It has been nearly a week since the Task Force reported its findings to the Executive Committee of the SBC and it is safe to say a lively discussion has ensued. Several people have commented here that the issue of the name change is not that significant and that we should be talking about other things.
That may be so, but there is no question that there has been a great deal of interest generated here on the topic. In terms of page views, Tuesday was our busiest day ever, last week was our busiest week ever, and February is already our busiest month ever even though it is only the 27th of the month. Interest in the topic is high and not likely to wane until the vote in New Orleans in June and for some time thereafter.
And I am increasingly concerned about that conversation. I must be honest here, I am not neutral on this subject. I have advocated for a name change for some time and I want to see this motion pass. I hope to be able at some point in the near future to identify our church as a Great Commission Baptist Church.
But right now, I have a bigger concern and that if the current tone of the debate continues to escalate, our conversation on the issue is going to do more damage than can be done by either adopting the moniker or rejecting it.
If we can’t discuss a relatively minor issue like this in a calm and reasoned spirit, we have issues greater than nomenclature to deal with. How we debate the issue and how we relate to one another is at least as important as the issue itself.
Let me be clear – I am not trying to chastise others as if I were guiltless in all of this. By my advocacy of the name-change, I have deeply offended one who I count a friend. I have been angry at things people have said about our leaders, about Bryant Wright, about the Task Force and about me.
I could try to defend my anger and claim it is justified, but honestly, is there such a thing as justified anger over an issue such as this – the debate of a motion to add an official designation to the SBC?
I would apologize publicly to anyone I have offended by my words and actions in the discussion of this issue. Man’s anger does not accomplish the purposes of God, but instead it sows dissension and when I type words in anger it does not serve the Savior’s cause.
I think we need to elevate the level of the debate on this topic.
It is my intention to do two things. 1) I intend to continue to advocate for the issue here right up until the vote. 2) I intend to honor my brothers and sisters who disagree on the issue. I am quite sure I will fulfill the first intention, but whether I can faithfully maintain the proper attitude toward those who disagree on these issues is a challenge I will have to meet in the power of the Holy Spirit and with the willingness to repent if such is necessary again in the future.
But I also have the responsibility to oversee this debate here. I want to try to moderate the debate here fairly and honorably, even though I am anything but neutral. It is my intention to try to enforce some parameters here that will help us to discuss this issue fully in the days ahead without damaging the cause of Christ in any way.
So, in that effort, I intend to enforce the following policies.
1) Any viewpoint, positive or negative, is welcome here as we discuss the issue. In fact, if some of our regular readers want to write guest posts on the issue, please feel free to do so. I do not want to censor any viewpoint on the issue, even if it disagrees with mine.
2) I will ask any who write on the issue from this point forward to show respect for those who disagree on the issue. This is the tricky part. The line between dissent and divisiveness is a elusive one, a subjective one. But I am asking our contributors and our commenters to express their views forcefully but without rancor, accusation or derogation of those who disagree.
I am not trying to stifle debate or discussion. My hope is simply to elevate it here at SBC Voices. What others do is, of course, their business. But I want us to have a lively and productive debate here, free from personal animus.
This will be tricky, and I know that my efforts at fairness will likely be questioned, and probably rightly so at times.
But I am asking commenters and contributors to police themselves. Can you find a way to say what you want to say in a kinder way, in a less confrontational way? Can you make sure that even when you disagree with someone, you honor them as well?
It is not always easy to do this, but it is a noble effort.
Honorable people can disagree about whether we should vote yea or nay in NOLA this summer. But I hope we can agree that how we carry ourselves in the debate is as important as how the vote comes out.
I have set up a special email for use by commenters at SBC Voices. It is davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com and you are welcome to contact me there. If I have offended you in some way you wish to deal with, please contact me there. If you think my moderation is unfair, you are welcome to contact me there. I do not generally allow discussion of moderation issues in public, but prefer to keep them private. So, contact me if you have any issue with how I handle this. I want to be fair, but sometimes my passion for the issue may compete with that desire.
Has the term or name “Cooperative Baptist Convention” came up?
I wish it had about 35 years ago.
My question: If the a name change was needed because it hinders the Gospel? Why was the reason for not changing the name (legal reasons) greater than the spread of the Gospel?
Jeff, that’s a great question that probably contains the answer.
The task force was charged to look into a name change. It did and reasoned that a change was too expensive to consider. The work of the Committee was complete at this point, but then it went beyond its charge.
GCB is not a name change, but a name addition, yet it is an addition that can take the place of the official name, but as such it is really not an official designation, thus it is not a name change. If it sounds illogical, thus confusing, consider that it is just that.
If such creates confusion within SBC, what clarity does it offer to those that SBC seeks to attract?
What it communicates to many in the SBC is that leadership is confused and unwilling to let its yes be yes and its no be no. To some insiders it also demonstrates that SBC leaders will perhaps continually and unwisely spend human capital on arguably peripheral issues that repeatedly have been shown to lack sufficient justification and support for moving forward. And if the people of the task force are to be trusted, the issue once again has proven to be unworthy of consideration. Alas, the Committee did not trust its own reasoned judgment.
What it possibly communicates to some outsiders that SBC seeks to attract is something like the following: “These people wish for me to be one of them, yet they cannot define themselves to even their own satisfaction. No, thanks.”
Right now SBC is thinking aloud by hearing from its people. It can’t be criticized for that; rather for such it is to be applauded. But if SBC approves this initiative, it likely will be one more thing that contributes to extant negative perceptions and will become fodder for comedians. This is not a ‘folly’ that the unwise will stumble upon, failing to, thus, perceive its truth; this initiative is just plain foolish, notwithstanding the good intentions of the people responsible for its consideration.
BH, I think you some up the issue I have with all of this in a succinct, reasoned way. I do believe we have a problem communicating with others if we do not really understand ourselves.
This whole name-change mania breeds confusion and mistrust. It focuses on incidentals. It detracts and divides. I cannot see how that will be helpful.
But, the way it was done sort of stacks the deck in favor of a name-change passing by a narrow margin. Unfortunately, a narrow margin win is no win at all in my opinion.
Frank L: … passing by a narrow margin ….
bapticus hereticus: On definitional issues, 51-49 splits (i.e., narrow margin) may be sufficient for a motion to carry and a direction to be set, but good luck with the development of cohesion. It would be better to allow this issue to simmer until it rises in importance (note: three separate task forces in a generation say it is not feasible at ‘this’ time), and perhaps a new contextual situation in and around SBC will cause people to look at it again in a new light and choose a way through this than what apparently will be a competitive resolution if forced to a floor vote in June.
BH,
My sentiments exactly. There are issues that a narrow margin victory may be a necessary evil. I don’t think this is one.
I do like your suggestion of letting it simmer. I could be that the idea, or some improved version of the same, would rise to a level of importance and become a unifying issue.
Good points.
I think the way SBC Voices is regulated is perfect. It doesn’t allow anyone to hide from any concept because of protocol or that it might offend someone. I try to draw a line where a comment will personally “hurt” someone not just at the moment but for an extended period . I’ve not found anyone that sensitive here excepting possibly women posters . The damage in hurting someone personally translates into those persons not giving their honest opinions in the future , ” pulling their punches” so to speak and then we all lose the benefit of their insight & expertise all of which this group cannot do without – in my humble opinion . The benefits vary but include someone who believes they are entitled to certain respects as denoted by their position in life who get an awakening – which they sometimes find difficult to manage . The range in backgrounds of this group is somewhat narrow , but, will get larger as the SBC becomes more inclusive and is forced to open itself up. That pastor from Gary Indiana leaving his opinion which was well received is an example . You have to let a “New Yorker” speak like a ” New Yorker” ; a “Bostonian” , “Cleveland-er” and all the Pollocks speak with their hands along with the southerners of Birmingham , Jackson and Dallas who are generally quiet and reserved with their hands clasped in front of them . Jousting is fun as long as there are no casualties and watching each side ” sting” the other is entertainment – not “church” in which we All can get emotional for the right reasons . You’re expanding the envelope with harder , more pointed arguments ; but, you must learn to laugh at yourself and at each other even while the “finger pointing” is in full force . How are the others who don’t share in this Blog going to get initiated . That’ll be a hoot. “Real Men Don’t Have Cabins On Their Boats “
“I hope to be able at some point in the near future to identify our church as a Great Commission Baptist Church.”
Dave, I don’t think that anyone would say that you could not do that identity change today. Signs are made to be changed and churches are autonomous. Certainly, before the name change was proposed, you could have easily done it. Now it might cause some to be distressed if you did it today.
In this part of the world (Gulf Coast, due south of Houston) we have a number of churches who are Baptist (in other words, Biblical) who don’t advertise the Baptist part of their beliefs. Most of the “bad features” of being Baptist are optional if the church and its members choose to make them that way.
Dave said “If we can’t discuss a relatively minor issue like this in a calm and reasoned spirit, we have issues greater than nomenclature to deal with. ”
Dave,
I am relatively new to all the hoopla being tossed around on SBC focused blogs. But, I do think you are right that there are greater issues than nomenclature. It seems that these other issues are what should be discussed. As a Biblical Counselor and Pastor, one thing I have learned is that the expressed problem is almost never the real issue. What is the real issue here? Emotions (which are completeley valid on all sides) are running overly strong. Rehashing this issue, even nicely, seems unlikely to produce real results.
Donald,
I agree with you that the issue that seems minor is generating more heat than light because it is not the issue. I’m not concerned about what other churches call themselves. We may even change our church name (though it won’t include Baptist, Great, or Commission).
My issue is that we have an identity crisis and “we” are not even able to articulate who “we” are. Now, if changing the name would help that issue, I’d be all for it.
But the nickname idea seems to be nothing more than collecting and analyzing debris after a train wreck. This “identity” crisis has been an on-going issue for at least 25 years or so. It has not yet been resolved.
Perhaps in a Convention as large as ours, the issue cannot be resolved in a minority meeting two days a year.
We need to push the center of SBC life back down into the local church level and build up. The President-down approach seems problematic to me.
So, the name-change issue is a non-issue for me, but the context out of which it arises, is and issue.
Anyone who read SBC Voices on Saturday would probably be aware that Howell Scott and I disagreed pretty strongly on some issues. That is nothing new, really. Howell and I have disagreed on blogging issues with some regularity, but have always managed to maintain a friendly context for these debates.
Saturday, that did not happen.
While Howell and I were exchanging some emails discussing the issue, I posted an article about the SBC Constitution and Bylaws and how they apply to the name change issue.
I should have waited to post that article until after Howell and I worked out our personal (to use Howell’s world) kerfuffle. I understand now why Howell felt that to be a violation of the process of reconciliation we were trying to effect privately.
I love and respect Howell Scott, even through our disagreements on SBC related issues. I apologize for the offense I gave him by publishing that article in the midst of our personal discussions.
Howell and I talked at length this morning and I believe we reconciled whatever personal issues arose on Saturday. Things like this arise on blogs – it is the nature of online discussion for this to happen.
Howell and I are both committed to articulating our positions – which continue to disagree – right up to the convention in New Orleans this year, and probably long afterward. But we also want whatever interactions we have to be within a context of respect and absent of any kind of personal injury.
I look forward to arguing (in a spirit of mutual respect) with Howell as we near this future-defining convention.
Dave,
Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you this morning to bring resolution and reconciliation to our “sharp disagreement.” As I stated to you, I apologize for using rhetoric that you found offensive and considered a personal attack against you. In the heat of passionate debate, our response is always on us, even if another person says or writes something that “causes” us to respond in that way.
I appreciate the clarification that you made in your comment and the public apology for how you handled things on your end in the process of us trying to resolve our differences on Saturday night. While we will continue to have differences and disagreements as to issues relating to the future of the SBC (name change, GCR, among others), I, too, look forward to the respectful (if heated at times) dialogue that we will have between now and New Orleans. I also look forward to continuing to be one of the voices who speaks out on SBC Voices, even when others may not share my opinions and concerns. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I love reconciliation. I think I’m going to cry.
At the time, I was thinking that it wasn’t just the ‘name change’ that everyone was so upset about . . . there was more to it . . . but I still can’t sort it all out exactly.
It has something to do with ‘The Name’ that people wanted to change and that they felt a kind of shame at its historical connection to an era that may not be as ‘in the past’ as some would want it to be,
and for others that historical connection may represent something that is not as shameful.
Could that be it?
I have a cousin in Plymouth NC who clings to her history proudly. My great great uncle is her great grandfather . . . a Civil War hero.
She is a ‘Daughter of the Confederacy’ and proud of it. My own feeling is that I recognize the history of that side of my family not with ‘shame’, but with understanding in the context of the time. And I too join with my cousin in honoring the memory of a hero who saved many lives at the risk of his own . . .
but she will go beyond where I can go sometimes in her comments to a place where I cannot follow in conscience, but I do not judge this, I just know that I cannot join her in my heart.
The sadness of the past is not that it cannot be changed, but that it continues to divide, unless those who might find themselves on opposite sides come to understand that they both draw life from the waters of the same Stream. That is where the healing is.
I can’t say I have felt any angor or rancor toward anyone in this debate over the idea of changing the name. What I has concerned about was the matter of unity of the group, and history, regardless of its positives and negatives, is one of the factors in unity. We do have other factors like the fidelity to Scripture, and, while our commitment to Sovereign Grace has weakened to the extent that many look on believers in the Doctrines of Grace as strangers to the SBC, they yet retain some of the points of the original theology, namely, total depravity and perseverance of the saints. There are some others who do believe in the election of grace as unconditional and who recognize that grace is efficacious without buying all the irresistible seems to imply. As a historian who has spent some time studying the matter (and this does not by any means imply that I know all there is to be known about the issue), I have some idea of where the freedom to differ on the central doctrine of grace (the atonement) began, namely, in Virginia in 1787. While the issue of preaching that Christ tasted death for every man was resolved with the statement that it would be no bar to communion, what is not generally known about the matter is that the Brethren in Va. were ashamed of having acted in an unchristian manner, speaking ill of those whom they had looked on as brothers. The result was a reunion in tears of repentance over having committed such evil. The main treat for the present situation is, if it were really studied and understood by our ministers today, that it provides the means for the beginning of working out theological differences so that believers can operate in peace. A better understanding of the nature of biblical doctrines and how they are meant to influence human behavior would bring us to a better appreciation of what it means to see the Bible as reflecting the wisdom that would be commensurate with its being inspired by the Omniscient God, that is, a wisdom that reflects a corresponding profundity. the intellectual aspect of Scripture has been much neglected in the past century or more due, perhaps mainly, to the higher critical approach to the Bible. Now that we have begun to move beyond that bankrupt method, we need to… Read more »