I’ve tried to avoid rants recently, but sometimes us old codgers (after Sunday, I’m one year more codgery after all) just need to codger. Our president, J.D. Greear just announced the theme for the 2021 convention in Nashville. We should be rejoicing that there are VOWELS in it, but I saw several people grousing about his chosen theme, “We Are Great Commission Baptists.”
Back in the dark ages, we appointed a name-change committee to see about the possibility of changing from being the SBC to something more reflective of who we had become – a nationwide Baptist convention. We ran into two problems.
- All the good names had been taken. American Baptists. National Baptists. Conservative Baptists. I don’t think any of us wanted to go with trendy names like Converge.
- The biggest obstacle was our founding charter from Georgia which locked us into the name SBC. I don’t remember all the ins and outs, but the only want to change the name is to nullify the charter and redo everything – costly and unwise.
So, what the name-change task force came up with was the idea of a moniker, a DBA that we could use. That motion was approved (in 2012, I think) and then it drifted into oblivion. No one followed up on it. Recently, a group of people began to advocate for using it and our president, J.D. Greear has seen the wisdom of it. That is his announced theme for 2021.
We Are Great Commission Baptists.
I have read some interesting criticisms. I have some friends (some who write here) who are apathetic about it at best. They wonder why this is needed and what difference it will make. This is a valid critique and I would answer that changing our name is not going to fundamentally change anything or solve our problems. It can, however, help us as we move forward. It is a worthy step even if it is not, in and of itself, a game-changer.
I have heard other criticisms, though, that boggle my mind. Today, a pastor with whom I am Facebook friends posted about how this move is a sign of the doom of the SBC. In his post and in the discussion, the following accusations were lodged.
- J.D. and those who supported him had taken massive amounts of money out the hands of our missionaries and now they were seeking to change the SBC to Great Commission Baptists. (Anyone who knows the facts knows that Summit sends the most money and missionaries to the IMB of any SBC church).
- This is evidence that we are abandoning the Bible and giving into culture. We are being led by politics and culture instead of holding true to God’s word. (Am I the only one who sees the irony of this. “Southern” represents God’s word while changing to “Great Commission” is evidence of being a slave to culture.)
- The SBC has become postmodern. (Because the Great Commission is postmodern?)
The primary criticism I’ve heard is that this is evidence that we are abandoning our conservative, biblical stands for cultural approval, and that boggles my mind. Focusing on the Great Commission is seeking cultural approval? Last I checked, the world doesn’t much love evangelism.
I would make the following observations about “Great Commission Baptists” and the push to use it. I read two great articles, one a Facebook post by Nathan Finn a few weeks ago, and then on August 14, the Biblical Recorder (best Baptist Paper by far) had an article by Spence Sheldon that spelled out 3 reasons to use the moniker. With those two sources, and my own history on the subject, I would make the following observations.
1. If you love “Southern Baptist” you can stay with “Southern Baptist.”
I was a supporter of the name change. As an Iowa Baptist, I don’t want to be known by a Southern history and heritage I not only do not share, but reject. Here’s the thing, we don’t have to fight about that. You SEC-loving, gun-toting, camo-wearing, drawl-speaking, sweet-tea-drinking Baptists (did I offend everyone with that?) who so desire can keep being Southern Baptists as long as you like. No one has to change. It’s voluntary. It’s optional. I’m encouraging my church to be GCB. Your church has a choice.
2. We are no longer a “Southern” Baptist convention.
At one time, SBC accurately described the SBC. We were a convention of Southern churches in the south. That all changed. My dad was part of the first wave of young seminary grads heading north in the late 50s/early 60s into the Midwest. Now, the SBC is in all 50 states. We are Western, Midwestern, Northeastern. We are no longer a “Deep South” convention. Oh yes, the convention’s numerical and financial strength is still Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, and other Southern states, but much of our growth is taking place in areas outside the Deep South.
3. The history of the Southern Baptist name is not all good.
This is where some will get defensive, but it is true. We started because the Baptist Convention would not allow slaveholders to be missionaries, based on the proposition that slavery was God-ordained and not evil. Our preachers stood in the pulpit and defended it. Our founders were by and large slave-owners and slavery proponents.
Even after slavery was over, Southern Baptists spend 150 years defending segregation, white supremacy, and other forms of racial oppression. These are facts. We have apologized for it, but it is part of our history.
Changing the name would be a sign that we are not holding on to that history.
4. Great Commission Baptists is about what we want to be, not what we were.
Southern is what we WERE. We were Southern geographically, culturally, racially, socially. It is our past – for good and for ill. Is that what we want to be in the future?
One of the mistakes Southern Baptists made in Iowa (and I suspect in other “pioneer” states) in the early days was attempting to recreate Southern culture in Northern areas. Eventually, when they stopped trying to be Southern in Iowa and became Iowa Baptists, churches found greater success.
In the future, what do we want to be? Isn’t our goal to be Great Commission Baptists? Isn’t that a noble goal? Isn’t that far nobler than being Southern Baptists?
GCB is an aspirational name, not a name that protects a particular culture or heritage.
5. We are moving toward a White-minority future, let’s prepare.
I’m not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but everything I’ve seen is that by 2040 or 2050, those of us with the white skin will be a minority in America. Who knows the future, but it seems inevitable. If the future is multihued then isn’t it smart to leave behind a name that has offensive implications to our (current) minority brothers and sisters?
Look, if a group of Black pastors tells us that we have to change our Gospel or the BF&M to fellowship with them, I will gladly join in telling them to take a walk. But the Black pastors I speak to are not asking us to change our doctrine, just to stop holding onto vestiges of the racist past. This DBA seems like a simple and worthy step, a way to build bridges to minority communities.
6. The Great Commission is our biblical task.
It was commanded by Christ.
7. State a good reason not to use the name.
Granted, for you and your church, “We don’t want to” is all the reason you need. But I’d like to hear a decent reason articulated against broad use. I’ve seen so many Facebook posts giving this as evidence of our demise as a denomination. What is the problem?
- “It won’t really change anything” – Granted, it is not a panacea, but it is a worthy small step, I think. To me, this is a valid criticism – probably most valid to churches in the South. For me, it’s worth it.
- “It costs too much” – What does it cost? Someone on Facebook said it would cost tens of millions of dollars. How?
- “It’s about culture” “Great Commission Baptists” is cultural and “Southern Baptists” is biblical?
Are there solid reasons not rooted in the protection of Southern culture and heritage? I would love to hear them.
I plan to continue leading my church to be GCB ASAP. I’m thrilled the SBC is going to be a place for Great Commission Baptists!
May that be more than a name.
J.D. Greear isn’t the guy who should be pushing this and now isn’t the time.
Yes he is ( he is our elected-by-landslide president) and yes it is (9 years late)
I may be wrong but I think he is the only non elected SBC president in our history.
I think it happened before, long time past. At any rate he was elected twice. Under the circumstances, I can’t see a more palatable decision.
Why do you state that JD is not the guy to push this? I am asking for your rationale for making that statement. Hopefully, you will be willing to answer.
Good article – fair and balanced…..and you about won me over! We certainly need to be about and focused upon the Great Commission. One concern that I have is that in 5 or 10 years will we drop the name “Baptist”???
Well, that is a fight for another day. I doubt that 10% of new church plants use Baptist in their name. Honestly, here in Sioux City, we’d probably be smart to go with Southern Hills Community Church or something like that. Baptists up here have tended to be either liberal (American Baptist) or Indy Fundy KJV-Only.. My thought has been to try to change the perception of the name Baptist, because it accurately describes who we are as a church.
Southern doesn’t.
For me, if within my years (as an old codger, I don’t have THAT many more years to tell people to get off my lawn) they start talking about removing Baptist from the name, I will be a voice and a vote to the negative.
As I said, Baptist describes who we are. I am not in favor of hiding who are. I like GCB because it, at least, describes who we want to be.
FFGOPLB isn’t helpful either. (Fussin’ Fuedin’ GOP Loyalist Baptists)
God bless you Sir for your biblically-based comments and your courageous stance
Dave, Great article. I have been thinking about this and honestly I do love the name change. My question is one directed towards how you are encouraging your church to go with the new name change. How are you doing that? I would like to lead our church in that direction, but unclear how. I am not sure if it will work but I would like to take steps in that direction.
I talked to my leaders about it. To be honest, it isn’t a huge issue in my church. There is almost no one with any SBC background in the church, except for me and my associate pastor (and our families). Everyone else is in the church because of the church, not the denomination. If I told them (as many have in their lies) that the SBC was going liberal and we needed to leave it, they would do so. We had a brief business meeting a couple of weeks ago, and I meant to bring it up, but we had… Read more »
Agreed!
(It’s not worth a convention fight either.)
There won’t be one. J.D. is president. He sets the theme. Done deal.
Yeah, that is not what I meant. I meant over churches who prefer and find the name useful or even helpful being pressured to change it….I hope you are right.
all of the vitriol I have seen has come from those who have opposed the moniker. So far. They are making all sorts of accusations against JD.
If there’s a convention fight over a nickname that the SBC already voted to use, then it’s because some people just like to fight. You can argue that just about any change the SBC might make isn’t worth a fight. But that logic leaves us stuck trying to placate divisive people rather than the majority moving the convention forward in the direction the majority believes it should go.
Yeah, Adam – i see that point, buddy – unless – The nickname is used as a pushing point to intimidate others … That would almost certainly bring about pushback. (and while there are some vitriolic divisive people out there) I would not say that its fair to assume everyone who pushes back against any intimidation is*necessarily* divisive.
That’s the point I am trying to make.
Key point: this doesn’t change anything structurally. We give the same. We might change some of our documents. I will put something on the website. We are not “leaving the SBC” or changing our relationship. Also, as more and more churches, entities, and the SBC as a whole embraces this, it will become easier.
My fear is that churches will just drop the SBC, its history, heritage and potential all together. There is so much unrest and chaos in our convention that I am afraid our co laboring, great commission, partner pastors are going to be leading their churches out of the SBC all together. History is a essentially a testimony…I pray we never leave our History as the SBC and use the story of past biblical change to show future generations it can be done. Noone in my church identifies as an SBCer. We are Christians that identify most closely with Baptist doctrine.… Read more »
When I hear emotionally-hijacked preachers claim the changing our name would be equivalent to abandoning the Bible, it reminds me of the rhetoric used by SBC founders to justify slavery. Some argued that since the Bible endorsed slavery, abolitionists were in fact undermining the Bible. Could our obsession with preserving the name, SBC, be a vestige of the “Lost Cause” narrative? If so, consideration of a name change may be more than just a practical matter; it could be a call to repentance.
I am not opposed to biblically contextualizing to your field of ministry… If the word southern being present says something overly negative that not using it can actually help – then by all means you are free not use it… like it says in Millers article – we decided this in 2012, didn’t we? … If you want to go by Great commission Baptist… Go for it. If you want to continue using Southern Baptist go for it. If you want to remove Baptist from your name completely that’s OK too. I may or may not agree with you… But… Read more »
…As if a name offered anything of substance . This reflects our consumer society where brand is everything. Remember how the communists always named their countries starting with, “Democratic Peoples’ Republic of…”? No one is fooled by a mere name. Do you really think those who think less of us because of our convention’s history will stop connecting us with that history if we only change the name? Will our past be unable to catch up with us if we change our address? And if prospective attendees ask, “Aren’t you that same church that used to advocate slavery?”, are we… Read more »
Well, it’s clear you a) didn’t read what I wrote or b) didn’t read it with an open mind.
I said it was not a panacea or cure-all. Because it won’t cure everything doesn’t mean it has NO value.
The fact that the “Bible Belt” was also the “slavery/segregation/racism” belt maybe says something about how lax we have been at APPLYING God’s word. Not sure it is something to be proud of.
My views were shaped by years of pastoring in the Deep South and seeing racism firsthand in a “good” SBC church.
I have no problem with a church calling themselves whatever they want. (I actually believe in church autonomy) The church I pastored for 18 years never called ourselves a Southern Baptist Church ever. We stated clearly on necessary documents we were a local body of Baptist believers who chose to give to Southern Baptist Convention missions and that we were in no way controlled nor guided by the SBC. We gave to many mission endeavors outside of SBC life. We made it clear to our community and visitors we acted independently of any and all outside control including where we… Read more »
Also, lest we gloss over and forget…the North was not and is not pure and innocent as it pertains to racism or even slavery and segregation.
Jamar Tisby reminds us in chapter seven of his book “The Color Of Compromise” that the individuals and groups in the North were and are complicit and culpable, too.
Let us not bang on the “South” as if they were lone rangers in it. Bigotry knows no boundaries.
I agree with you completely. “Southern” describes our past, not our future. The SBC has already approved this name. Let’s begin to use it. Like you, I pray “Great Commission” will truly describe our convention.
I know of no one who has asserted Northern pristine-ness. I’ve written previously about racial issues here in Sioux City.
But it was the South that seceded to protect slavery and we have been the Southern Baptist Convention, so most of this is kind of irrelevant, isn’t it. You seem to be defensive about accusations that were never made and deflecting from issues (I think they call it whataboutism) that are germane.
Nope. Not defensive at all. The “south” was clearly guilty of egregious sin… I just wanted to provide some context that while the word “southern” carries with it the taint of visible and aggressive racism because of its past to those in other regions… The “silent but deadly” racism of the north and other regions of the country is also insidious and egregious. I’m not sure if you saw my earlier post but I have stated that I have absolutely no problem with whatever a local autonomous church wants to call them selves… I understand contextualization and it’s all good.… Read more »
One of the great things (among many) of being a Baptist (Southern, Great Commission, or other variety) is autonomy of the local church. We are a convention of churches, not a denomination. Each church is free (with limits of autonomy set forth in the governing documents of other autonomous entities like local associations, state conventions, or national conventions) to set its own course. For every church like Dave’s who chooses to use “Great Commission Baptists,” there will be other churches like the one I pastor who will not use that moniker. For me, this isn’t so much a geographical issue… Read more »
NO! You must respect ma authoritay.
Well. When you put it like that, what choice do I have? 😉
Slurpee comes to Voices. It’s about time.
I have been laying low for a while. Otherwise, it would have been much sooner in coming 😉
Autonomy actually is a pretty cool thing.
I propose we solve the issue of name confusion with a free and globally-accessible Church Finder page on the SBC website.
Cousin Howell,
Two remarks regarding your comment here, one being a question and the second being a declaration:
1). Is the SBC Slurpee machine broken?
2). Name your church anything you please, but if you change your last name, I will be greatly offended. I am sure your dear Mother, Mrs. Peggy would be also. Church name change? OK Personal name change? Bad.
I think it’s a good idea to let the churches decide, and no one needs permission to promote it. Let’s have a Slurpee, nah, make that a frosted lemonade.
Actually we’ve not been a “Southern” Baptist Convention since the early 1900’s when W.P. Throgmorton lead a multitude of Baptist churches in Illinois to leave the Northern Baptists and join with the SBC. Later the first Southern Baptist churches were started in Michigan as early as the 1930’s. Back in the 1950’s / 1960’s there was a push to take “Southern” out of the name due to all the new churches being started outside the south. It was defeated because most felt the term “Southern Baptist” had become a brand name (like KFC). It would also be interesting to note… Read more »
Actually, the brand name argument might not be a bad one, but it is a brand with some baggage. But that is probably one of the better ones.
Thank you, Elder Stratton, for always educating. I think the brand name argument is a good one, and I’ve used it in the past in discussions like this. But I’m not all that concerned about the name. I would lean toward status quo. My general feeling is that this would have been a better idea for Greear to bring up a year or two ago. Doing it now makes it seem like we are running from something. And I know, it was approved in 2012.
This is true. Many churches in KY are known as “Missionary Baptist Churches, especially is this true in Eastern KY.
More divisive decisions….blame shaming folks by association for issues hundreds of years old….is ignorant….my opinion….so much for Church unity.
You are familiar with ignorance?
I have several Bulldog friends…..
Stay away from Starkville.
JD is one of the most gracious men we have. After all the personal attacks and lies told about him, he is still seeking to focus on the Great Commission and the good of our convention.
He may be….I have never interacted with him….nonetheless most divisiveness has come from what he has said not what someone said about him….Sandman situation as example…
Sure. Right. Don’t blame him for the lies told about him.
I liked the concept of changing the name.
But I don’t like the name selected.
Our church won’t be using it.
OK, perhaps I’m missing something. I don’t see the proclamation that we are great commission baptists as an indication that JD is pushing the name change again. Am I missing something, or do I not have a suspicious enough mind?
The moniker IS being promoted.
I am not trying to be a “smarty pants” but there are no denominational church names in the Bible. I am one of those that takes the position that all believers in the gospel of grace are part of the one body of Christ(Col 1:18 & Eph. 4:4). In light of the above facts whatever people put on their church sign is going to be based on personal preference of each local assembly, since their is no scriptural mandate for or against a particular name.
Yet, there is a “scriptural mandate” regarding doctrine and missions. The SBC is supposed to be about biblical doctrine and missions. SBC should be synonymous with biblical doctrines and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Had we always focused on purity of doctrine and the mission of fulfilling the Great Commission, maybe there would not be an argument about a name change. Maybe we would just seek to be called whatever made it easier to fulfill our mission.
How about just using SBC? Our moniker could be ‘A family of Baptist churches committed to fulfilling the Great Commission.’
I am 100% for the name change. I see no logical argument for keeping Southern. I think the opposition to the name change is largely an emotional attachment to the name.
I would not say I am opposed to it… But I am very concerened about spending lots and lots of cooperative program monies which is where this would come from to legally change the name… Didn’t the committee who researched this last time tell us that it would be *extremely costly* and arduous to do so? Even to the point where some of the people on the committee who favored the name change at the beginning of the process opposed it at the end? Have those realities changed?
The SBC has evolved into a top heavy bureaucracy that is losing sight of its orginial purpose. Pooling of resources to send out missionaries was and is a good idea but now we have a bloated state and national organizations with different little fiefdoms that look out for their own interest. The IMF which is the main reason for the SBC went bust and most SBC did not and do not even know it. I think the SBC has outlived its lifespan as the main ones that want to change about everything about the SBC are the leaders, who are… Read more »
Thank you for this post Dave. I rarely agree with 100% of what anyone says outside of the Bible, but I completely agree with you on this. I have pastored two Churches and served as a DOM in Northern and Central Illinois for the past 33 years. I believe that these observations are spot on.
Sign of your high intellect.
A good post. A few thoughts… 1 – If we take on the moniker “Great Commission Baptist” and do not see a reverse in our baptisms, are we really GCB? I can call myself skinny Jon but the moniker doesn’t fit what people see. 2 – Can (or will) such a moniker create a division among those not choosing to reach a lost world? An online 24/7 presence has brought the debate beast out on many of us. Asking myself also… Do I spend as much time being a Great Commission Baptist (Christian) as I do online debating differences> 3 – And lastly… There… Read more »
Whatever the outward name is it is the inside of the Church and the People who make it up that makes up the essence of the Church.
The Church needs to know some of the basic fundamentals about their faith and what God’s Goals are for His people.
Here is a good start:
Romans 8:28…to be conformed to the image of His Son…
The ‘Church,’ having that purpose, would would get the world’s attention whatever the outward name is.
I like the name! I liked it when it was voted on a few years ago. I like it now, especially now, and I’m not even woke. Let’s use it.
As someone who has directed marketing for large organizations, 10 million may be too high but not impossible. However, I would be shocked if it cost them less than one million, especially when you take into consideration employee time needed for that process. Changing brand gets crazy expensive especially with an organization as large as the SBC that operates in as many countries as the SBC. Not saying it should or shouldn’t be changed, but it should probably be studied so that members can fully consider it before making a change, especially with how divisive it seems to be becoming.… Read more »
Attended a prayer meeting last week (online) and afterwards we had a brief discussion about this. It was mentioned by our pastor. There was some slight pushback questions by a member. After a little bit the conversation stopped not exactly resolved. And I think that’s okay. What was encouraging to me in this conversation was that it was being had. There was a discussion of history, a discussion of race. And I know our pastor respects this person and cares for them. And I know this person cares for and respects the pastor. And so we could have the discussion… Read more »
I am generally opposed to a name change within the SBC. However, my opposition is not based on some of the more ridiculous reasons you have heard. For me, it narrows down to an issue of identity and then money. Historically, denominations that change their name lose cohesiveness and consistency. When the SBC split from the Triennial Baptist Convention, those remaining existed as a loose confederation of churches for 62 years before forming the Northern Baptist Convention. Meanwhile, while racism still existed in the South, many leaders had recognized the error of the purpose of the formation of the SBC.… Read more »
Your comment is full of wild conjecture, faulty logic, and just plain nonsense. Your church decision about your spending is interesting and I respect it.
I”m not sure a lot of the stuff you are saying is actually happening, Joey. There’s a lot of false information going around.
Three comments. First the “monumental decline” in the SBC did not happen when the GCG changes were made, These changes have been happening for decades and are driven by trends that are larger than passing events in the SBC. Stetzer’s analysis, quoted and supported by Dave Miller was quite persuasive. Second, might there be a signal when the largest SBC Churches no longer include baptist in their name? Might there be a signal when new churches choose to not include SBC in their nameplate? Third, no one has stopped sharing with the state and local baptist work. At least in… Read more »
To your point three, a few weeks ago six state convention leaders wrote the EC and NAMB Trustees about NAMB cutting almost all funding to state conventions outside of the south.
SBC Voices as well as the Baptist Messenger and Christian Index all wrote about it.
I am aware that NAMB took control of their Church planting strategy outside of the south. This decision is a LOONG way from cutting off all the state conventions and local associations which is what I was correcting. You might notice that I used my home state of which I have personal knowledge. Our numbers are similar to TX, MS,LA, AK AL, FL NC, SC, NC, TN, VA etc, etc. Overwhelmingly, these State conventions keep half or more of the CP dollars. It would be good not to conflate the relatively small dollars in six conventions that are the subject… Read more »
It was much more than that. According to the letters from the execs and namb, the Baptist Messenger and Christian index, NAMB was planning on cutting all funds to those conventions in 2021, but then changed it to cutting all but a small portion of what they normally give them for evangelism. That was supposedly going away after 2021 and every non southern state convention would receive no $ from NAMB.
You’re leaving out salient facts. namb would still be spending tens of millions in the non southern states. The question about funding mechanisms is one on which we may debate and over which we may disagree. Your key phrase is “to those conventions” which is not the same as “in those states.”
I could be wrong, but I was addressing “conventions” because that is what John R seemed to be discussing, not total spend in states. Here are the quotes below. “Third, no one has stopped sharing with the state and local baptist work. At least in my state the State Convention still keeps more than 50 cents of every CP dollar given by the churches.” “I am aware that NAMB took control of their Church planting strategy outside of the south. This decision is a LOONG way from cutting off all the state conventions and local associations which is what I… Read more »
My feeling is that when we read this about cutting off funds for state conventions outside the south, the conclusion is that namb has stopped spending in these states. Not true, of course, namb never slowing from pouring tens of millions into these areas mostly for church planting.
Namb critics don’t mind if people are confused or unaware of the distinction between funneling Namb’s mission money through state conventions and direct church planting support in those states and areas.
For now, I much prefer namb spend directly rather.
Again, and this gets tedious to casual SBC observers, when you say “ NAMB was planning on cutting all funds to those conventions in 2021, but then changed it to cutting all but a small portion of what they normally give them for evangelism. That was supposedly going away after 2021 and every non southern state convention would receive no $ from NAMB“ it gives the impression that namb is pulling out of all these non southern areas. Not so, of course. The dispute is in the methodology, not the dollars. To look at this in a macro view, we… Read more »
As I said earlier I was addressing the untrue statement that NAMB has not cut practically all funding to conventions and associations outside of the south. It seemed also pretty clear from John R that he was also talking state conventions and local associations, not total investment in a region. Since that is what I was addressing, I was careful to use “state conventions” every time, and not just states. You can add nuance to it to say they are still investing in those regions. That’s fine. But the inverse is also true. NAMB investing in those regions does not… Read more »
This is an interesting discussion. May be tomorrow before I can give a better response. I would reject your characterization of me as a “top down” guy, unless you admit to being a bureaucratic kind of guy who thinks more layers improves the results ;).
Couple of things, and I appreciate the discussion though few are likely to go this deep into the comments: 1. You speak of “push back.” There’s no reason not to offer more context to NAMB’s policies, or the six dissenting state conventions. 2. I don’t recall slamming any anti-namb “conspiracy.” There is an anti-NAMB crowd. Sometimes, perhaps often, it is uninformed or knee-jerk but not necessarily conspiratorial. I commended the six state execs for putting their gripes in public. I support NAMB in this but they will always have to demonstrate success. The problem with endless funding for states and… Read more »
I think guys like Dave Miller, Dave Cline, Doug Hibbard, Brent Hobbs, and all you Lesser Conference football fans who hang out here should be in a convention known as “Lesser Football Conference Baptist Convention.” I think that rather than to elect a President at each convention, they should elect an “OLD GOAT SUPREME POTENTATE.”
I think it perfectly fitting to elect Dave Miller as the first OGSP and Dave Cline as First Vice OGSP.
GUESS WHO PLAYS THIS WEEKEND BOYS? YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT. THE SEC!!!
LONG LIVE THE SEC!!! AND ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!!
I will not run for that office and if nominated I will refuse it and if elected I will not serve.
I’m still having trouble grasping why you are so regularly calling the ACC the lesser conference when your boys have had so much trouble beating our champion in the championship game… Just saying. 😉
why not just disband the convention, does away with the name, no more past inequities, churches can change their names however they want, stick with the state conventions, and associations, no more big money squabbles, no more preferential candidates or issues. Out of all Southern Baptist how many go to national conventions vs state or associational meetings, not many percentage wise. It seems people have been dancing around this for a long time, maybe its time we just quietly disband, the SBC had a good run, lets go out with our heads up.
Is this a joke?