken.”
I told me wife they were continuing to try and alter their brand – one step at a time.
A representative just came to my office the other day to tell me that a Middle Eastern man (Iraqi I believe) just bought all the KFC’s in California.
So, I’m sure some kind of “name change” may be in the cards for the future: IFC? Iraqi Fried Chicken? International Fried Chicken? Is it even morally acceptable for a Middle Eastern man to own rights to “secret” spices?
I am going somewhere with this: perhaps what we need is not a change of name, but a change of ownership? SBC–“Still Believin’ in Christ?
Interesting.
If he bought the California ones he will be just a Franchisee with no athority over corporate.
OK, Al, now we have to get “technical about it.” As Baptists, we even fight over jokes!
No, seriously, you are correct but that would not have fit my illustration.
If I hear the word “branding” used in conjunction with what is supposed to be the Body of Christ….. one more time (I have been hearing it for almost 15 years now) I will run screaming into the woods or perhaps start a house church like Lydia in Philippi.
Could a “Doing Business As” (dba) be seen by some as a little deceptive?
Could someone say,
“I thought you were the Great Commission Baptist Fellowship. That’s what you told me.
But I just found out you’re really the Southern Baptist Convention. What are you trying to hide?”
David R. Brumbelow
I’m fight for a dgba name change: “Doing God’s Business As”
How ’bout we take a cue from the Music Industry and call ourselves: The Convention Formerly Known as Southern Baptists.
That should please everyone: those that want a name change get it, and those that don’t, well . . . they get to keep Southern Baptist in the name.
Is this a stroke of genius?
NO!
You seem to be on a roll.
Dave, I think you can see I am a bit ambivalent about the name change thing.
I really don’t know what to make of it. I’m almost certain there are “pro-changers” with an agenda (though I don’t have a clue right now what that is), but I think there are also “pro-changers” who really feel this might be a step in the right direction toward a more effective Convention.
I’m sure if and when the announcement is made, we will not have to wait long to see what possible “agendas” are in play.
When you have something that is as historic and well-known as the SBC, when the leading evangelist of the 20th century joined it, you really need to ask yourself, “Why change the name of a known organization? What good will it do? What harm?”
David:
If someone were to ask me, I would say that our convention was formed in 1848 and when a name change was proposed, some thought there was a legal advantage to having a charter from the Georgia Legislature in 1848, so rather than get into that issue, we just use a d/b/a.
That’s what I would say.
Thanks.
Louis,
Thanks, just wondering.
But wasn’t it 1845?
David R. Brumbelow
David – yep! 1845. Good catch.
What information I have says that an announcement is expected at 7:00 PM Central Time tonight.
I am totally against a name change. I’ll tell you from the jump. I see this as an issue with the thinking of leadership. The change it and they will come mentality. But they won’t come. Here’s my problem with this whole thing.
1. Instead of building the pastors and deacons and teachers up to focus on Christ, the Bible and the actual gospel that saves souls, they’re trying to court the lost with a pr move. That’s something Satan would do.
2. The lost don’t belong in the church. They aren’t the church and have no business in our fellowship because they are of the darkness not the light. All they will do is come in cause trouble, get on boards and in social events and try to make changes in the church that are not of the light, and aren’t right!
3. The lost won’t change their world view for a donut, and they won’t do it if we change our name. The word Christ and Christian are offensive to the lost. Plus the SBC report clearly says that 40% of the lost wouldn’t come to an evangelical church anyway, regardless of the name!
4. Christians need to read, study the Bible at home and be equipt to reach the lost. It’s not the pastor job! It’s the redeemeds job. It’s what Christ left you here to do, stop being deralict of your duties and go reach the lost. Not with useless conversations, but with the actual gospel! If the folks get saved, THEN bring them to the flock for examination of salvation, disciple them, mentor them and baptise them and add them to the fellowship.
5. If they go ahead and bow to the lost over our name, what’s next? Homosexuality? Woman pastors? Eliminating the teaching of Hell? Or changing the gospel and decieving people to hell? It’s a slippery slop my friend. I say don’t change the name. Change the leaders, preachers and hearts of the saints.
“…what’s next? Homosexuality? Woman pastors? Eliminating the teaching of Hell? Or changing the gospel and decieving people to hell?”
Where have you been for the last thirty years Ore?
We have done been there, done that and already won that one.
This is just a little set-to around the kitchen table about a name change for the family. Its not that big a deal. So save your ammo.
You brought up some good points but did you not do what you are accusing others of doing? You make accusations against “leadership’ when the request came from the field. As leaders they should always listen, even to the minority. Give them thier day. The best way I know is to appoint a committee to investigate. As I understand it, that is all “leadership” did. God Bless
Plus, I believe if you are SBC, that should be your church name. Not happy church of Dallas. The name should proclaim to all who you are.
It’s in the news now.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/20/southern-baptists-consider-dropping-southern-from-name/
According to twitterdom, Bryant Wright is giving his report. I’m guessing twitter will break the news before anyone else – BP or ABP included.
The name-change announcement is imminent.
585 names were suggested, plus 300 that were not serious enough to consider.
If the tweet I just saw is right, the recommendation will be NOT to change the name of the SBC.
Unless they are going to proceed with a dba, there will be no name-change. Changing the name, according to Draper, is too difficult and there is not enough benefit.
It is going to be a DBA
The use of either name will be permitted.
It is a PR move, pure and simple, PR, and what will get lost in the shuffle is the bonafide commitment to the Gospel that the SBC had through two centuries and which was almost lost in the 2nd century, but was recovered and is being recovered.
Dr. J,
Some may dismiss your concern out of hand, but I don’t. I think that leading with PR could result in exactly what you describe.
I’m not saying it will. We have overcome ourselves before and perhaps we will see as Pogo did, “the enemy is us,” and we will once again overcome.
I’m with you on the 3rd Great Awakening.
As we recover what was nearly lost, we will recover the theology of depth that deals with the depth of human depravity in a capable manner. The result will be a Third Great Awakening; it is substance in this case that counts and not form.
Are they sealing the “unofficial” official task force minutes/notes? :o)
Still singing that one stale tune, eh?
“Still singing that one stale tune, eh?”
Some tunes are classics and timeless. :o) Wasn’t that also the Clinton defense for years? Old news? As if it would never happen again?
If it happens again, maybe you could bring the song out of mothballs.
This thing is history and not very good history at that.