In Part One we explored both the unilateral creation of the task force itself and the selection of its entire membership by our SBC President. We considered the relatively brief nature of their deliberations in light of the historic decision to change our denominational name by introducing a second officially approved term with which it would be forced to compete. We reviewed the confusion of identity this replacement name would cause outsiders and even addressed the questionable use of a term that may prove, in the course of time, to sound “churchy” as it does not resonate with the culture, or “trendy” as it is bound up with the current GCR movement.
I was more than surprised at the reaction of those readers who apparently did not wish to receive the information. As someone has infamously and poignantly observed, “It does tend to cut down on mental clutter.” I have never written a piece in any blog, newspaper, magazine, journal or church bulletin that has ever elicited such cries of “stop,” “hush,” and “I don’t want to hear it.” To those so mortified by my reflections on this literally “defining” issue for Southern Baptists, let me point out there exists a simple and time honored technique for the avoidance of reading material one does not wish to engage, and it is so patently obvious I’ll just let you figure it out for yourself. I will now continue for the sake of those readers interested enough to come along for the ride.
6. Attempt to Avoid Name Change Protocol
The name of this body is the “Southern Baptist Convention.” Thus states article one of our constitution. Interestingly, there appears to be no specific provision in our bylaws for changing our name. However, bylaw fourteen lists our various entity names, and bylaw thirty-seven specifically requires that any amendment to these entities must be subject to a two-thirds vote at two consecutive conventions. I would argue that in the absence of any specific bylaw related to changing our primary organizational name, we should follow a practice at least as rigorous as that which would govern the changing of our major entity names. Thus, the “two-thirds vote at two conventions” rule must apply. Similarly, in the absence of any provision for an “officially approved optional replacement name,” we must treat the idea of “Great Commission Baptists” as a new name for our convention. Indeed, if it is approved by messengers, those churches who opt to use the new name will have the convention’s blessing in this identification, even though the legal name on the documents in the file cabinets remain “Southern Baptist Convention.” In other words, since this proposal would indeed change the name by which many of our churches would call our convention, it should be treated as the name change proposal it really is, rather than as some kind of marketing slogan, tagline, nickname or descriptor. In my opinion, all the other “names for the name” represent an attempt to mask the reality of a proposal to change our name in every way except in our legal documents, which frankly matter only in the realms of law and finance and not in developing our core identity, image and public relations efforts. I believe the task force is seeking a simple majority vote at a single convention. If the idea is truly worthy, it should pass muster without any parliamentary dodgeball.
7. Changing Internal Task Force Mandate
Having already argued against the legitimacy of the Task Force’s external mandate, I would now like to address the illegitimacy of their internal mandate. That is, when they decided against an official and legal name change, the Name Change Task Force actually moved beyond their original internal mandate to address a matter never previously suggested in their purpose for existence, namely, the proposing of a dual named convention. Apparently disliking the logical conclusion they were driven to accept by the reality of their research, they changed the terms of their work scope and began considering an option outside their original work assignment. To put it simply, they were the “Name Change” Task Force, not the “Name Expansion and Dilution” Task Force. They were formed either to propose changing the name or not changing the name, but instead chose to propose a confusing, informal and optional augmentation of it, rewriting the purpose for their own existence.
8. Compromise Suspected of Incrementalism
The motion states that those churches, entities and organizations in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention which may desire to utilize a descriptor other than the term “Southern Baptists” to indicate their relationship with each other and their involvement in the Southern Baptist Convention and its ministries, use the descriptor “Great Commission Baptists,” a phrase commended as one fully in keeping with our Southern Baptist Convention identity. While this may sound like an innocuous descriptor, and I have no doubt that its framers intended it to sound exactly that way, I have heard numerous individuals refer to this proposal not as a friendly and final compromise, but rather as a “start” or a “move in the right direction.” In other words, to quote the Arabian proverb, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” In light of this openly discussed strategy for gradual implementation, it makes sense for those who would oppose the ultimate legal name change from Southern Baptist Convention to Great Commission Baptists to honor the wisdom of that great Southern folk hero Barney Fife and simply “Nip it in the bud! Nip it! Nip it! Nip it!”
9. Cannot Possibly Impact the Elect
Arguing now from a soteriology I do not personally hold, no Five Point Calvinist who understands the “basic structures of thought” (to borrow a phrase) which undergird his or her theological grid, can possibly maintain that changing the name of our denomination will result in the salvation of souls who would not otherwise be saved. Anyone who claims that the term “Great Commission Baptists” will improve our evangelistic efforts over against the term “Southern Baptist Convention” must necessarily argue from a decidedly Non-Calvinistic perspective. (As a Non-Calvinist, I still do not believe that the argument has any merit, but at least it makes theological sense.) Is there truly a Five Point Calvinist among us who believes that God’s eternal decree of the elect, from before the foundation of the world, would be impacted one whit by the decisions of man regarding a denomination name change? If I can truly influence God’s Sovereign choice of the elect simply by voting to change our name from SBC to GCB, then I scandalously wield far more power than any mortal man should possess, regardless of his theological system.
10. Biblical Church Names Always Regional
You will look in vain to find that church name in the Bible based on anything other than geography. Furthermore, the geography referenced is everywhere and always the region representing the source of the missionary activity and not the destination for the missionary activity. In other words, the Church in Jerusalem scattered and sent missionaries throughout Asia Minor, but they did not change their name to the “Church of Asia Minor” nor did they name themselves by their activity, as in the “Church Spreading the Gospel.” One may argue that the name “Southern” identifies, for those we reach in the northern areas of America and all around the globe, the precise location in America from which the “people, pennies and prayers” have been sent in order to touch lives and carry the message of the gospel to the entire world. The link below clearly demonstrates the geographic source of our ministries.* One might hope that our church planters in North America and missionaries around the globe would be pleased to help those who are reached by our generous donations of “people, pennies and prayers” to develop an appreciation for those Baptist Christians primarily in the Southern region of the United States of America responsible for the greatest evangelical missionary sending effort in world history. It provides an excellent opportunity not only to share the tremendous vision of the Cooperative Program, but also to foster appreciation for a region which should be known more for its gospel proclamation today than for its slavery 200 years ago. Rather than hiding from the misperceptions of Southern life held by those we reach, we can hopefully overcome such misperceptions and foster greater appreciation for the flow of “people, pennies and prayers” from the Southern region of the United States to the entire world.
* http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif
Thank you for your patience in reading this lengthy series. In the next installment, I will debunk the notion that personal evangelistic efforts are limited in any meaningful way by our choice of a denominational name. I may also allude to the present freedom among all church planters and missionaries to use whatever informal descriptors and nicknames they may choose as unofficial descriptions requiring absolutely no convention approval. I will argue that since they currently possess this right, there is no need for formal convention approval, which might possibly lead to the controversial incrementalism strategy mentioned in Point Eight.
“Is there truly a Five Point Calvinist among us who believes that God’s eternal decree of the elect, from before the foundation of the world, would be impacted one whit by the decisions of man regarding a denomination name change? If I can truly influence God’s Sovereign choice of the elect simply by voting to change our name from SBC to GCB, then I scandalously wield far more power than any mortal man should possess, regardless of his theological system.”
What is really interesting is the overwhelming approval of the GCB moniker among the Reformed Theology camp. The truth is, it is easier to associate a movement with a new name than it is to carry the weight of an old name. Just another smart move if it passes.
><>”
“Cannot Possibly Impact the Elect”
Here you show a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position on means. To follow your logic, then Calvinists should abandon methodology and strategy of any kind (which is a form hyper-Calvinism). But Calvinists believe that God ordains means as well as the end. William Carey argued decisively for the use of means and thus began the modern missionary movement.
God will indeed save the elect, and he will do as His servants preach the gospel and remove man-made barriers from its being heard.
Removing man-made barriers to the gospel is part of obedience to the Great Commission — irregardless of God’s election, we must be obedient in our proclamation of the gospel. The pertinent question here is whether the name is a barrier to the gospel — I submit that in many contexts it is.
But is it a barrier so strong as to impede the will of an Omnipotent God? Wow, you may actually have a higher view of SBC than I do. Who would have thought?
Rick,
You grossly misunderstand the Calvinist position here and thus equally misrepresent it. God has ordained the end and He has ordained the means. Thus if I preach the gospel and someone believes, it’s not just that God ordained that the elect person would believe, but also that He ordained that it would happen through my preaching.
Regardless, you aren’t going to win any Calvinists to your position because you’re both maligning the Calvinist position while pretending to engage us on our turf. In short, you are being impertinent and condescending.
lol
David
Andrew and Todd,
Thank you for joining the growing ranks of every Calvinist I’ve ever met, absolutely convinced that I misunderstood their doctrine, since if I did understand it, I would become one.
You both keep talking about God “ordaining the means.” So in this case, does that mean you believe God has “ordained” that we adopt the GCB descriptor as an alternative to SBC for those who choose to use it? That if it’s going to make any practical difference in the salvation of souls, then God has ordained the means of the GCB to remove a man-made gospel barrier so the elect are able to allow God’s irresistible grace to save them? What if it is voted down? Does that mean God did not ordain GCB as the means by which He would remove this man-made barrier?
Rick, I’m just asking you to be fair, not to change your soteriological view. Calvinists believe in evangelism and believe in missiological principles and to make an argument like you have is dismissive and, frankly, undermines the very point you are trying to make.
I may be wrong about the name change, I admit it. But we’ll ever get there if we skirt around with all these peripheral issues and never discuss the merits of the contextual argument.
Actually I don’t think Rick misrepresented anyone. Even with your ends and means argument, the means is the preaching of the gospel not the name of a denomination. No Calvinist believes that changing the name of the SBC will ultimately add to the number of the elect. Further, Rick pretty clearly stated what he was talking about when he said, “No five point Calvinist…can possibly maintain that changing the name of our denomination will result in the salvation of souls who would not otherwise be saved.” Todd has pretty much reiterated this point in his comments. It was not a misrepresentation at all. I mean you can’t possibly believe that the name Southern Baptist Convention will actually keep the elect from being saved.
Todd,
Absolutely it is a barrier or hindrance in certain context. That’s why it need to be removed totally, rather than simply adding a descriptor/moniker in an effort to sanitize that which is stained by it’s orgin rooted in slavery, and a theology that’s never been repented of by the SBC that taught people of color were cursed.
Rick, u cannot compare the regional biblical names with the region “southern” because the reason “southern” was selected was because that’s where the people were located who embraced slavery theology & slavery.
Yes, Dwight, but for most southerners and particularly SBC southerners, the name is not about slavery at all. Rather, its about heritage, legacy, family, and identity. Asking Southerners to drop the name is intensely personal and is a very tough sell.
I can understand how “Southern” has a very narrow and particular meaning for you and others (and that is part of the reason why I support a name change) — but for those who oppose a name change, it means much, much more. Being “Southern” is part of their very identity and asking them to give it up is no small thing.
I pray that this is not a deal-breaker for you, because I believe that there is a real desire for racial reconciliation in the SBC.
Todd,
I agree: “there is a real desire for racial reconciliation in the SBC.” Why not demonstrate that by dropping a name–“southern”– that the name change committee admits is rooted in slavery?
Dwight,
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I’m indebted to you in that one of your previous articles raised a point so outstanding that it “bumped” one of my original twenty points. I’m committed to keeping the number at 20.
I must of course grant you that many of the people who embraced “slavery theology and slavery” did in fact reside in the south, as long as you will reciprocate by granting that many in the north owned and operated the slave trading vessels and thus must also be included among those who embraced “slavery theology and slavery.”
Indeed, cannot the sin of “slavery theology and slavery” be said to reside today in the human trafficking of poor young women forcibly removed from their native countries and enslaved by evil men in prostitution and pornography?
I am not diminishing the disgusting sin of slavery found all over the United States, but especially prominent in the southern agricultural regions in the mid-1800’s when our denomination was founded. I am merely arguing that this evil institution is no respecter of geography or nationality or ethnic group or gender or anything else.
“Southern” means more than slavery, “German” means more than Hitler, “Japan” means more than Pearl Harbor, and “Dallas” means more than Lee Harvey Oswald. I must reject any philosophy that sentences forever a particular region with the guilt and shame of the most egregious sins ever committed there.
Sins are sins. Places are places. Places are not sins.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Bro. Dwight is correct when he says that the word “Southern” is a “barrier or hindrance in certain contexts.” Couldn’t we say that about anything? There will always be something that is a barrier or hindrance to the Gospel. Of course, I believe that God can remove any barrier or hindrance so that someone accepts Christ as Savior. Every pastor or preacher should understand that, because I don’t know how many times that my poor or ill-prepared sermons have been a barrier or hindrance to someone “hearing” the Gospel, but yet he or she still heard and responded. It is that sovereignty that I believe Rick was talking about (at least that’s how this inconsistent Calvinist took it).
If that is true, then what are we truly saying about the word “Southern” in the name, SBC — and Southernerns and the South as well — which still continues to be associated with slavery and racism in the minds of many,including many leaders within the SBC? Is the word “Southern” forever tainted? Will it always and forever be associated with slavery and racism? Can “Southern” — in all its senses — never be redeemed? And, if it can’t, what does that say about us as a people who say that we believe in a Redeemer who can redeem anyone, no matter how far away from God?
Maybe it’s because I’m starting a new sermon series on Sunday preaching through the book of Ruth entitled “The Road to Redemption.” The more I think about this, the more sad I become because we continue to bring up the past as if it can never be redeemed or forgiven. That’s simply not a good example of grace-filled theology, whether you’re a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist. Thanks for the series, Rick. God bless,
Howell
“I don’t know how many times that my poor or ill-prepared sermons have been a barrier or hindrance to someone ‘hearing’ the Gospel, but yet he or she still heard and responded.”
True, but that fact does not serve as a justification for poor and ill-prepared preaching. Preachers should still be diligent to work to remove the barrier of shoddy preparation even though God can and does work around it.
The same holds true for an offensive name. Even if God still moves, that does not excuse us from the responsibility to make crooked paths straight.
Todd,
True enough, but you did not answer the questions about redemption. Is the word “southern” something that will forever be tainted by its association with sin and slavery? Do we make crooked paths straight by changing the name or by redeeming the name? If you and others say that the name can never be redeemed, that we must strike the name because it is a barrier or hindrance to the Gospel — not really a barrier or hindrance to God working, but enough of a barrier or hindrance it has to be made straight by us — then fair enough. I can’t and won’t argue the point with you. But, what I would say is that the comments that we have seen on the issue of the name might indicate a far deeper disconnect, such that the idea of Gospel cooperation will be difficult to achieve as the SBC is presently constituted. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Can it ever be redeemed? I hope so, but how long must we wait to see if that happens when it hasn’t happened after all this time?
As for gospel cooperation, I am more hopeful than ever that we all can work together — we just have to stop treating each other as the enemy. Thankfully, that CAN be done and is happening increasingly.
Todd,
Thanks for the reply. Of course, you and I will continue to disagree as to whether the name “Southern” has already been redeemed and whether it is or is not a hindrance to effective Gospel ministry. As to working together in a cooperative effort, I am not as hopeful as you that this will happen. What happens between now and New Orleans may well tell us if and how cooperation will continue. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
You’re welcome to leave the battle ground and come up to Indiana. I’m sure we can find a place for you. 🙂
Looks like God is using you at Harvest Baptist Fellowship to glorify God and make His Son known! Praise God! I think I shall remain in the battle here in NM, where 90% of the population is lost without Christ. May we bloom where we are planted 🙂 God bless.
Rick, thanks for the dialogue and post.
“Southern”, as in SBC, contextually is rooted in the south’s adamant defense of the institution of slavery. Therefore, it is somewhat irrelevant that there were slaves in the north too as it relates to renaming the SBC. We are not talking about renaming the old Northern Baptist Convention–that’s already been done, I believe. We are talking about renaming the SBC. The north eventually fought for the freedom of the slaves. The south tenaciously and proudly fought for the continuation of slavery-even to their on peril. As you know, this is the roots and origin of the SBC name.
The “reciprocation” request regarding admitting slavery in the north too–which is a well known historical fact–contextually and technically does not fit the facts, as it relates to a name-change discussion for the SBC. Therefore, in my judgement, it is an inappropriate request.
“Places are sins” when you name an entity in honor of a sin. That’s why we wouldn’t name the SBC the Sodom Baptist Convention.
Howell,
“Southern” can be redeemed and it also can be removed. If it is redeemed, shouldn’t that request come from the name change committee?
Bro. Dwight,
There is much that could and should come from a committee that is charged with determining whether the name of the convention should be changed. I don’t believe, given the circumstances of how this committee was formed and the “nickname” proposal that they came up with, that this unofficial Task Force would be in the best position to either encourage removal or dedemption when it comes to the name “Southern.” As someone else pointed out, the name “Baptist” is seen as a hindrance to the Gospel, which I suppose is why so many are running from that name as well. That maybe why they took a “split the baby” approach, as well.
I appreciate your position on this and do believe we could come to a mutual understanding. I believe most Southern Baptists could as well, but I believe that that the approach that has been used to date has itself erected additional barriers that should not have been built, which will lead to division, not unity, in New Orleans and beyond. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Dwight,
I don’t want to seem to disagree that the slave issue in America is not a significant sin of our past. However, there is no way to disagree with a person of color about the issue of the name change without being accused of accepting some degree of racism. But, I hope you understand I in no way have or ever will be party to any prejudice. Point #1 in my sermon this Sunday is: His Way Pummels Prejudice. It has nothing to do with a name change.
That said, I think your view seems to say: I, being White, must disown any association with the term Southern or I am supporting the “theology of slavery.” I reject that sentiment out of hand.
The SBC has in fact officially disowned any theology of slavery.
The “name change” as you present the argument is like asking me, “have I stopped beating my wife?” It is a catch 22 and I lose simply by answering.
I’ve said over and over that the name change is “not” about being regional for some, it is about being racist. Therefore, for me to support that idea, I have to agree that I am Southern Baptist because I in some way through the sins of my predecessors supported slavery. That seems like a likely reason this name change is creating some degree of heat.
I have to be honest and say this question comes to mind which I understand could seem insensitive to someone of color, but I ask it honestly. If I am the only one thinking this, then I ask for your forgiveness because I am obviously way off base.
“Will changing the name put to rest the race issue in your mind?” Or, what other changes do you feel I as a white man must make to pay for the sins of my fathers?”
I did not introduce the issue of race in this post and I understand I could be excoriated for having his discussion with you. I mean no disrespect, but I think you deserve to know how I think. I greatly respect your ministry and I pastored in the same town, so we are almost “friends.”
If I have not addressed this issue in a way that has been respectful to you, and I have needlessly offended you in my quest for understanding, please say so and I will post an unequivocal apology.
May we all find a way to grace.
Frank L., inasmuch as the name-change committee has identified “southern” with “slavery”, by retaining the name aren’t we choosing to identify with slavery?
When did “The SBC [has] in fact officially disown any theology of slavery”? If you’re referring to the ’95(?) apology, would you refer to the specific phrase that says the convention was apologizing for the theology of slavery? The apology was for the fruit of the problem–slavery/segregation/discrimination–but not for the root of the problem–the curse of Ham theology held by the SBC, that has never been repented of.
Hiring minorities as entity heads will “put to rest the race issue in [my] mind”?
Just curious: what church did you pastor in my city, if I may ask? BTW, your communication has not been disrespectful. I too think it’s important to discuss these issues with grace, respect, and truth.
And what if we don’t remove the so-called man-made barrier of a lousy name? Would this limit God’s power to save? Put simply, will God save more of the elect under GCB than He will under SBC? I sure wouldn’t want to stand in His way and trip Him up, but then again, I didn’t think that was possible.
I do not argue for ABANDONING all methods and means. I simply question the validity of COMPARING them, especially within a closed system in which the outcomes are not dependent upon the methods chosen by men but upon the predetermined will of God.
“will God save more of the elect under GCB than He will under SBC?”
No, He’ll just have to use someone else to do it.
lol…what a hoot!
David
Of course, David, that’s only if I’m right about the name change, which admittedly I may not be.
Consider my application more generally: If Southern Baptists were to abandon their evangelistic and missions zeal, God would still save the elect, the gospel would still go to the nations, He would still gather from every tribe, people, tongue and nation…but He would raise up others to complete the work.
Of course, He’s doing that even now. God does not need Southern Baptists — but he will graciously use us if we continue to be obedient to take the gospel to the uttermost.
LOL
This is why deceitful or ‘lording it over’ tactics such as end runs around messengers on a technicality or sealing records after promising transparency are not to be questioned as wrong (sin) in the New Calvinist view of things. We simply redefine sin for some. Seems those in leadership have more anointing and have been used by God to do these things so we must believe that and follow blindly that their tactics are of God. There is a “Sovereignty of leadership” in the NC view some folks are forgetting about.
“should be known more for its gospel proclamation today than for its slavery 200 years ago”
If we are talking about people’s perception of the South and the barrier/baggage of the name “Southern”, slavery is not the only issue which causes many to identify “southern” with racism. Even if NONE of these perceptions are accurate today, many still associate the South with exploitative share cropping, Jim Crow laws, hate crimes against blacks, opposition to the Civil Rights movement, black church arsons in the 90’s, and continued sentimental attachment to the Confederacy. That’s a long and not so distant history to overcome.
Perhaps in the interest of a good conversation, you could have put forward your arguments without insulting Calvinists in the process. But I see you’ve gotten a rise from the usual suspects.
Bill,
I wondered if that might be the first argument people would engage, but I wasn’t so much trying to insult or stir up the Calvinist troops as I was trying to point out a thorny issue.
I still believe a case can be made that, according to Calvinist doctrine: (1) Mankind possesses the free will to change or not change our denominational name, and (2) God is bound to save the elect regardless of man’s decision on that matter.
I rather appreciate Todd’s conclusion that if Southern Baptists do not change our name in order to remove this man-made barrier, God will use others to reach the lost, presumably those whose denominational names are more pleasing to the Lord.
I’m guessing this might include an assortment of Presbyterians, Acts 29 church plants and other participants in conferences like Together 4 the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, and so on.
So the real question is not, “Will more people be saved?” but “Will the people who get saved be ‘Southern Baptists’ who go by the name ‘Great Commission Baptists’ or will they be part of another network or denomination of Christians?
In other words, it’s not a question of whether Christians reach more lost people, it’s a question of what denominational name we use for the lost people that will inevitably be reached?
“I rather appreciate Todd’s conclusion that if Southern Baptists do not change our name in order to remove this man-made barrier, God will use others to reach the lost, presumably those whose denominational names are more pleasing to the Lord. ”
That was tongue in cheek and only really applies if I am right and even then in only certain cases. You and I actually agree on this point — If God wants to save someone, the name of our Convention won’t keep Him from doing it.
Also, I’m sure you would agree, that people are just as saved if they repent and believe the gospel whether they hear that gospel from a Calvinist, Arminian or anywhere in between. The difference is not what we believe about election — but that we believe and preach the gospel. I am happy for God to save souls whether you lead them or I do or anyone else — we are all on the same team — God’s. Let’s keep working together and set tertiary issues aside.
Today is Friday. I have the day off. And Todd and I are in complete agreement on something.
Friends, there IS a God!
We agree on far much more than we disagree…but, alas, blog controversies give more occasion for fighting than for fellowship.
Right Todd. That is indeed the point. I think Alan Cross is right on target with his post.
Rick,
Speaking of misrepresentation, your point #10 misrepresents the facts. The church in Jerusalem was not a denomination. Churches started by the church in Jerusalem didn’t retain that region’s monniker. Instead they became the church in Antioch, the church in Corinth, the church in Philippi, etc. Even when Paul wrote to a group of churches, he didn’t say “to the churches of Derbe,” but rather “to the churches in Galatia.”
According to the practice in the New Testament, if we in the North are to be part of the same group as the churches in the South, if we are to use a geographic description, it should be an accurate description. Either that or we should be our own denomination, like our Canadian brothers who live even further north than I do.
Fair enough, Andrew. We don’t have denominational names, only church names. The Bible is silent on denominationalism.
And your point about individual church names being regional as well is also fair. I have no problem referring to the First Baptist Church of New York, for example.
My larger point was that the names and descriptors and identifiers were not related to process or activity but to place.
The Bible clearly describes churches identified by location. It does not speak to denominations at all, but I don’t think it is a huge stretch to suggest that the biblical pattern for naming groups of Christians points to their geographical region.
So if it was the American Baptist Convention, you’d have less of an issue with a proposed name change?
Yes, but only slightly. Remember I have nineteen other reasons!
One disadvantage of ABC is that it might remind people of the TV network that brought us GCB!
If we are going to be consistent on this point, we would need to drop “Baptist” from the name. Also, the NT refers to churches of cities, not of regions, or countries.
Since denominations, as we know them, however, are not strictly biblical (nor, as I understand it, anti-biblical) entities, the best option is to be truthful and accurate in the language we use to refer to them (a group of local congregations in a certain geographical region–in this case, the USA–holding to a certain set of distinctive doctrines–the BF&M–and a certain emphasis, or core value that bind us together for ministry cooperation–the gospel and the Great Commission).
Rick,
I agree with the others that you are being snide and flip in your approach to Reason 9.
If corporate documents list Southern Baptist Convention as the entity’s name, then a change to the constitution is the only way to change the legal name. That provision should be listed in the Articles of Incorporation (or similar document).
Again, it was not my intent to offend. I did not reason, “Whatever can I do to be snide and flip?” I sincerely believed there was an issue to resolve between God’s Sovereignty in salvation and the claim that a clearly man-made decision might impact that.
Todd resolved that issue, from his Calvinist perspective, to my complete satisfaction, consistent with his theology. Our name choice will not impact who gets saved, but only the name by which they are called.
Rob,
I couldn’t disagree more with you first statement. Rick was neither divisive nor dimissive in his argument in Reason 9. A true Calvinist of all people cannot believe that the name SBC is actually going to keep the elect from being saved. Rick’s arguments were valid. I made the same argument back when we first started talking about this subject and I’ll guarantee you that my statements were not meant to be dimissive or divisive, I was just drawing a logical conclusion from a theological paradigm.
Rick, while I lean more to the Calvinist side than to the non-Calvinist, I am hardly some sort of 5-point firebrand. But you are critiquing Hyper-Calvinism more than you are Calvinism here. I don’t think you made a fair point.
Calvinists believe in sharing the gospel effectively, biblically and agressively. I have a small cadre of committed Calvinists in my church – and they are the ones who go to fairs, and festivals to share the gospel with the lost. They do not sit home saying, “IF God wants them saved he will save them.”
No, of course Calvinists do not believe that a name-change is going to change God’s eternal decree – but that is a false comparison. They (and I) believe that it is God who draws to salvation, but that our responsibility as the church is to effectively and correctly share the biblical gospel with the lost, and to organize our churches and denominations in such a way as to to that.
Your point may appeal to those who disdain Calvinism and Calvinists, but will only frustrate Calvinists who realize that you are not characterizing their beliefs, but caricaturing them.
Dave,
If you don’t believe that a denominational name can keep the elect from coming to Christ than Rick’s arguments are valid. The nonelect will be offended at the Gospel no matter what package it comes in and if they’re not offended at Southern they’ll be offended at Baptist. See Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-35.
I admit my concern related only to the strictest form of Calvinism, which is why I used the language “No Five Point Calvinist” in my discussion. It was not my intention to argue against every strain of Calvinism simultaneously.
If my point was “unfair” or a “caricature” then please accept my apology. However, I’m not sure you have properly identified my point, since both you and Todd have now acknowledged as true the only point I really intended to make. In your own words, “Calvinists do not believe that a name-change is going to change God’s eternal decree.”
Changing the name to “effectively and correctly share the gospel with the lost” is a fair argument for Calvinists to make, as long as they conclude (along with you, me and Todd) that it will not result in the salvation of a greater number of souls, but only a possible reclassification of a greater number of those souls as Southern Baptists / Great Commission Baptists rather than whatever other Christian group God would use inevitably to bring them into the Kingdom.
If a Calvinist, or anyone else, believes that the convention will be more effective with the moniker “Great Commission Baptists” than our regionally limited (and sometimes baggage-carrying) name, we would change the name.
The whole premise was that somehow this was contrary to Calvinist theology.
If you wish to make your points based on a mistaken view of Calvinists even after the mistake has been pointed out, that is your right. But is it really polite to caricature another’s views?
I’m off to a funeral and then to Minneapolis for my son’s appearance in the “Club 3 Degrees Band Tournament.” Bringing my earplugs.
Dave,
I wasn’t going to weigh in on this back-and-forth with the “misunderstanding” about what Rick wrote, but I do not think that his statement is being fairly characterized by some, particularly our Calvinist brethren. Perhaps with a tinge of hyperbole mixed with truth — which seems to have been mighty effective at putting a burr under some people’s saddle — Rick pointed out that changing the name of the SBC should not — at least for Calvinists of the 5-point variety — make one whit of difference in the salvation of the elect. Perhaps God will use other means, including folks not associated with the SBC, to bring about the salvation of His elect, but choosing to change or not change the name will simply not prevent God from saving those He has predestined to save. At least that’s how this 5-point Calvinist read Rick’s #9 above. But, then again, I’m reading it through a decidely anti-name change lens. You and others can keep arguing the point, but, the saying is true, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
It doesn’t seem to occur to a lot of people that Calvinists may actually take the great commission seriously, and seek to play their part in it in the most effective way possible. Our confidence that God will draw people to Himself does not diminish our efforts to fulfill the role God has given us. So our seeking to remove obstacles to that role shouldn’t really surprise anyone. But this is just another opportunity to get in a dig at the Calvinists.
Bill Mac,
No dig intended. Neither Rick nor myself nor anyone else is saying that Calvinists don’t take the Great Commission seriously. I’m not sure who the “a lot of people” are to whom you are referring. I just think that some people take everything, including themselves, too seriously some of the time. But, then again, I can be guilty of that myself 😉
My larger point is that even if God can work around our bad methodology, we are still accountable by God to use those methods that communicate the gospel effectively.
And while doing so, I am inclined to pray with Spurgeon, “God save the elect and elect some more!” 🙂
Rick,
What do the five-points have to do with whether or not one should agree with your premise of Calvinism and the name change? Are you implying that those who claim to be Calvinists of a four-points or less do not fit into your caricature?
Calvinists here obviously do not agree with and may be offended by your claims about them in this post, but you continue to defend them anyway.
Were you speaking from a personal perspective when you wrote the following?
If I have offended strains of Calvinism other than hyper-Calvinists by not including them in my argument, I apologize. In fact, all Calvinists, regardless of their point totals, are invited to share in the logic if it equally applies to them.
The statement you quoted was indeed mine, but posed the argument hypothetically, as in, “Were it indeed possible for man’s decision to throw of God’s will, certainly no one should presume to possess so much power.” The entire argument, however, should be understood from the perspective that, as a non-Calvinist, I believe God wants all men to be saved, freely offers them salvation, and has chosen to give them the free will to resist His grace for reasons of their own choosing.
If my point was “unfair” or a “caricature” then please accept my apology.
If this statement is really an “apology,” then I’d suggest retracting your point.
It is only an apology based on the inaccurate premise that my logic was either unfair or a caricature, which I thought I implied I do not believe that it was.
If this makes you feel better, though, I hereby retract my point just as God, before the foundation of the world, knew that I would, in order to appease you and seek reconciliation.
Have a great day, or whatever kind of day you were meant to have.
I find it interesting that my secular workplace the concept of “good faith” is upheld as an expected part of communication, yet you, a pastor no less, show contempt for the concept.
” I believe the task force is seeking a simple majority vote at a single convention.
”
And this is why process is so important. Without the traditionally affirmed but grueling processes and by going around the messengers, the potential to have varied nicknames continues into the future. Let’s face it….using the same tactics, this “nickname” could be changed more easily now than in the past using our more complicated “sausage making” methodes including vote on convening task force’s and 2/3 vote of messengers.
It would really depend on leadership and what they are thinking on any particular day. Not to mention other issues or changes that might stike his fancy and his yes men agree. All one has to do is mark it as “unofficial”. Have articles written about it sending up trial balloons, get entities on board and then have a simple majority vote. Should it be this easy? If we think yes, then perhaps we need to think about possible scenerios.
“I may also allude to the present freedom among all church planters and missionaries to use whatever informal descriptors and nicknames they may choose as unofficial descriptions requiring absolutely no convention approval..”
This is what I do not understand. So why the big deal? Why convention approval? It still won’t be “official” as in a legal name.
But then, I am not well versed on how our entities are connected to the SBC, legally. So maybe I am missing a larger point in plans for the future? And this is a “start”?
Well, I am a five point Sovereign Grace believer, I don’t want the name change. After all, the SBC was founded by a bunch of calvinists (I still don’t like that term as there were folks dying for those doctrines in England called Lollards before old Calvin was ever conceived let alone converted), really Sovereign Grace believers, but they even used the term back then so there ain’t no use denying it. In fact all the folks who are not calvinists ought to feel really funny about being members of an outfit founded and run by a bunch of calvinists for 70-80 years before they elected a single person without that theology (if they ever did until Hershel H. Hobbs who plainly rejected most of it, but retained a shade of its eschatology (a Millenial though it was really originally post-mil..which is what I am). Such calvinists planned for you folks who ain’t to be here, saying, that preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion (1787 – principles of union between the Separate and Regular Baptists). O and by the way, I think you non-calvinists will be thrilled to learn that Sandy Creek inthe days of Stearns and Marshall was in correspondence with Phila. Assn. Maybe that is why for 50 years the FBC of Charleston had Separate Baptists…and most Separatists were just us gung-ho limited atonement people as the Regular Baptists were. In fact, Mt. Pisgah from whence came the SBC’s first and great missionary to China, Matthew T. Yates, in its Articles of Faith adopted at its organization in 1814 knew nothing about Christ dying for everyone…only about his dying for the Church. And then they were present at the Sandy Creek Meeting in which Luther Rice enlisted Southern Baptists in the movement known as the Great Century of Missions as Kenneth Scott Latourette called it. That was in 1816 and Basil Manly was clerk of the Assn. and he was on the committee that drew up the 1816 Confession under Luther Rice who said the doctrines of grace were in the Bible and one had better preach them. You GCR Boys ought to forget this name change stuff..after all old Rome has never worried about changing their name after all the evils they done through over a 1000 years…not even the light of their latest of evils. Manly, Sr., will go on to South Carolina and pastor FBC Charleston after pastor Separate Baptist Richard Furman dies. And Manly will lay his hand on the head of J.P. Boyce and say he will be a preacher and Boyce will carry Southern on his own shoulders financially while the SBC is unable after the war..and Boyce will write his magnificient Abstract of Systematic Theology and teach it to the students with in a very kind and reasonable way. Well, I must cease and go pick up my grand daughter shortly.
General Disclaimer Time: For the record, I DO believe Calvinists take the Great Commission seriously. I DO believe in showing “good faith” in our communication with others. And now, I DO believe that some, though not all, of the Calvinists who have read Reason Number Nine have determined it to be out of bounds, over the top, or in some way unkind.
Perhaps I should retitle the series, “Nineteen Polite Reasons to Oppose the GCB and One Reason Some Calvinists Will Consider Snide, Flip and in Bad Faith.”
All I can say is, “I did not write to offend, but merely to make an observation. Although I do not retract the observation, since I consider it true, I nonetheless regret the pain it has apparently caused to others. Please forgive the offense.”
Rick and Everyone,
I normally defend the calvinists on this blog and I normally do think they get picked on and mischaracterized. This is not one of those times. I can understand why the Calvinists would be a little gun shy in light of their treatment in the past. But Rick has actually made a valid point here and wasn’t demeaning and he did not mischaracterize your beliefs. I thought that Todd and Dave made some valid statements in retort to Rick. However, I would like to make two points…1.) this was never meant to be personal nor even a slight on Calvinistic doctrine and 2.) all Rick was trying to say was that changing the name will not add even one to the number of the elect. If you go back and read what he said there was not a charge that Calvinists don’t care about the Great Commission or don’t believe in agressive evangelism. While I can certainly understand why there is sensativity on the subject of Calvinism I think this slight was more perceived than actual.
John,
Several of us beg to differ. Besides, Rick was the one who made to original allegations and he has attempted to make up for them. You are not Rick, but defend the statements if you wish. I suppose now the validity of an offense lies in the offender, right? Whatever.
Mark,
In his attempt to make up for them he clarified what his intention was and he interpreted what he meant in Reason 9. Yes I’m not Rick but I take his explanation as being honest. Do I think your feelings are out there on your sleeves a little bit on this one? Yes but whatever.
To associate a theological system for or against the name change in any way seems to demean both.
Surely, there are better arguments for or against than this line of reasoning.
Personally, I miss any connection between the Task Force and Calvinism. Perhaps that’s just me.
“To associate a theological system for or against the name change in any way seems to demean both.”
I agree with this. There are Nicolatians on both sides.
If we’re to have fruitful conversation, the caricatures of Calvinists and Calvinism must stop. We affirm God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible. Quit acting like we don’t.
Rick, I suggest you go study the Calvinist confessions because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Your #9 is built upon a caricature of Calvinism, not on what Calvinists actually believe. For example, in John Calvin’s Institutes, the biggest section is his section on prayer. Why is this so? Because he affirmed God’s 100% sovereignty and man’s 100% responsibility. It’s a paradox.
How would you like it if I caricatured you as well. For example, you obviously believe the salvation of souls can be manufactured, right? The salvation of souls is up to man right?
Jared,
Because I believe men possess the free will to accept or resist the grace of God, if I thought that changing our name would make them more likely to accept Christ, I would favor it. However, such a decision, I believe, only really makes sense in the context of the resistible grace doctrine I espouse.
If grace were truly irresistible, as my friends who accuse me of caricatures claim, then our name would not matter one bit, since God’s grace would be effectual in the hearts and lives of the elect, regardless of the name chosen.
I agree with you that God is sovereign and man is responsible. I disagree with you over the nature of election and irresistible grace. Let’s just call atonement a tie and agree it was sufficient to save all but efficient to save only the ones who are saved.
Friends, we may not be as far apart as you think, but I don’t really consider it a caricature to say that, from your point of view, God’s irresistible grace cannot be limited by man’s denominational name choice.
For what it’s worth, I accept Todd’s explanation of all of this in the exchange way up at the top of this comment thread. His analysis is consistent with Five Point Calvinism, responsive to the questions I raised, and altogether reasonable to me. I applaud his clear and convincing Calvinist reasoning. Do you?
Rick, if Calvinists keep telling you that you misrepresent them, then it’s because you keep misrepresenting them. Will Todd’s explanation keep you from misrepresenting Calvinism and applauding those who do? I read your comments here and on other blogs as well. You write kinder here than the blog posts whom you compliment on other sites. It’s disheartening.
I’m so sick and tired of the constant caricatures. If you really want fellowship and unity, then seek to represent us accurately instead of acting as if we don’t believe in man’s responsibility. According to Scripture, we are to become all things to all men that we might save some. If the name change will help us fulfill this biblical mandate, then let’s do it! We are responsible to do so; but, this does not mean that we have somehow escaped the sovereignty of God in the process. God doesn’t merely ordain the decision, but the means to arrive at the decision. . . and yet, we are responsible, and we’re really voting! It’s not 1 or the other, man’s responsibility or God’s sovereignty, but both simultaneously working together to the glory of God. He’ll sort it out in the end, but we should affirm both.
Do you believe that man can keep the Triune God of Scripture from saving certain sinners?
Jared,
I respect you and always appreciate your blog posts, but if you go back and read Reason 9 in what way are the views of Calvinism being mischaracterized in that point? I mean the accusations that Rick was saying that Calvinists are not for the Great Commission are really baseless. All he was doing was making the point that changing the name of the SBC will not add a single person to the number of the elect. I’m sorry but I watched this morning as people took exception to Rick for something that he did not say. And later Rick explained again precisely what he meant and all he got in return were accusations of misrepresentation and then one particular slight on his personal character.
John, he implied that Calvinists don’t affirm human responsibility. In other words, the elect will be saved, so we can do whatever we want; the name change doesn’t matter. That’s NOT what Calvinists believe. We affirm human responsibility, 100%, in addition to God’s 100% sovereignty. Otherwise, why would Calvinists attend the SBC annual meeting? It matters whether or not we’re seeking to become all things to all men; we have a responsibility to obey Scripture. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). I’m tired of Non-Calvinists caricaturing Calvinists as if they DON’T believe we’re to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”
I personally am a Noncalvinist and I don’t even believe that changing the name of a denomination will add a single person to God’s elect. And surely no Calvinist believes that it will either. That’s all that Rick was saying. He later clarified that’s all that he was saying. And the real sad thing today is that we have been unable to debate the merits of the argument because, quite frankly, people read implications into Rick’s argument that weren’t there.
As a matter of fact I think that it actually should be a point of agreement, namely, that we don’t believe the name Southern Baptist Convention can ultimately hinder one of God’s elect from being saved. Jared do you believe the name SBC can hinder one of the elect from being saved? If your answer is no then you must at least concede Rick’s point has some validity.
“Rick, if Calvinists keep telling you that you misrepresent them, then it’s because you keep misrepresenting them.”
So if you say it, it must be so? Great. Please say that I’m rich and handsome and talented, that the Cowboys are going to win the Super Bowl next year, and that I will miraculously discover the amazing secrets needed to disagree with Calvinists without misrepresenting their views.
“Do you believe that man can keep the Triune God of Scripture from saving certain sinners?”
Yes, I believe God, in His sovereignty, gave man the freedom to resist Him. I don’t believe I can keep another man from accepting Christ if he freely chooses to do so. That man has free will too. But I can keep myself from accepting Christ.
Rick, then why pray for the lost to be saved if God is incapable of giving them new hearts without them initiating repentance and faith apart from His divine work? Aren’t you praying for something God is powerless to do without human permission?
How would you define the convicting work of the Holy Spirit?
“How would you like it if I caricatured you as well.”
Never mind, we have leaders like Al Mohler who do that for you when they imply that New Calvinists are the ones who want to see the nations rejoice for Christ.
Lydia, once again, you read into Mohler’s words. You assume he excludes you. You have yet to prove what Mohler meant by the term “Reformed” or by the phrase “Reformed of another name.” You assume he excludes you because you want to assume he excludes you.
I’m convinced you will believe what you want w/o proof to back you up other than your own desire to be against Mohler. It’s amazing what offends people when they want to be offended.
I know, Jared. I am New Calvinist/Reformed and just don’t know it. I cannot prove what Mohler “meant” if it means something other than what he said. I don’t have one of the decoder rings. Again, I challenge him to play that entire clip of his own words to the convention in New Orleans. There might be others there who don’t know they are Reformed/New Calvinist and they deserve to be told what they are. :o)
Lydia, if you can’t prove or disprove what Mohler meant, why are you offended? The simple answer is because you want to be offended.
Jared, bro just clean the bovine scatology from your shoes and move on. The only progress you’re making is to collect more snide remarks and ridicule. Being taunted may have had its place in middle school but I hate to see you continuously go through that here. I’m speaking as a friend whose advice I’d just ask you to consider.
Lydia – I heard you say you pastored a church. What denomination is it if you can ?
Jack, LOL! Where did you “read” me say that? You might have read where I said: ‘If’ I pastored a church…..
Jack, this is how nasty rumors get started. Can you imagine the field day the guys here would have with that one? Jezebel would not even begin to cover it!
Let me make it clear: I have not ever been or ever care to be a pastor of a church.
Trust me, I don’t have the charisma or need to have followers. My purpose in career and faith has always been the goal to see others I work or worship with grow past me. The biggest compliment in life is when those you have taught, mentored, pastored, etc, grow past you in maturity and/or faith. Of course, no one else knows about it except you and Jesus. As it should be. :o)
“Lydia, if you can’t prove or disprove what Mohler meant, why are you offended? The simple answer is because you want to be offended.”
Good one, Jared! I am learning from this not to take our leader’s words, such as Al Mohler, at face value. That has been the lesson I have learned from our interaction. Their words must be decoded for us.
And I wasn’t “offended” as you claim. Incredulous? Yes.
But I could ask why are you so “offended”? (wink)
Lydia – I must have read something else into a post of yours recently . I wasn’t planting any rumors as I waited until I knew you were online to ask . I guess people have “fun” posting but another approach to this might be instead of a current moderator we might have a ” parlimentarian” who would rule a thought ” out of order” , “Off topic” etc on certain subjects so that thoughts just for the sake of arguement would immediately be thrown out leaving some like me out in the cold – but again certain topics might benefit from this format. A time schedule of a topic under this format could be noticed in advance . Just a quick thought .
“Lydia – I heard you say you pastored a church.”
Wow! I had to read that one several times over. That was a true shocker! LOL.
Those of us who have been involved with Baptist blogs from anywhere near the beginning know that Lydia spilled her coffee all over her trade notes table when she read that one.
That Lydia once served as a pastor of a local church would be harder to believe than to believe she is the speech writer for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. And we all know “that ain’t never gonna happen.” 🙂
Lydia, see you at the Pastors’ Conference on Monday. BTW, its your day to buy lunch at the China Garden Buffet—so bring your wallet this time! 🙂
Some things are just sooo fun!! 🙂
I want to be called Reverend-ess. Or Pastor babe…no, too “mature” for that.
I would prefer a mega church (but hate the architecture) with a private office (including full bath with lavendar bath salts included) on the 5th floor away from the worker peasants where you need a code to get in. I want a cherry paneled Library and conference room and a gaggle of sycophants who follow me around saying, “yes”. At conventions, I want my own entourage. They don’t have to be all women either. No shaved heads or guys wearing Mickey Mouse T-shirts need apply.
Then I can tell people how hard I work. Over and over. And when budgets are tight and the elderettes cut the bath salts, I can do a series on first fruit tithing.
CB, I don’t do “China Buffet”. I will be at Mortons. Expense account, you know.
OK. See you at Morton’s then. Like I said, “its your time to buy.” 🙂
Jared,
“Rick, then why pray for the lost to be saved if God is incapable of giving them new hearts without them initiating repentance and faith apart from His divine work?”
I never said man initiates. We love because He first loved us. I never said God is incapable. You may be surprised to learn that I believe He is mighty to save, powerful and sovereign.
I only said I believe man can resist the grace of God when he exercises the free will God has given him to do so.
Jared, perhaps I can wave a white flag here. Tomorrow, I have fifteen middle schoolers coming over for a D-Now Weekend. I need all the strength I can muster. You are not my opponent, but my friend. I disagree with you on a few points of theology and a few matters of denominational politics. That’s all. Be blessed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE
Rick, being a Sovereign Grace believer and a preacher for at least 49 years, I do appreciate your hoisting some of my brethren on their own poinard. It won’t hurt anything but their pride a little bit. While your theology of free will is all over the place, it is true that there is a free will, one free to do whatever the old nature wants. A good friend of mind won one young 20 year old lady to Christ about 45 years ago. She responded so readily, he asked why and she said, “O it was so wonderful, I couldn’t resist it.” After about 40 years he came to the conclusion that she was right and began to believe it, and his name was Spurgeon – not C.H. but E. (I forgot his middle name), but a distant kin it seems. As to the doctrines they helped to produce the First and Second Great Awakenings, launched the Great Century of Missions and the seminaries and the SBC, and they are evangelistic. Every last doctrine is an invitation to receive God as He is – not as we think Him to be. They are paradoxical invitations, interventions that work the very opposite of what they seem to work. Such truths are a great lot of joy and happiness, when folks get them right. They make for maturity, perseverance, loyalty, steadfastness, attractiveness, winsomeness, appeal, fascinating compulsion, real freedom enhancing controls, and more than we expect or realize. Just think how such a beginning produced the greatest denomination of mission-minded and evangelistic ministers and members in the world. Like my ordaining pastor, a supralapsarian, hyper-calvinist, use to say, “We will treat you so many ways, you are bound to like some of them.” He once plead with a member of my family to receive Christ until tears ran down that man’s face. Would to God, He had been able to succeed. Old Matthew T. Yates started out to win the world with the doctrine in the articles of faith of his home church that Christ died for the church (no mention of anyone else). Jesus sought to win the lady of Canaan with the idea that He was not sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel…and she was not a Jew, but she just treated it as an invitation to worship Him. Then He spoke of her as a Dog, unclean, image of reprobation, compared to the children (Israelites), and she saw that as an invitation to plead with Him for Help, saying, that was true. She was jsut a dog, but no one minded the dogs eating the crumbs that fell fromt he children’s table. And Jesus said her faith was GREAT. Rick, you have done a good job, so what will you do with Jesus saying to a man, “If you can believe.” Shook the fellow up so bad, he cried, “I believe, Help my unbelief!!!” The man’s belief was an insult to Jesus, and when the fellow realized He had a problem then Jesus helped him.
Dear dead horse, meet foot. 🙂
I was waiting for my turn.
One thing that keeps getting missed in many of these discussions is that fact that so many of our SBC people are entrenched in our “christianees” America that we not thinking about the lost and effectively breaking barriers to reach them.
Some of the comments stem from “well, what does that say about us as a people if can’t redeem ‘southern'”.
Guess what, many lost people have not and will not redeem this word (I am intentionally speaking concerning lost people). Our goal is simply to better communicate what we are about.
Our pastors and leaders need to get out of our studies and into the communities and realize that it is not 1957, 58, or the 60’s anymore. Many have been stuck in there “Christian bubble” and let the culture pass them by, thus are ineffective in communicating with it.
What in the world do you think international workers are doing? You think they are building buildings with pews, hymnals, a choir and so forth? No, they are not! Because that doesn’t fit the culture. If an added tag line helps in reaching people in the US, GREAT! Do it! But all this procedural bru haha is nothing more than a time waster.
Maybe I’m a bit harsh, and I do apologize if I am, but I live in a part of the world where nationals are beaten and have there homes burned down because they follow Jesus. We had one man hatched with a machete a few months ago and is just now undergoing rehabilitating therapy. Please, can we put this into perspective. I have two friends that were beaten, robbed and publicly humiliated after they were called by someone posing to be interested in hearing more about Jesus almost a year ago. They are still faithfully sharing and considered it an honor to suffer for Christ.
Again, I do not mean to rant, but following Jesus is serious stuff in the rest of the world. It is no wonder our convention is in decline when we squabble over allowing a group of churches that are outside of the “regional south” to identify themselves more clearly rather than using a regional name. Goodness, gracious! Give me a break!
Want to commend Frank for his sharp and timely observation above (no. 68 at this particular writing on my page). And for Lydia’s comfort and the dismay of my fellow Sovereign Grace friends, please remember Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall had eldresses. One in particular, Stearns’ sister and Marshall’s wife, Martha Stearns Marshall was instrumental in the conversion of Samuel Cartlege (think his name was Samuel) who came to arrest Marshall for preaching without a permit in Ga. Her preaching to Cartledge, so I understand, led to his conviction and conversion…and later he became a preacher and served for many years. As to Shannon, I appreciate your remarks. Names are, of course, secondary, but what folks are worried about is preserving this big money giving outfit to support the missionaries. Fracture that and the largest mission force will be kaput. Let us worry about it and fuss, too, as Baptists were doing that back in the 1700s in America, when they wre going to jail for preaching and being derided by the Episcopalians for fussin’. Guess who won?
Rick summed up the objections to the recommendation for a disguised name change very well. I an only add that there already exist an organization of churches named “The Great Commission Churches.” i am wondering if the task force commission knew about this, and if it is the design of some to be identified with this organization since there seems to b4 a desire of many to be in a cooperative relationship with other evangelical denominations.