;)
A Rose by Any Other Name: It’s Time to Drop "Southern" from the SBC Name
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
How many Southern Baptists does it take to change a light bulb? Change? Change? We liked the old light bulb.
Southern Baptists are a traditional people and we do not change easily. I read a blog post today which humorously but pointedly called into question the wisdom of changing the SBC. We like things the way they were, as they have always been.
For over 150 years, we have been the Southern Baptist Convention. It is time for that to change. We need to drop the regional reference to the South and come up with a name more in line with our nature and purpose. The name we have is deceptive and detrimental to our work. It is time to do what we should have done a generation ago – change our denomination’s name. We need to define ourselves as a Baptist Convention for all of the United States, not just for the South, for the Bible Belt.
The writer of Ecclesiastes told us there is nothing new under the sun. In blogs, that is certainly true. I am not even close to the first person to address this subject, and I will not be the last. I would guess it has been addressed on this blog before, before I joined the team. I was set to write on another subject, but then read a couple of posts at SBC Tomorrow about this subject and it got me thinking. Some may be weary of the debate and discussion, but maybe if we keep stirring the pot it might eventually come to a boil (to mix a couple of metaphors).
I serve as pastor of a “Southern” Baptist church in Sioux City, Iowa. There is nothing Southern about our church. If we were southern, I wouldn’t be so stinking cold right now! We are loyal to our denomination and make no apologies to anyone for being who we are. But the name of our denomination makes it harder for us to do our work. We are strangers in a strange land, a southern denomination trying to make inroads in the north.
If the SBC wants to truly be a national denomination, we need to drop the regional name. If we care about the Northeast, the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mountain West or the Pacific Coast, then maybe we shouldn’t have a name that makes it sound like we are primarily focused on the Deep South.
Permit me to make my case, then you can have your say.
1) Our name is deceptive and should be changed.
We were once truly a Southern Baptist Convention. We split from the national Convention over issues we would now like to forget. But it was a regional thing and the name fit who we were. That was over160 years ago. We now want to be a national convention, don’t we?
Our name gives a deceptive impression. It is not an intentional lie, but as the denomination changed, the name stayed the same. It tells people that we are focused on the South, that we promote a Southern culture and mindset. This leaves (I hope) a false impression.
I have an idea. Why not call our denomination “The Iowa Baptist Convention”? I’m an Iowan and I like that! But, you say, we are not all Iowans. We are all Baptists, but only a small minority are Iowans. Okay, I will grant you that. We shouldn’t call ourselves the Iowa Baptist Convention because we are not all Iowans. But we are not all Southern either. I know our headquarters are in the South. The majority of our churches and people are in the South. But not all. There are many of us who are not southerners. But in spite of that, we are labeled by our convention name as is we were.
If we are more than a regional convention, why do we keep a regional name? It is not who we are anymore.
2) Our name is detrimental to national ministry.
I don’t want to offend any of my friends from south of the Mason-Dixon line. But the way Northerners view the South is anything but positive. The same is probably true in reverse, but “Northern” isn’t part of our name. We don’t do things in the north (at least not around here) like we do them in the south. We do not call everyone “Brother” or “Sister.” We do not lead with our denominational identity. There aren’t enough of us in Iowa for us to isolate ourselves from other Christians from other denominations. The brand name, “Southern Baptist” means very little here – a think a lot of folks seem to we are snake-handlers or holy rollers.
There may be areas of the South where the name is an asset. In Iowa, our name is a burden, a hindrance. Being labeled “Southern” in the north is not helpful.
If we want to have a national ministry, we should have a national name.
3) The “Baptist” name is germane and descriptive.
Peter Lumpkins, in the SBC Tomorrow posts I referenced above, intimated that there was a tie between the movement to remove “Southern” from our name and the movement to remove “Baptist” from the names of many of our churches and other entities.
I don’t know about anyone else, but in my mind they are two separate issues. We are Baptists – it’s who we are. Why remove an accurate term from our name? But I do not believe that Southern is accurate. We are no longer a Southern denomination and we should not call ourselves such.
These are two separate issues.
4) Are there any good reasons to keep Southern in our name?
I understand there are some legal difficulties attached to renaming the convention. I don’t really understand that but aren’t there always solutions to legal problems? Perhaps it could be a “dba” thing. We remain legally the SBC, but we do business as something else.
Others might say that SBC is a brand name that has a lot of name recognition and brand identity. Once again, that might be true in some places. But outside the Bible Belt, the name recognition is greatly reduced and the identity is often negative.
Are there other reasons? You tell me. Frankly, I think it all comes back to our resistance to change. But maybe some of the readers will have reasons I have heard.
A Final Thought
I think the name needs to change. But we need to also remember that name changes don’t change the nature of a thing. The SBC (or whatever we might call it) needs more than a name change. It needs to refocus on its mission to make disciples in the entire world. We need to continue our passion for sound doctrine while renewing our zeal for the Great Commission.
I think we need to change our name. But changing the name may not work unless we also change our ways where that is needed.
A Final Final Thought
I have NO IDEA what the new name would be. Cooperative Baptist Convention would have been a brilliant name had we done this thirty years ago. Many of the other names we might use are taken by other denominations.
I just hope we don’t come up with silly, trendy names (Lifeway? Guidestone?) to replace SBC. Lets not replace outdated with ridiculous.
So, here are your topics.
1) Is a name change for the SBC wise?
2) Are there good reasons NOT to change the name?
3) Anyone got a good idea about a new name?
Talk amongst yourselves.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
What! Were you reading my mind 30 years ago and are just now getting around to writing about it? Seriously, I’ve thought and said the same thing for years, even to suggesting Cooperative Baptist Convention before Cooperative was used by the CBF. Even now, the thought keeps coming to mind that there needs to be a change but I haven’t come up with a suggestion that seems right.
Mind you, I’m southern to the core — take me out of Kenya and drop me back in Travelers Rest, SC, and my accent will revert to its original state faster than greased lightning. Ain’t nothing better for breakfast (or, now, even supper) than grits, eggs, and bacon. But, while the historic roots of the SBC are in the south (yes, the SBC was formed over a slavery issue — it’s most unfortunate that our history is linked to that horrendous cancer), we have moved way beyond that. It’s way past time for a change.
As a native Vermonter I find little interest in the name Southern Baptist Convention. I propose the Christian Baptist Convention. Christ would replace Southern, which still might not set well with some folks.
I think we can change the name if we keep the Acronym the same. That way we can keep saying SB’s and SBC. How about we do like IBM and make the acronym our actual name? We can individually decide what it might stand for (very baptist)! Some could say we are a Scripture Baptist Convention while the more missional could call us the Seekers Baptist Convention. The guys who want to drink alcohol could humbly be the Sinners Baptists and the emergent guys could call themselves the Starbucks convention- which could get them out of using the word Baptist as well.
I guess I am in a mood – must be because I am giving up caffeine and have had no coffee for three days.
I hear you, Dave. You want “to change” and some of us poor, poor southerners–like me–”resist change”. And your argument core is, because you think “southern” is regional. Regionalism. And, just what’s wrong with regionalism? Regionalism apparently not only is “deceptive” but kills “national ministry.” Now if you could just demonstrate either with something substantial your argument would have some teeth ;^).
I mentioned on my site I haven’t a plug nickel’s sacredness for the “southern” in SBC. I don’t. I don’t care. Period. What I do care about is sober reasoning and careful decision-making. The issue has been thoroughly analyzed by many. Dr. Criswell proposed a name change in the mid-70s and a ‘committee of 7′ was appointed, with Dr. Criswell on the committee. After thorough analysis, the committee–with Dr. Criswell *on the committee*–UNANIMOUSLY recommended we drop the subject. The complications were overwhelming.
Nor were the complications political.
For me, that perfectly illustrates what’s wrong with the present process of “changing the name.” It’s “all good” about changing the name and “all bad” if we keep it. You even say so, Dave. Our name is “deceptive.” And, if you are correct, is there any good reason to keep it? Of course not! You’ve found a way to slice through the thickest goop of resistance possible. Frame the debate in moral categories. Those who want to change want to be honest. Those who want to keep the name want to keep a deceitful name.
Consider.
For argument’s sake, let’s suppose it proves impossible to actually change our name–only for argument’s sake. Let’s also suppose you’re correct: “southern” in the SBC is, in fact, “deceptive.” Where do we go from there, Dave? What do we do? Now we’re stuck with deceit.
From my standpoint, it’s ridiculous, at best, to imply Southern Baptists embrace deception because they have “southern” attached to their official name and horribly cruel at worst. You are implying, Dave, millions of Southern Baptists like myself are embracing deceit because we see no real tension in being called “Southern” Baptists when, in fact, our vision reaches far beyond the south.
Indeed our vision from the beginning in 1845 reached far beyond the south. One of our first actions was a board to reach the heathen in faraway lands. Hence, if your point is valid now, it was valid in 1845. If it was valid in 1845, then we’ve embraced deceit since our very beginning!
And, to make things worse, if the hypothetical scenario were true above–that is, the impossibility of changing the name of the SBC–you have assigned us all to live out our global vision as embracing deceit from now on. Personally, I have no sympathy for moral reasoning like that.
Nor is it wise to frame this discussion in moral categories, Dave. I, for one, wish you hadn’t done that. I don’t think you intentionally meant to frame this issue in moral categories but from my perspective, that’s precisely what you unfortunately did when you made a major point of your position the assertion that SBC is “deceptive.”
I plan to post again on this–perhaps I’ll have it today–laying out some good reasons why we should focus on bigger issues.
Interestingly, according to the GCRTF, their commission was to find ways to be better stewards of CP dollars. How changing the name of the SBC is spun into that web, I’ve yet to figure.
Nor can I imagine how spending millions–YES Millions of CP dollars–to study/process a name change remains congruent with such a purpose. Missionaries are sitting at home with no appointment and we want to spend millions to “change our name”?
From West Georgia, I say, that sounds just peachy to me.
With that, I am…
Peter
I don’t think having “Southern” in our name is a big deal — one way or another.
There are other “denominations” that use localized geographical identifiers and evidently it is not hurting them:
Roman Catholic church,
Church of God — Anderson Indiana
Church of God — Cleveland Tennessee
Lutheran Church — Missouri synod
I’m not against changing our name. However, I don’t think changing the name is going to result in much — if any — benefit.
Roger Simpson
“The Baptist” would fit for me. I am from the south and am glad to know Baptist have grown so much that we are even talking about this. The one word in our present title that creates heartburn for me is “Convention”. All of our processes need reform and now is the time to do it.
Brother Dave,
The changing of the name Southern to another name probably will not yield a lot of fruit. Somehow, what branding value, if any, attributed to SBC or Southern Baptist is bound up in the content of what the brand actually does. The brand has suffered for simply ignoring the commission of Christ and producing anemic local churches that are better at separating than they are at loving their neighbor.
The best change for Baptist’s is for the Southern to mean something that represents loving our neighbor as our self as we follow Christ. At that point, Southern may be something loved and respected by even a Northern guy or gal. The problem is not the name in and of itself. The problem is the hearts that collective bring definition to the name.
If you start there first, then the name simply is overtaken by the spirit of love for one another, and Southern will soon become no different than Northern, or Eastern, or Western. Changing the name would be more of distraction as this point, because it would shine the light on a weak and anemic people….where the people need love and nurturing above all. Southern is not the problem or the solution…a humble people is the beginning of a solution.
Blessings,
Chris
So there’s no substance between the removal of “Southern” and the removal of “Baptists”?
Consider:
Tammy Reed Ledbetter reported part of the 2004 debate in a Baptist Press article. There she wrote:
"In support of the motion, John Flynn of New Horizon Church in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., spoke of serving a small church in upstate New York where any mention of Southern Baptists "is almost evil" due to cultural perceptions. "We don’t have Baptist in our name," Flynn said, "not because we’re not proud we’re Baptist, but because it becomes an impediment to sharing the Gospel." He said he would rather see the name changed in order to see one more person saved than continue using a name that might be a stumbling block to non-southerners" (//link).
Again, another pastor in the nineties/early twos: “I’m not ashamed to be a Baptist, but a brand name can be a hindrance," [Roddie] Clyde said. The senior pastor at Fellowship of Forest Creek in Round Rock, near Austin, Clyde said his church has grown rapidly since changing its name last year from Trinity Baptist Church…" Since the changes were begun in 1992, the average worship attendance at Fellowship of Forest Creek has grown from 65 to 650, Clyde said. His church had been averaging 140 new members a year, but after taking "Baptist" out of the name early last year, the annual growth increased to 240 members, he said” (//link).
First, “southern” ousted, then “Baptist” ousted.
The argument for taking both descriptors remain too close to simply deny, Dave.
With that, I am…
Peter
I’m also in favor of dropping the Southern from the name, but I don’t lose any sleep over it. Our church is in NY, and there is always some confusion and frankly, embarrassment in trying to explain why I serve in a Southern Baptist Church. The confusion is from the word Southern and the embarrassment is from explaining why there is a “Southern” Baptist Convention in the first place.
There are clearly some legal and financial costs to a name change. That has to be considered. They may well be insurmountable.
A good many people have laid out what they believe to be advantages to a name change. I think they are valid, although I don’t know if they are sufficient to warrant the change. The negative connotations of Southern culture in the North (rightly or wrongly) and vice versa. Our past association with slavery. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton. Wiley Drake.
A name change won’t necessarily shed all those associations, but it might help.
So I think it is clear that there are negative reasons (ie: difficulties) for not changing the name, and that there are positive reasons for changing it. I don’t know whether one outweighs the other.
The question I don’t really know the answer to is whether there are positive reasons to keep the word Southern in the name. Tradition, I suppose, but I’m looking for really positive reasons.
I don’t know if I can think of a bigger waste of time, energy, or money than attempting to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. And, if regional names hinder national influence; then I guess we need to talk about changing Southern, Southwestern, Southeastern, and Midwestern Seminaries names too.
How exactly does “the name of our denomination make it harder for us to do our work”?
There are too many divisive factions wirhin the convention already-arminanists vs, calvinists, progressive vs traditionalists. No name change will heal or solve the existing problems.
maybe dissolution is the only thing that should be done, after all each church is independent already.
I’ve worked where we have a single goal and all are like-minded and I’ve worked where the mind-set is neutral in all areas. The SBC is presently “neutral” due, in part, to our beliefs. Many cannot even talk about or support their beliefs due to causing a fracture within the convention and/or the local body. Even though I agree with a name change, at the same time I believe we need to do a total reform of our structure. Churches need to have their own identity in order to prove the faith they have. I think each should have their separate identity to allow the work to be unified whether we think it right or wrong. The answer would be in the proof. Eventually, the whole would be able to see the fruit of the other. Right now we are neutral and no one can really see anything. The best approach is to restructure and then change the name to fit.
This question was asked on another list I am on in response to Lumpkins’ article. I posted the following tongue-in-cheek response:
Should the SBC Change Its Name?
Nope. Keep it.
This signals to all but the cognoscenti that if it is not primarily a
regional denomination, then it is at least parochial and comprised of folks of a certain mindset. It would be incongruous to have the organization change its name when all the major leadership and denominational insiders of the SBC speak with a southern accent, hail from the south, attended seminaries in the south, and builds its largest churches in the south. Preachers who lack the southern accent (like Rick Warren or Marc Driscoll as well as radio preachers like Alistair Begg and John Piper) can be easily identified as not “fully” SBC or not affiliated with it at all simply by listening to them speak.
If the SBC were to change its name we would expect the unprecedented:
A major seminary proposed somewhere north of the Ohio or Missouri Rivers
A focus on urban rather than rural ministry
People in leadership positions or major churches who do not have southern accents
A concentration of churches around cities that favor Evangelical
denominations like Grand Rapids, Wheaton, Detroit, or Cleveland.
An explosion of Hispanic churches in places like Florida, Texas and
California being the fastest growing segment of the denomination as
Spanish-speaking evangelicals find the denomination to not only be willing to teach them God’s word, but to welcome them into leadership at the associational level at the minimum.
Church
Carry in dinners that do not have any black eyed peas or collard greens
I could go on, but you get the idea. A name change would mean a sea-change in how the SBC does things. Maybe. Unless it is like Amway that reorganized as Alticor and continues to do the same thing. In that case, go ahead, no big deal. After all, KFC is no longer “Kentucky Fried Chicken” but they still sell everything they sold before they changed their name.
Dave,
Great post. I would love to see it happen, but I don’t think it will.
One thing I would add to the discussion is aside from “southern” presenting a geographical issue with some, the term itself is stigmatic in the broader culture and is synonymous with many derogatory concepts and institutions. I don’t think we should place semantic barriers in front of the cross. People should reject us because of Jesus not because of misunderstanding a culture or political system.
Changing “southern” does not require changing “baptist” as there are many baptist groups which are not southern but still baptist. That said, what difference is a name change if we still affirm the same theology?
I’m afraid we missed probably the ONLY opportunity where we could have successfully changed the name: Lee’s surrender.
Well, Dave,
I suppose, since we are all so interested in marketing our product rather than strengthening it, and following a business rather than a ministry strategy, we should follow the lead of the most successful airline in recent history…Southwest Airlines. Oh…their name…oops. Never mind.
I wonder how they have managed to continue the growth of their business with such a sociological hurdle…hmmmmm.
Sola Gratia.
People that don’t think the name “southern” in our name is a problem have obviously never tried to reach any one but southerners in their or others in their homogenious group. Since these people are hung up on heritage, maybe we should go back to what we were called in South Carolina, where I live and where the whole thing started, and call ourselves anti-pedo baptists.
That ought to do it.
I wouldn’t lose 2 seconds of sleep if we did change the name. That’s just not a huge deal to me. I really dont see the need for it. Kentucky Fried Chicken does well in Alabama and Mississippi. Norhtwest Airlines and Southwest Airlines do well all over. We’ve been the Southern Baptist Convention for a long, long time. During that time, we have expanded all over the USA, and into over 100 foreign countries. Being the SBC didnt hurt any of that.
But, anyway, I’m thinking for some, like Dave, it is a matter of wanting to be able to say something different, something that fits better, to Iowans. But, for many others, it’s about being more cool and acceptable. The SBC has taken some strong stands down thru the years. A lot of people, the lost, heathen crowd, and the liberal, Church crowd, dont like us due to the stands we’ve taken on God’s Word, homosexuality, abortion, Jews and others needing to be saved, etc. So, it’s not really hip and with it to say that you belong to the SBC in some circles. So, the name change. Also, we have a crowd out there right now that wants to fit more into the “Evangelical” crowd. They want to kind of morph into a “Ecumenical Evangelical” convention. So, to say that you are the “Southern” “Baptist” Convention is a little too exclusive in their book. And, like Peter says, this crowd wants to do away with Southern and Baptist.
So, I’ve said too much for someone, who wont lose 2 seconds of sleep if we do change the name of the SBC. I wouldnt want to do away with Baptist in our name. But, my main concern is that we stay true to the Scriptures, and to the Baptist doctrines that we believe the Scripture clearly teaches.
Maybe we could call ourselves the “The Jesus Follower Peeps?” Or, JFP or short. That would be cool and hip. That would define us as Jesus followers and people. Maybe that’s the answer? lol
David
Scott,
It is true that “southern” doesn’t hurt an airline. It doesn’t stop someone in the north from using it. But we are talking about a seat and not a worldview.
From a missions perspective, one of the things that has slowed the spread of the gospel is that it is often perceived as foreign. Coming to Christ is confused with leaving ones’ culture and becoming more western. In many contexts, they don’t reject the gospel because they have heard who Jesus is and the just don’t buy it, rather, it is because they have no interest in changing their name, wearing our clothes, adopting our culture, and eating pork….
Why would we not want to do everything in our power–nomenclature included–to become indigenous in areas where we tend to be weak?
Dave,
I’ve been hearing this idea about a name change for years now. And like others who have commented here, I am from the south (still here); have never served more than a week at a time outside of the south; and I like greens and fried chicken at my “dinner-on-the-grounds” fifth Sunday singin’. I know (and am deeply grieved) that slavery was a major contribution to our original organization – but I also know it wasn’t the ONLY reason and that we have, as a convention, repented of that sin and made tremendous strides over the past 160 years. Surely we are not were we ought to be, but thank God we’re not where we were. I have tried to step out of my “southerness” to look at things from the perspective of my family up north. I can almost see some of your arguments – but only almost.
In nearly 30 years of ministry, never once have I ever introduced myself as a Southern Baptist or as the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church. Generally, I’ll introduce myself as the pastor of such-an-such church (period). I’m not there to get them to join the SBC. I’m not really even there to get them to join the church. My first mission is to present them with the gospel. Though I have not had a lot of experience serving in the north – I have had a good deal of experience serving northerners (there’s a lot of them down here). The issue of “southern” has come up, but when I explain who we are, I have never encountered any problem. I’ve had people bring up the slavery thing – but again, once I have had the privilege to share what has happened SINCE, it’s just never been a problem. Admittedly, this is only my experience.
It’s been well said that the major issue is not our name but our IDENTITY. Changing our name is not going to effect who we are or how we operate. I believe in the conventional structure we have and in the doctrines we profess – including those things that make us distinctively “baptist.” We should work harder to include non-southerners in service and representation thought out our convention leadership and structure, but changing the name won’t accomplish that.
Honestly, I just don’t see the benefits (perceived or real) being worth the time, effort and money it would take to change the corporate name of the convention. Not while we have the IMB making cutbacks and men and women willing to go not being appointed because of finances. It just doesn’t make since that changing our name is going to make that big of a difference in who we are or what we do (or for that matter, what we’ve been).
Grace,
Wes
I agree that changing the name would not be a panacea for our problems. However, that doesn’t mean it would not, in the overall scheme of things, be a good thing. Names are symbols, and symbols are oftentimes very powerful. The “Southern” part of our name is also tied in to some historical antecedents from which I believe most of us would prefer to distance ourselves. The ideal time to have announced a name change would have been a few years back when we came out publicly repenting of and renouncing these historical antecedents.
The names of individual state (or regional) conventions (i.e. Florida Baptist Convention, Northwest Baptist Convention, etc.) make sense, because they reflect accurately the reality they represent. At one time, the name “Southern Baptist Convention” functioned in a similar way. But, it no longer does so.
Biblically, I do not see a warrant for identifying the Body of Christ, or any particular subset of the Body of Christ, with any particular set of cultural connotations. I recognize that there are, at times, geographical realities that are unavoidable. It would not make sense to call ourselves the “Worldwide Baptist Convention,” if it were still made up of local congregations in the U.S. Yet, I believe it is important, from a theological perspective, to show solidarity to the catholic (small c) Church (large c) around the world.
Personally, I would not be opposed to losing the name “Baptist” either. It has never made sense to me that, above and beyond the particular position we take on various doctrinal issues, we identify ourselves primarily by one particular practice (baptism) and not by the gospel itself (evangelical) or by our Lord (Christian). The reason we do so, as best as I can understand, is to differentiate ourselves from other Evangelical Christians who don’t hold to the same “Baptist distinctives” as we do. Thus, we allow our differences and divisions with other true members of the Body of Christ be what defines us.
However, as I understand it, that is a separate issue than the “Southern” issue. Just because there are people (like me) who hold to both does not mean we should necessarily conflate the two.
David R.,
So, I’m guessing that Baptist doctrine is not that important to you. When you said,” The reason we do so, as best as I can understand, is to differentiate ourselves from other Evangelical Christians who don’t hold to the same “Baptist distinctives” as we do. Thus, we allow our differences and divisions with other true members of the Body of Christ be what defines us.” So, let me ask you. Do we go along with bapitsing babies? Do we join with those Churches who do? Should we also allow people to preach in our Churches, who believe that a person can be lost again? That we support thier Church starts, etc.? I know we’ve had similar conversations like this before, but, Dude, I just cant follow you here.
The reason that there are denominations is because someone believed in losing their salvation, and someone felt that that was too important of a doctrine to just let it slide. Or, that baptising babies was okay to a group of people, and some other people felt that only believers should be baptised. It was important to them that this doctrine not be compromised. I just really cant understand you wanting to just do away with the clear teachings of the Bible, in order to “get along” with the Presbyterians and the “Pentecostals” and the “Methodists.” I really dont understand this. Baptist doctrine is what we believe is clearly taught in the Bible, and these doctrines are not to be compromised just so we can fit in with Churches who dont wish to believe the clear teachings of the Bible.
Dave, I think you see now, from Peter’s examples and from some of the comments on this thread, that some are not satisfied with simply removing “Southern.” They want “Baptist” to be removed as well. That’s where this name change is going, I’ll guarantee you.
David
“There are other ‘denominations’ that use localized geographical identifiers and evidently it is not hurting them:
Roman Catholic church,
Church of God — Anderson Indiana
Church of God — Cleveland Tennessee
Lutheran Church — Missouri synod”
I would argue that the distinction of “Roman” is precisely a big part of the problem with the “Roman Catholic Church,” inasmuch as it conflates the catholicity of the Church with a locally-based hierarchy.
I am also quite certain that the C.O.G. Anderson, Indiana, and the C.O.G. Cleveland, Tennessee view the geographical indicators in their official names as a “necessary evil” (merely as a means to avoid being confused with the other group), and do as little as possible to emphasize that part of their name publicly.
The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, is a bit different, inasmuch as the geographical denominator (along with the term “synod”) also reflects their ecclesiology.
Sorry for my absence from the discussion. Sioux City had a major ice storm and a power pole snapped, bringing power down around this part of town. Up and running now.
Rastis
Man, with all due respect, what kind of gospel are you presenting to people that they immediately think they have to change their name, clothes or diets? Last night I shared the gospel with a little 4th grade girl; last week I shared with a young adult mother of two and then a couple who are struggling in their marriage – never once did the discussion of clothing come up. They offered me something to drink, but it wasn’t an issue to the gospel.
Even when I have served overseas (yes, I know, I’ve never been an “official” missionary so I really don’t have any experience in “contextualization” so I shouldn’t really say anything, BUT) I just don’t see where such issues are germane to the gospel. If (and/or when) such issues come up, they should be dealt with according to the gospel – not some perceived “westernized” idea of the gospel (which I realize some have, shame on them).
The same is true with the issue of changing the name of the convention. It is not an issue germane to the gospel and it is the gospel that comes FIRST. Changing the name of the convention is going to have about the same effect as changing someone’s clothing or eating habits – absolutely nothing.
Reading back through this it comes to me that it may sound a little harsh to some. Please don’t take it as such. I get a bit passionate sometimes.
Grace (Abundantly!),
Wes
Volfan David,
You need to read more carefully. I said:
“It has never made sense to me that, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE PARTICULAR POSITION WE TAKE ON VARIOUS DOCTRINAL ISSUES, we identify ourselves primarily by one particular practice (baptism)…”
I am not suggesting that we water down or change our doctrinal beliefs. I am merely talking about which doctrinal beliefs, out of the hundreds that we hold to, we choose to define and identify ourselves by.
I don’t want to hijack Dave’s post, which is not about the name “Baptist,” so I will leave it there. My point, though, is that, even though there are those (like me) who hold both positions (better to change the name “Southern,” and better to change the name “Baptist”), they do not necessarily go hand in hand. They are separate issues.
Bob Allen – great minds think alike.
Strider – you are hilarious. “The guys who want to drink alcohol could humbly be the Sinners Baptists and the emergent guys could call themselves the Starbucks convention.” That’s funny!
WesinTex,
I can say, on the basis of 18 years of missionary service in Spain, that the connotation of the names “Evangelical” and “Baptist” with certain cultural images is definitely a major stumbling block for many, many Spaniards in receiving the gospel. What Rastis is saying is Missiology 101, as far as I am concerned. It is also what Paul was saying, when he said,
“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”
1 Corinthians 9:19-21
Peter – read my post again. I said that the deception was unintentional. We aren’t lying to anyone. We have changed from a regional to a national convention and our name should bear witness to that.
I did not say that Southern Baptists were deceptive. I said that our name is deceptive – it does not accurately tell who we are. Perhaps I should have used a different word – misleading?
Your comment #4 draws conclusions that I certainly did not intend to make. In the (paraphrased) words of the great Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that means what you think it means.”
As to comment 8, I think your logic is flawed. The two issues are not tied together. Removing Southern from our name would be a step toward accurately identifying ourselves. Removing Baptist from our name would be a step toward hiding our nature.
Roger Simpson – comment 5. I agree. I am not saying that removing Southern from our name will change us (look at my final comments where I state that). Changing the name of a thing does not change the nature of a thing.
However, it is a step in the right direction. It will help (in my humble, but correct opinion).
Chris Johnson (#7) – I think your comment hits at pretty much the same point as Rogers (and mine).
Tex,
Sorry for the confusion. That is not the gospel that I preach, but that is the gospel preached by many in the Muslim world. Gregory Livingston’s “Planting churches in Muslim cities” gives a good short introduction to some of the problems that have helped to perpetuate unbelief and misunderstanding. Eating pork is obviously not a requirement for the Christian faith. Muslims perceive that this is something Christians do and it is abhorrent to them. Many indigenous Christian background churches in these countries require Muslims to take Christian names. This requirement is obviously unbiblical. It is understandable, however, that in a group of Christians who have been treated as second class citizens names such as Mohammed and Ahmed are stigmatic. I don’t personally have a biblical name, but no one required me to change it when I came to Christ.
Granted, calling it the SBC is not on par with asking people to leave their home culture or change their name. I was trying to shed a more global light on the discussion and to think of how we as missionaries are perceived in our own culture. What misunderstandings can we clear up via different vocabulary?
Bill, (#9) You ask the question I would love to have answered.
Someone give me ONE good reason (beyond the basic – it will be hard to do) to keep Southern in our name. I have not thought of any reasons other than tradition.
Will it be hard? Yes.
Will it change the nature of the denomination? No
But if we have grown beyond a regional denomination, if we have repented of and rejected our racist past (responsible for the original split and hence the name Southern) if we are looking forward to a new work of God, then maybe it is time for a new name.
Joe White (#10), you are, if I understand correctly, a Tennessee Baptist. It might not be a hindrance in the South, but that is kind of my point. In Tennessee it is probably a help. But in Iowa, and in New York according to Bill and according to many who have labor outside the Deep South, it is a hindrance.
We have to explain why we are promoting Southern culture in the North.
Maybe we could become the ICBC?
The INDIANAPOLIS COLTS BAPTIST CONVENTION!!!!!!
Paul Foltz, (#11)
I’m guessing you might also tell a doctor to amputate a skinned knee?
Dissolution is a pretty extreme solution.
Bruce Harp (#12) I agree!
Another note to Joe white (#10) – your statement about the seminaries makes my point. We do not put a seminary in Kansas City and call it Southern. We call it Midwestern. The name reflects the location.
If we are national and not just southern, our name should reflect that.
Please, everyone – read comment #13 by Rick Presley. He (with a note of dripping sarcasm which I deeply love) puts this thing in great perspective.
David R.
I know of and am very grateful for your service in Spain and the continuing heart you have in sharing the gospel with those around the world. I also am fully aware of the fact that you, having lived and worked for so many years outside of this country, have an invaluable insight into different cultures. Please allow me to ask you a question – when you present the gospel, do you include with the gospel presentation the fact that you are a Southern Baptist or a Baptist or an Evangelical or a missionary? I sincerely doubt that you do. When you present the gospel to someone, you present the fact that man is a sinner under the just condemnation of God; that Jesus Christ – the only Son of God – died to save sinners; and that upon repentance and faith in His death and resurrection for us, sinful man can be made right before God. It doesn’t have anything to do with being Baptist or Southern Baptist, though in a country like Spain I can see where even sharing the gospel could get you labeled as an Evangelical. However, these things do not change the gospel. 1 Corinthians 9 doesn’t teach that Paul stopped being a Jew or that he became a lawbreaker. It teaches that whoever he was dealing with – the message was the same. I realize that I speak from a terrible lack of personal experience overseas but I do not speak from a lack of knowledge of the gospel’s power to reach people where they are for the honor and glory of God.
Sorry, don’t mean to hi-jack the thread – back to the name change proposal for the _____ B_______ Convent____ (oops, some possibly even want to change that one).
Grace,
Wes
I in no way see the name, Southern Baptist Convention, as being deceptive. Rather, I see it as a source of pride. We were once a regional convention, but because of our conservative theology, love for the lost, and God’s blessings, we now have SBC churches and SBC ministry in all 50 states.
I’m proud of the name we have and what it stands for. I hope we keep it.
David R. Brumbelow
Rastis (#14) good perspective.
John Daly (#15) that’s funny!
Scott Gordon (#16) I preach on a regular basis against trying to run churches (and denominations) from a business standpoint. My favorite book is Henry Blackaby’s “Spiritual Leadership.”
But I do not see any good reasons to keep the name. It misleads people about our identity and intent.
Kirby (#17) I hope you are wrong, but I have my suspicions. I hope that the reason people resist this is not because of some sort of love for Southern culture or Southern pride, or whatever.
But, David (#39) there are a lot of lost people who do not have “Southern Pride.”
Is pride the right reason to keep the name?
Dave,
You dismiss my comment with “Peter – read my post again. I said that the deception was unintentional…I did not say that Southern Baptists were deceptive.”
Here is what I wrote:
–”You even say so, Dave. Our name is “deceptive.””
–”Let’s also suppose you’re correct: “southern” in the SBC is, in fact, “deceptive.”
–”…it’s ridiculous, at best, to imply Southern Baptists embrace deception”
–”You are implying, Dave, millions of Southern Baptists like myself are embracing deceit”
–you have assigned us all to live out our global vision as embracing deceit from now on.”
–”you made a major point of your position the assertion that SBC is “deceptive.”
Hence, nor did I say you said “Southern Baptists were deceptive” as my comments show, Dave. I labored not to.
This remains why I have pretty much stayed away from blog threads. One spends more time correcting superficial responses than having genuine dialog.
I trust your day well.
With that, I am…
Peter
Wes (#20)
“Honestly, I just don’t see the benefits (perceived or real) being worth the time, effort and money it would take to change the corporate name of the convention. Not while we have the IMB making cutbacks and men and women willing to go not being appointed because of finances. It just doesn’t make since that changing our name is going to make that big of a difference in who we are or what we do (or for that matter, what we’ve been).”
I see the wisdom in what you are saying there. Is there enough of a benefit to justify the cost and difficulties?
Would the “dba” concept work here? We don’t change the corporate name, just the name on the sign. We are the Southern Baptist Convention dba “Dave’s Baptist Convention.”
Peter, I would love to engage you on this idea. Your decision. I’m not that interested in parsing phrases. I said what I said, regardless of how you take it. I clearly stated that the name was deceptive, not the intent of the people.
I would enjoy a discussion of ideas, if you would like to deal with the topic. Your call.
I in no way intended my comments to refer to “southern pride.” More than a few old Northern Baptist Convention churches have joined the SBC. I doubt they had southern pride; they and many others were impressed with who we are and what we stand for. Apparently they did not have too much of a problem with the name.
One of several reasons for keeping the name is that people are familiar with it and know who we are.
David R. Brumbelow
An excerpt from a Baptist Press report by Art Toalston and James Dotson about the 1999 annual meeting:
“Efforts to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, spearheaded by Michigan pastor Blaine Barber, a member of the Executive Committee, fell ‘overwhelmingly’ short on a raised-hand, show-of-ballots vote, as assessed by Patterson, on conducting a straw poll of messengers about the possible name of ‘International Baptist Convention.’ In floor debate, Barber contended a new name would bolster church planting and racial reconciliation, while messenger Jeff Johnson of Grants, N.M., countered, ‘”Southern Baptist” is a term for a theology — not a term for a location. It is a term we’ve come to respect.’”
I think we can agree that it would take a lot of money to legally change the name of every SBC entity (including the charters) and print new materials for every SBC entity with the new name. As good stewards, I think we would be better served to spend that money to start a TV cable channel that would tell the American people who we really are and what we believe about salvation, etc. Let LifeWay do it and advertise their own products. Think about all the hours Americans spend watching TV, and sometimes the only Christianity they see is reflected by preachers that don’t represent Christianity very well. Gary Strauss of USA Today shared the following disturbing information about where TV is heading:
“If sex sells, TV programmers are adding inventory to an already humongous sale. Viewers are about to see full-frontal male nudity, heterosexual, homosexual and group sex, and graphic scenes rarely — if ever — seen on mainstream TV. And that’s just on pay-cable Starz’s fornication-heavy, 13-episode Spartacus: Blood and Sand (premieres Friday, 10 ET/PT), a 300-meets-Caligula epic about the Roman Empire’s notorious slave/gladiator. . . . TV’s latest sexually charged offerings add to the current wave of attention-seeking — if less visually explicit — reality and scripted programs filled with frank themes and content, such as MTV’s hookup-focused reality hit Jersey Shore. . . . ‘You can definitely see an arms race,’ says FX programming chief John Landgraf, whose groundbreaking series such as Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck set new standards for mature content on basic cable.”
Strauss, “Sex on TV: It’s Increasingly Uncut — and Unavoidable,” Jan. 20, 2010, USA Today website.
Rastis,
Thank you for your reply and for understanding the heart of my post. I am certainly aware of many of the challenges our brothers and sisters in Christ (oops, there’s that southern thing again) face in different countries. It is sad how we Christians have often messed up the simple Gospel of Jesus. I do realize how difficult it is to minister in some of those countries where the gospel has been so neglected through the years. Honestly, however, we’re seeing the same thing happen here in the states both north and south. The gospel is being polluted with so many non-essentials – i.e., giving an invitation; praying a sinner’s prayer (even sincerely); elders – we could go on for quite a while. The gospel is what saves – not the gospel presenter (or their church, denomination, convention, etc.).
This is why I don’t believe a name change for the convention is necessary (or desirable). When we win people with the gospel it transcends geography, culture, ethnicity, gender and every other human barrier. We focus on the gospel because that is what unites us. A name change for our convention will not unite us any more than forcing a Muslim believer to change his name unites him with the body of Christ. It may make some within the body feel better – but it certainly doesn’t change the essence of their identity.
We as Southern Baptists have a 164 year history, not all of which is pleasant. But, you know what? Even those un-pleasantries will not be changed by changing our name. We will still have to deal with them. I say, deal with them within the context of our name. We are Southern Baptist, who began over the issue of southern slavery, but by the grace of God, have been freed and enlarged to include peoples from every tribe and nation, language and people. Our name and its history reflect what God’s grace and the gospel can do!
Grace,
Wes
Dave Miller, (#33)
I am curious as well… why are you “promoting Southern culture in the North”?
It seems pretty easy to explain to me; just tell folks that your church is an autonomous Baptist Church that cooperates with the Southern Baptist Convention for the purposes of Missions and Evangelism. Tell them that you voluntarily affiliate for the purpose of accomplishing the Great Commission, and that there is no denominational control or hierarchy in the Southern Baptist Convention, as there is in most other denominations.
How exactly are you approaching people in your area… “Hi, my name is Dave Miller and I am a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.” When, where, why, and how is the name “Southern” truly hindering your witness? I can tell you that the name never comes up in the initial contacts that I make.
Hey everybody, I have got a great idea. Let’s change the formula that has worked for over a hundred years. Yes; I have it… we will call it “NEW COKE”. LOL
Vol, like David said in the comments before and after yours, the two ideas have separate arguments.
Do some who want to remove Southern also want to remove Baptist? Of course. But that does not mean that the two are linked.
I may like both the Yankees and the Hawkeyes, but that does not link the Yankees and the Hawkeyes, just because I like both.
David Rogers – as is usual, I appreciate your arguments and agree with your points.
I think I would vote to keep the name Baptist. It is an identifier of our doctrine. Maybe, though, it overemphasizes one point of doctrine over others. I don’t know. Seems like a good blog topic for the future. Do Baptists over-emphasize the doctrine of Baptism? I’m guessing that might draw a few comments.
Peter,
Let me take one more crack at a productive dialog here.
Do you believe that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” accurately describes who we are?
I think it misleads people about who we are. I’ve stated my reasons above.
Would love to hear your argument on this question.
Should Coca-Cola have just called itself “Cola” when it stopped using cocaine as an ingredient?
or
Should Kentucky Fried Chicken be called “Fried Chicken” now that it is internationally known?
No. It is the brand name of recognition.
Dave,
“Would the “dba” concept work here? We don’t change the corporate name, just the name on the sign. We are the Southern Baptist Convention dba “Dave’s Baptist Convention.”
But Dave, wouldn’t THAT contribute to the issue of deception? If we use “SBC” in our church here in Texas and agree with the meaning of “Southern Baptist Convention,” but you use “SBC” and mean “Starbucks Congregation,” isn’t that being deceptive to those on the outside of our churches? We have enough in our convention that divides us already. Do we have to include names, initials or “dba’s”?
I see where you “northerners” (put smilie face here!) are coming from. I really do. The problem is that changing our name is not really going to accomplish anything of real value. People know Southern Baptist – whether they have a good opinion of us or not. Instead of changing our name – and spending those limited cp resources – demonstrate BY our name, how the grace of God can change a person. If God’s grace can change a racist, regional convention into an open, national body with sights on the world, just think of what He can do for you.
Grace,
Wes
Joe White, I think I would enjoy a good argument with you. You state your opinions well even if I don’t agree. I’m guessing you are not a Volunteers fan?
As to your arguments, I do not “promote Southern culture” in any way. I am saying that the name itself does that – gives people the impression that we are some sort of southern invasion.
You said, “When, where, why, and how is the name “Southern” truly hindering your witness? I can tell you that the name never comes up in the initial contacts that I make.”
Come to Iowa to plant an SBC church, and within a year, you will understand. “Southern” communicates something we are not up here in the frozen north.
Trust me on this, NO ONE in Iowa leads with their Southern Baptist identity. Most new churches don’t even have Baptist in their name. I believe we need to try to change people’s opinions of Baptist rather than change the church’s name. That is because I believe that Baptist communicates something true and important.
Southern does not. It communicates something we do not want to communicate here.
I was noncommital on this until I heard Peter and the other guys write on this. If people feel that strongly then clearly this idol should be ground to dust. I will take another budget cut to change the name if it means more people following Jesus. But maybe we are going about this backwards.
Over here we don’t plant SBC churches. We plant churches that fit and grow in their own culture. Maybe that CP practice should be applied to the US as well. Instead of SB churches in North Dakota maybe the associations should have their own culturally appropriate organizations who could in turn cooperate with their Southern brethren.
Wes, I think we are in general agreement. The fundamental change we need is in our attitudes and actions. But I guess I think a name change has more value than you think it has. I’m not saying it will change the world. I just think it will help enough to justify it.
There is a whole lot of ethnocentrism going on in here… Before I say anything, let me qualify myself. I am a southerner. I have lived on or south of the I-10 corridor most of my life. My people are from South Louisiana. To us a Yankee is someone from Shreveport or Dallas. I own lots of guns, eat fried stuff, go mudding and hunting and enjoy blowing stuff up. I feel a strong connection to my homeland. Furthermore, I feel a cultural aversion to anything “Yankee.”
My question to all of you fine southern pastors who share a somewhat common affinity for the south is: Would your church join something called the “Yankee baptist convention”? How would your people react this Sunday if you were to announce joining the YBC? Putting the shoe on the other foot might help explain how our brothers in other parts of the country feel about our ethnocentric and morally questionable name…
Agree, Strider.
The tendency here is to identify ourselves first and foremost as Iowa Baptists. The Southern Baptist part comes in our promotion of Lottie and Annie.
And, we use Lifeway materials (at least some). Fortunately, they saw the wisdom of this argument years ago and took Baptist out of their name.
Bingo – Rastis nailed it.
My question to all of you fine southern pastors who share a somewhat common affinity for the south is: Would your church join something called the “Yankee baptist convention”?
That is a fantastic question! I wish I’d thought of that. I’m going to back, edit my post, and pretend I said this first.
I would join the “Northern Baptist Convention” if there was no SBC (as it presently exists) and if the Northern Baptist Convention had the same doctrinal identity that we now have in the SBC.
Mike/BT,
I’m still having a little difficulty seeing how the name of the SBC affects sex on TV.
But I think that the 1999 SBC erred. “Southern” is a geographical distinction, not a theological one.
Look at Rastis’ question (#57). Would the good ol’ boys join a “Yankee Baptist Convention”? Actually, most Midwesterners wouldn’t like that either.
I would join the “Northern Baptist Convention” if there were no SBC (as it presently exists) and if the Northern Baptist Convention had the same doctrinal identity that we now have in the SBC.
Dave, to me the important thing is stewardship and what the name stands for. I brought up sex on TV to point out a key battleground area where we do not have much influence. If we’re going to spend money, I think the money should go to help us be influential in a key battleground area. Literally speaking, “southern” is a geographical term. Among evangelical Christians, the term “Southern Baptist” has distinctive theological implications. Obviously, many non-Christians in America don’t know what our theological identity really is. By the way, does Pat Robertson still claim to be a Southern Baptist?
If, and when, the name did change we would have to be prepared to fill expectations from within as well as without. Since SBC is so large it would become newsworthy. There would have to be more said than just a name change.
Jesus Followers Dudes
That’s the name I’m sticking with. Cool. Hip. Discriptive. Not geographical. Ecumenical. It’s perfect!
David
A member of the JFD
I found the answer to my own question about Pat Robertson’s identity:
“Well technically, I’m still a Southern Baptist. (LAUGHTER) But– I– I just– I’m much broader than that.”
NEW YORK, April 9, 2006, Pat Robertson, Part 1, “An Interview With Rita Braver For CBS News Sunday Morning” by Ellen Crean on the CBS News website
Bobby Welch is about as Southern as they come. He was baptized about 15 miles north of me and is now the Goodwill Ambassador for the SBC.
Own what you are, fellows. If you can’t associate with the Baptist
World Alliance then bask in your provincialism.
I don’t mean to be a smart aleck about it; but don’t try to be something you are not.
BFM 2000 has the ghost of Robert E Lee written all over it.
Have some integrity. Name change would just be window dressing.
Until you can get Al Mohler to stop naming everybody a heretic just because he has more in common with DJ Kennedy than he does with Billy Graham and the Lausanne Covenant; when Paige Patterson tries to fool everybody into believing he carries the legacy of Lottie Moon more than the WMU Then “Southern” Baptist Convention is what you are.
Speaking the truth in Love here, but that is what is on my heart on this subject
Vol, if there are three words I would use to describe you, they would be:
COOL, HIP and ECUMENICAL!!
Stephen Fox, ha ha ha….no, wait a minute; I’m trying to be nicer. I’ll reread what you just wrote with a more open mind. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Also, the above comment from me..in commment #65…should read “Jesus Follower Dudes.”
David
A Member of the JFD
David, I just hope that JFD catches on. Won’t you be sorry!
BT, I was not aware that Pat saw himself as SBC. Fortunately, I don’t think the general world (secular or Christian) identifies him as such or we’d have a bigger mess on our hands.
Your stewardship argument is perhaps the most convincing. I’ve not heard anyone present a cogent argument for keeping Southern in our name other than the fact that the time and money required to change it is not worth it.
I think it is, but then again, I don’t know how much time and money it would take.
Stephen, I do not agree with your assessment, but your comment was at least germane to our discussion.
Your BWA point is not well-taken. Our issue with the BWA was theological/idealogical. Just because we do not choose to partner with the BWA does not mean that we want to restrict ourselves to focusing only on the South.
I think that is a false comparison, much like Peter’s about Southern and Baptist.
Speaking of false comparisons, what on earth does Robert E. Lee have to do with the BF&M 2000? It is a doctrinal statement. Perhaps RG Lee?
You do not have to like Mohler, Patterson or other bible-believing conservative leaders, but the issues of inerrancy and conservatism, even in gender-issues has nothing to do with whether Southern should stay in the name.
I appreciate you addressing the subject, even if I disagree with your conclusions.
Wow, Pat Robertson sounds like he agrees with yall, Dave and David R. Dont you feel vindicated now?
So, let me get this straight…Jimmy “Smiley” Carter, Wild Bill Clinton, Al “The Earth is Melting” Gore, and Pat “Word of Knowledge” Robertson are all Southern Baptists? Yes, by all means, let us change the name then.
David
Reading this, I changed my mind on this. I just emailed Danny Akin and suggested we adopt the name .. either as a “dba” .. which would not necessitate re-titling everything legally;
SBC INTERNATIONAL
The Oriental Missionary Society (Greenwood IN) ran into the same problem 30-35 years ago, and seamessly changed its name to OMS INTERNATIONAL .. we still called it OMS, like always, but for those outside, whatever stigma or hindrance “Oriental” posed, disappeared instantly.
SBC INTERNATIONAL says it, for me.
Vol, don’t force me to bring up Lane Kiffin or Virginia Tech!
Bob, I don’t know if that will work, but I like a guy who starts looking for a solution. I tend to just complain about the problems.
Here is the problem I see. The SBC is not really international, we are national. When we go outside the borders of the USA, we are not really Southern Baptists anymore.
There are no Southern Baptists in Brazil, just Brazilian Baptists. Our missionaries are consultants, but the churches are not SBC.
I like the idea of an international focus, so maybe the name works.
So, Bob got something started (well, actually, David did).
If we were going to change the name, what would it be? So far, we have two suggestions.
1) David Worley has fallen in love with the term “Jesus Follower Dudes” in line with his emergent attitudes.
2) Bob Cleveland has suggested “SBC International”.
3) Your suggestion here…
“I was noncommital on this until I heard Peter and the other guys write on this. If people feel that strongly then clearly this idol should be ground to dust.”
Just a few quick comments. First, I don’t appreciate stating my opinion and then, because of my opinion, being called an idolater. Strider you were way over the top on that statement. Perhaps it is those who are so obsessed with CHANGING the name that are the real idolaters – but I would never say that (or even believe it for a second). What you did here is no different than what Pat Robertson said about Haiti.
“I will take another budget cut to change the name if it means more people following Jesus.”
If you can prove that it WOULD lead to more people coming to Christ, then I would gladly vote to cut your budget again. Problem is you can’t prove that it will. Not in your country of service (thank you, btw), nor in Dave’s backyard. It is the gospel that saves people – not the name of any religious organization. Btw, it is SIN that keeps people from the gospel – not the name of any religious organization.
So far as the rest of the post – isn’t that what’s already happening. In Texas we plant Texas Baptist churches who also cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Grace (an a little “southern” slang)
Wes
Dave, you make my point. YOU can’t say “SBC” without thinking “Southern Baptist Convention”. But folks in Brazil could!
OMS International has one of the bigger presences in Haiti, right now, and nobody thinks “Oriental” when they say it there. I might think it, but so what?
That principle would work for us, too. Particularly when you and I die and the young’uns carry on the SBC tradition with whatever it means to those going forward.
AARP is AARP. It doesn’t stand for American Association of Retired Persons.
KFC is KFC, not Kentucky Fried Chicken any more.
There are lots of little companies that have done the same.
Why not just go with SBC and say it doesn’t stand for anything.
rick
Rick,
You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything. That’s what Travis Tritt’s Daddy told him.
David
Reducing “Southern Baptist Convention” to SBC is definitely a possibility.
But you can tell me that AARP is just AARP anymore, and you can say that KFC doesn’t mean Kentucky Fried, but we generally know that is not true.
I think SBC International would be an improvement over what we have. I’m just not ready to stop looking for something else.
Wes, I think that Strider was being “over-the-top” on purpose to make a point, but I doubt that he had you in mind when he said that.
KFC still stands for fried chicken. Doesn’t mean it’s in their name.
Brother Dave,
If the word “Southern” connotes regionalism then your argument fails miserably in Sioux City. When you introduce yourself do you tell the new people that you are the Pastor of Hills Baptist Church or do you tell them you pastor “Southern” Hills Baptist Church?
You know, before you try to argue for a convention to change her name you may want to try your arguments on the church you pastor. If you cannot clearly articulate and convince a group of people you pastor that “southern” is a hindrance to your churches growth then I do not see you succeeding with a convention.
You know, a church in Iowa averaging 275 in worship and giving nearly 12% of undesignated funds to the Southern Baptist Convention Cooperative Program and over $20k to Lottie Moon certainly does not seem to be too slack on getting people to come their way. That is strong south of the Mason Dixon, it is pushing megachurch status in Iowa. Keep up the good work. But the name change challenge is the same. You pastor Southern Hills Baptist Church, seemingly, without too much drawback for being Southern. Wouldn’t you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
How about, “Greater New Light US International World Wide Baptist Convention”. That’s GNLUSIWWBC.
The simple name is best, “Baptist”, and each state or country have it’s name as a prefix to identify it’s location. This would reduce the size of our overhead allowing that money to be more directed toward the true mission of our denomination.
Dave,
“Wes, I think that Strider was being “over-the-top” on purpose to make a point, but I doubt that he had you in mind when he said that.”
One can certainly hope that is the case, and if so – my deepest apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my post. As I have said in other posts, I tend to get a little passionate about things that I believe in. However, even if I was not the one on his mind – to accuse ANYONE of idolatry because of their position on a name change is not appropriate, imho.
IF we had to change our name, I actually like Bob’s “SBC International” even though as you pointed out, we are not an “international” body. Still, I’m not for a name change. Save the money or invest it in something much more productive as Mike (BT) said, and just tell people of how God’s grace changes lives – as His grace as changed our convention.
Grace,
Wes
Baptist Theologue,
Great point from Jeff Johnson, Grants, NM, “‘Southern Baptist’ is a term for a theology — not a term for a location. It is a term we’ve come to respect.”
Southern Baptist Convention used to be a regional name. We have obviously long been a national convention. Southern Baptist Convention is now more of a national theological name telling who we are and what we stand for.
One of the weakest arguments has to be the charge that those who prefer to keep the name Southern Baptist Convention are idolaters.
For 50 years or more Baptists have consistently, overwhelmingly said they like our name and want to keep it.
David R. Brumbelow
BT,
I also agree about the “Northern” Baptist Convention. If the SBC was liberal and the “Northern Baptist Convetion” was conservative and evangelistic (and still called the Northern Baptist Convention), I would gladly join the NBC.
David R. Brumbelow
WesinTex,
RE: #47
Yes, it is the gospel that saves, and “when we win people with the gospel it transcends geography, culture, ethnicity, gender and every other human barrier.” Amen.
However, there are such things as stumbling blocks. On this particular point (notice, I didn’t say on everything) I am in agreement with the “Seeker Sensitive” folks. We need to identify those elements in the way we do church, and the way we present the gospel, that are non-essentials, and that may potentially present a stumbling block, and do our best to take these stumbling blocks out of the way. At the same time, I am fully aware that the gospel, in and of itself, is a major stumbling block to many. We must maintain our ground there, without budging an inch.
Oh, and by the way, stumbling blocks are not something we should just take lightly. Jesus had some pretty strong words to say about them.
Brother Dave,
Let me make a suggestion for a new name. We can call ourselves the Cornerstone Baptist Convention and refer to ourselves as CBF for short.
Seriously, let’s realistically statistically look at this question you raised. According to all of our favorite statistician Dr. Ed Stetzer; “facts are our friends”. Here are the facts concerning this negative impact you say the SBC has, especially concerning younger pastors.
Many churches struggle with how they should identify themselves as Southern Baptist to their unchurched community. When asked “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church was Southern Baptist negatively or positively impact your decision?” only 31 percent of respondents said this knowledge would positively impact his or her decision to visit or join the church. For 1 in 4, this would have a negative impact, while it would not be a factor for 36 percent. Another 9 percent were not sure.
That quote is from this link of a study done by NAMB through Zogby International in 2006. As you know Dr. Stetzer was still there at the time.
Thus, it seems that according to the study regions such as you are in are not that negatively affected.
Blessings,
Tim
I’ll have to think some more about a suggestion for a new name. But, I am apprehensive about including “international” in the name, for the reasons already given above by others. I also think that, especially in light of our recent history with the BWA, it could have overtones, for some, of imperialism.
FWIW,
I just googled the Conservative Baptists, and found out they have shortened their name to CBAmerica. Maybe we could just merge with them and keep their name…
Dave Miller (#54)
You wrote… “I’m guessing you are not a Volunteers fan?” How perceptive on your part; in fact, I am a Big Red Cornhusker fan!
Again, let me say that this is potentially a huge waste of time, energy, and money… as well as a needless point of division. Just take the time to explain a little history and move on. The legal problems are ginormous, the benefit is minimal, and we will likely never come to a consensus on a new name. Much bigger fish to fry… IMHO.
I don’t see how changing our name to “SBC International” will solve any problem. Just as people know that KFC is Kentucky Fried Chicken, so they will know that “SBC International” would refer to Southern Baptists. If folks dislike Southerners, no name change will help. Even if we change our name to “United States Baptist Convention,” they will still know that our strength is in the Southeast.
Joe White,
You say:
“Again, let me say that this is potentially a huge waste of time, energy, and money… as well as a needless point of division. Just take the time to explain a little history and move on. The legal problems are ginormous, the benefit is minimal, and we will likely never come to a consensus on a new name. Much bigger fish to fry… IMHO.”
You may well be right about this. The discussion and differing opinions of those commenting on this post are most likely indicative that you are right, to a certain extent. It is for that reason that I wouldn’t personally choose to make a big push for this right now. But, I do feel that, if the consensus were there, it would be a good thing. And that, by bringing up the issue every now and then, and trying to think rationally and biblically about it, maybe we could move, little by little, closer to that consensus.
Tim,
I checked the link. The statistics you mentioned refer to impressions. When you look further down the page on how knowing a church was Southern Baptist, in my area, the Great Lakes Region, 1 in 3 said it would be a negative. I think we are negatively effected.
P.S.: It’s kind of like the issue with leaving “Baptist” out of your church’s name. If your church is really Baptist, people will eventually know it.
BT,
RE: #95 & #98
A name change would be making a symbolic statement. And, as I said above, symbols can be very powerful.
It is not about hiding anything (whether our Southern historic heritage, or our baptistic doctrinal beliefs). It is about making a symbolic statement regarding what we really value.
I am reminded of the “car warranty” company that got into a lot of trouble (hopefully some of it because I kept reporting their violations to the Federal No-Call Cops) .. so they just changed their name to something new and attractive. Trying to cover up who they are.
First it was “Southern”, apparently. Now it’s who we are.
What next? Someone going to suggest we move to another country?
David R.,
You will get no argument from me that stumbling blocks are to be taken seriously. That’s one of the things I try to stress at every opportunity I can in our church. Those of us who were raised in church cannot stand in the way of those coming into the church. We “church people” get hung up on the silliest things sometimes and it can be a real turn off to those “outside.” That being said, I don’t believe (1) the name Southern Baptist Convention, in and of itself rises to the level of “stumbling block,” but (2) when it does, it is because of an ethical or doctrinal position we have taken – which I am not going to apologize for. To try an hide our identity (Southern) or our theology (Baptist) is dishonest, or as Dave would say, deceptive.
Were we born in the heat of slavery? Yes, we were and that is a horrible sin – for which we have confessed, repented and sought forgiveness. We have grown past the issue of slavery in the SBC. We are not today what we were when we were formed. In the past 164 years the SBC has changed – and so has the meaning of its name. We are no longer a region body – we are a national body, recognized for our theological positions which are sometimes accepted and sometimes not. Changing our name is not going to change that. Not changing our name is not going to hinder the work God is doing to reach His world with the gospel.
I do agree with you that “SBC International” has a multitude of problems and would not be a good choice. Hey, that’s two out of three things we agree on – maybe we can build something here!
Grace,
Wes
David R., we live in a culture which values transparency. Many people don’t seem to care what sins other people commit as long as those sinners are transparent about it. I believe that for many people in our culture a change in the name of the SBC (or removing “Baptist” from the name of one of our churches) would seem like a cover-up. They would probably be thinking, “Those Southern Baptists are ashamed of their name, so they want to change it. They are really not changing who they are, however, so this name change is a classic bait-and-switch routine. Once we get into one of their churches, we’ll find out that they really haven’t changed. They simply don’t want to be transparent and admit who they really are.” I think our goal should be to tell people who Southern Baptists really are, not to change our image with a new symbol.
Wes,
I agree with a lot of what you say here.
However, I would reply, as follows to 2 of your statements:
Wes: “To try an hide our identity (Southern) or our theology (Baptist) is dishonest, or as Dave would say, deceptive.”
David: Our identity was once Southern, but now, thank God, not so much so. Is it more honest to label ourselves by our present identity or our historic identity? Our theology is indeed “Baptist” or “baptistic,” but those are not the only adjectives that accurately describe our theology. My question is: Are they the most important ones? Would it not be more honest to choose a label that focuses on the more important ones?
Wes: “Not changing our name is not going to hinder the work God is doing to reach His world with the gospel.”
David: I guess from a Calvinistic sort of viewpoint that is true. But, by the same reasoning, William Carey should not have gone to India. I do think that, while not being the panacea, it would be a helpful factor in presenting the gospel more effectively and winsomely to a number of people in a number of places, both in the US, as well as around the world.
BT,
For the very reason you state, I think we lost a good opportunity to do this a couple of years ago, when we apologized for our historical roots.
However, I think that, if we ever were to change names, when we did it, if we openly explained that a big part of our motivation was as a symbolic gesture to distance ourselves from the unseemly aspects of our past, this would be received well, and not as a cover-up.
David Brumbelow, maybe the two of us can be the founders of a conservative “Northern Baptist Convention” if the SBC ever goes liberal.
BT,
Do you believe that CBAmerica is liberal?
David R., you asked,
“Do you believe that CBAmerica is liberal?”
No, I actually did some cooperative work with Conservative Baptists when I was a youth minister in Tucson, Arizona. They are very conservative. Their name change doesn’t change who they are or who I know they are. The problem, in my opinion, is that many Americans don’t know who Southern Baptists are. I am saddened that the Radio and TV Commission is no longer in existence. We really need a presence on television. Television, as we know from elections, powerfully affects (in both positive and negative ways) what people know or think they know about various entities. Again, the stewardship aspect is important to me. I think the money would be better spent on television time (commercials or cable channel) than on legal documents.
David R.,
I guess I am just not getting it across clearly enough. Our identity today as Southern Baptist is the result of God’s grace in the life of our convention over the past 164 years. All of it, the good, bad and ugly – has been placed into the pot and by the grace of God, has come out today as a national body of baptistic believers with arms reaching around the world. Where we began 164 years ago is not where we are today – and hopefully, where we are ten years from now will be even better. Shall we change our name again in ten years? Yes, “Southern” once referred to a geographic region of the country (and even more to a mindset of racism), but it is not that limited today. The “Southern” of our name today, as has been pointed out, stands for certain theological, moral and yes even polity (church polity rather than national) characteristics held by a group of Baptist churches across the country. We are what we have become – not what we were.
You tell Mike that if we were to change our name we would just have to be openly honest about it and it would be received well. Why not just be openly honest about our name now? Seems to me you will have to explain everything anyway. By keeping our name we can give God even more glory – “This is where we began, but look at where our God has brought us!”
Keep the name; save the money and spend the time witnessing.
Gotta go get ready for Bible Study.
Grace, (ya’ll!) lol
Wes
WesinTex:
You say: “The ‘Southern’ of our name today, as has been pointed out, stands for certain theological, moral and yes even polity (church polity rather than national) characteristics held by a group of Baptist churches across the country.”
That is a very interesting point, and I will admit, a somewhat valid one. We may have to make some amendments to a lot of dictionaries out there, though.
My counterpoint would be, that is primarily true for those already within the convention, not so much for those on the outside. And, theoretically, those of us within should have other factors that hold us together (e.g. BFM, our knowledge of Baptist history, etc.). However, for those on the outside, “Southern” is still primarily a socio/cultural/geographic descriptor. I think there is room here to ask ourselves: Are we more interested in maintaining our identity and self-image, or in laying down our preferences, traditions, keepsakes, and historical warm fuzzies out of deference to the lost, in order to humbly woo them in to the Kingdom?
David R., I’ve got to head out to prayer meeting, and this will be my last post for a while. Let me try to some up some thoughts.
I have no problem changing the name of our convention if someone can prove to me that the positives outweigh the negatives. We really don’t know what it would cost to change the name. I suspect that the costs would be outragious, but I could be wrong. Also, we really don’t know what the effect would be on the general public opinion nationwide. I suspect that many people would question our motives and accuse us of hypocrisy, cover-up, etc., but I could be wrong. I suspect that we would still be stereotyped as intolerant, hateful, uneducated fundamentalists by many people, but I could be wrong. If a research group could estimate the legal costs and the effects on public opinion of such a name change, then we could make a more informed decision. Right now, however, especially in this economy, I think good stewardship is essential. I think the money would be better spent telling people who we are and sharing the gospel (especially in the expensive television arena).
Tim Rogers, “Southern Hills” is an area in Sioux City and the mall is there. I just got back from “Southern Hills Mall” – about 3/4 miles from the church (I walk there). In Sioux City, “Southern Hills” is a great geographical name – tells people where are church is.
And, I never said I was ashamed of being Southern Baptist. My point is that I think it is a hindrance to reaching out in Sioux City, and I believe other places in the North, to self-identify as “Southern.”
David Brumbelow,
I do not see how “Southern Baptist” is a theological term. That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
And I have no question that most of the SBC, which is headquartered in the South, does not want to change the name. I am not saying that it is the most popular thing to do. I just think it would be a wise move.
As we have shown in our racist past, the majority in the SBC is not always right. (and no, I am not saying this is a racist thing – its an analogy, not a comparison).
A few thoughts about the newly named SBC; let’s call it the United Baptist Convention (UBC).
How long before our critics said?:
* Did you know the UBC hates gays?
* The UBC is so narrow minded they are against same sex marriage.
* The UBC is legalistic and against drinking.
* The UBC believes in proselytizing.
* The UBC sends those evil missionaries that try to change the anthropological, wonderful, utopian beliefs of otherwise happy, content, indigenous people groups.
* The UBC thinks everybody else is going to Hell.
* The UBC thinks the Jews are going to Hell.
* You know who the UBC are, they are the old Southern Baptist Convention.
* They just changed their name to try to fool everyone about who they really are.
* The UBC thinks they’re better than everyone else.
* The UBC are a bunch of fundamentalists.
Everyone that wants to know, already knows who we are. And if they are halfway fair, they would have to agree that the Southern Baptist Convention accomplishes much for the Lord Jesus Christ. If they are not fair, does it really matter if we change our name every few years?
David R. Brumbelow
Joe White (#94),
It would be better if you were a Volunteer. Big Red? Our fellowship has ended and our conversation is over. Have to take a stand, you know?
As I have read through the comments, these are the arguments for keeping SBC in the name.
1) “Stewardship” argument - it would be more time, trouble and money than it is worth (your argument). I have some respect for this argument. It is the only one that makes much sense to me. I still think it might be worth it, especially if we do the dba route.
2) The “brand name” issue. We are a known quantity (the “new Coke” argument?) Why change things up?
But, if the brand name carries a many negatives as ours does, maybe a change is in order.
3) The “Southern Baptist” is a theological term argument. I have no idea how to respond to this one – it just makes no sense to me to intimate that “Southern” implies a theology.
I still think the the Pros outweigh the Cons.
I also agree with you that there are bigger fish to fry. But just because we have bigger fish doesn’t mean we cannot fry a few small fish.
David Brumbelow, you are right that we are who we are and a name change isn’t going to completely change all that.
But if our name gives a false impression, then it becomes an issue. (Perhaps “united” would give a similar false impression – if the blogs are any indication).
If I ministered in Texas or Alabama, I probably wouldn’t care. But as an Iowan, I think it would be best for us to get a name that doesn’t exclude Iowans by its very definition.
BT made a pretty interesting challenge. “I have no problem changing the name of our convention if someone can prove to me that the positives outweigh the negatives.”
What are the negatives?
1) It would be hard – requiring some legal maneuvers. But Lifeway and Guidestone did it. We know it can be done.
2) We have our brand identity and we would be changing that.
Positives?
1) We get a new name that focuses our attention on who we really want to be in the future – a nationally focused convention, not just a regional one.
2) Those in the North would no longer have to use a name that regards us as step-children in the denomination.
We get a name that accurately describes who we are.
To me, the positives outweigh the negatives.
I would guess that Southerners are going to tend to lean towards keeping the name and us folks above the Mason-Dixon line are going to skew toward changing things.
I suspect the primary attitude is going to be what several have said. “Who Cares?”
Its gonna get lonely.
All you good folks are going to church. I’m stuck at home in an ice storm and can’t really go anywhere.
Have fun at prayer meeting everyone.
Dave,
.
You’re right. We should probably go with “Divided Baptist Convention”
And you can tell the Iowans I do include them in the SBC. I’m sure that will help your ministry there
. Hey, I even spent a summer in Iowa as a Summer Missionary on a Revival Team.
David R. Brumbelow
Dave,
At least Joe did say he was a “bama” fan!
Grace,
Wes
(Gun’s UP!!)
David B, did you ever get to Sioux City? Cedar Rapids?
I grew up in CR and pastored there for 14 years. Been in Sioux City working on 5 years now.
When were you here?
Wes,
Question: What is there to cheer for when Texas plays Bama in the BCS game?
Answer: Injuries.
I know, I’m bad. I apologize.
Congrats Dave,
You have proven that it is more controversial to suggest a name change than to suggest we all become like lot….
I need to get back in touch with you. The Dr. interrupted our last conversation and then I went to see my grandson. I will try to call you tomorrow.
Your “Yankee Baptist Convention” comment is still one of the highlights of this comment stream.
Glad you liked the Yankee comment. I grew up in Texas for the most part and assumed because I was strongly connected to Louisiana and lived geographically on I-10 that I was a true southerner. I learned very quickly when I went to SEBTS and served at a truly southern church how un-southern I am culturally. I just enjoy the sports and food.
We definitely need to revisit that conversation. Call me any time tomorrow and we will chat.
Dave,
“Question: What is there to cheer for when Texas plays Bama in the BCS game?”
Just so you know, not everyone in Texas is a Longhorn fan. Some of us repented an got right. My brother is a Longhorn fan big time. Boy did he get hot when I mentioned that ‘bama had ‘em some good ol’ Texas bar-b-que!
Then again, my team fired their head coach a week before the game. Strange that they would hire the likes of Bobby Knight but fire Mike Leach.
Night All, (hope ya’ll can dig out of all that snow up younder).
Wes
This is an interesting discussion. As a northerner (born in Idaho, lived near Buffalo, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Washington DC) who married into Southern Baptist life, it’s interesting to read comments like David B’s: “Everyone that wants to know, already knows who we are.”
In the south, this is probably true, but certainly not in other parts of the US. It would be interesting to know if most of those opposed to a name change have ever been involved in vocational ministry outside of the South. Dave M’s term “step-children” describes quite accurately the general feeling of SBC churches in the north, midwest and west.
A name change might not mean much to the lost and unchurched, but it would communicate a great deal to our own constituency. I personally think that our brothers and sisters in the north and west need more acknowledgment, encouragement and support from the heartland of the SBC. There are 42 state conventions and fellowships in the SBC, despite the fact that there are 50 states in the US. Why? Because there’s one convention for the 5 states in New England; Minnesota and Wisconsin together make up one convention; there’s one convention for both North and South Dakota; Washington and Oregon make up one convention; Utah and Idaho joined together to form a convention. Given the overabundance of lost and unchurched folks in these areas, evangelization and church planting ought to be flourishing in these states making it possible for each state to have their own convention. Those places may seem like foreign countries to someone with a southern drawl, but they are part of us and we should do more to acknowledge that.
I agree with David Rogers that a name change would be largely symbolic. Some might see a refusal to change our name just as symbolic. Is that the message we want to continue to send toward our brothers and sisters outside the South?
Katie
Well, I see that as a result of timezones once again I come back to find the conversation finished. Sorry. But I apparently offended some by talking about this issue as if it were an idol. Dave defended me saying it was an over the top comment. Dave is very familiar with my ability to do that! On the one hand it was an over the top comment. I don’t think that people are bowing down and worshiping some gilded SBC statue in their living rooms- are you guys? But if we define idol as anything that comes between us and God, His plans, and His ways then maybe it is not overspeak. Repeatedly people from the north have said that the Southern label is a barrier to people in the north hearing the gospel and repeatedly people from the south have said no it isn’t and you can’t prove it is. Why such emotion here? I don’t believe it is concern for the money. God is not poor and neither are Southern Baptists. The reason my budget was cut again this year is not that we don’t have the money, we are still the richest people who have ever lived on the face of the earth the reason is- those reasons are for another post.
No friends, we all have our idols and they all must eventually be ground into dust. Watch out college football fans. But I don’t think that this issue is best solved by a name change at this point. I think that we should stop planting SB churches outside of the south. Like Rastis- who made the indigenous church case very well- I believe we should plant culturally appropriate churches. The names should be appropriate as well. I would like very much for those churches to continue to partner with us but we in turn must do something. If we say that the Southern name must stay then we need to give our brothers in the north the freedom to not use it. We need to recognize that getting the name of Jesus into a community is much more important than getting a building with an SBC logo on it into the community. When we see these guys at conventions and meetings and even in the blog world we need to stop belittling everyone who does not have SB on their church sign. It is not a sign of disloyalty to SB’s it is a sign of loyalty to the cause of Christ.
Dave and others,
Peter Lumpkins has up a very convincing post on his blog. There are far more legal issues involved with a name change than money (i.e. Non-Profit Incorporation). Go and read the report from Dr. Chapman.
Also, have you ever considered what might happen if we forfeit the name and another group assumes it? Chaos! Like an Iowa Hawkeye huddle.
Dave,
I was in Iowa the summer of 1978. I was there under the Home Mission Board (now NAMB)as the preacher on a Revival Team. We went around the state conducting Revivals and one or two Vacation Bible Schools. I don’t remember now every place we were in. But I especially remember being in Des Moines, Ames, Indianola, Davenport, and I think Ottumwa.
Iowa is a beautiful state and I learned much there. There were a couple of times that we had real Revival and saw God do great things; especially at the end of the summer at the state wide youth camp.
I love the north and praise God for what He is doing with Southern Baptists up that way. By the way, my older brother pastored for 14 years at a SBC church in West Virginia. My dad preached Revivals in Alaska, Wyoming, Oregon and loved those states. Wouldn’t it be great if we end up having as much or more SBC ministry north and west as we do in the south?
David R. Brumbelow
Joe, couldn’t we keep SBC as our corporate name, but simply change the name by which we “do business?” Don’t corporations do that all the time?
Katie, I wish you had come to the party early enough for everyone to read what you are saying. I thought it was incredibly well-written and accurate. Unfortunately, we who are not Southern are out of the loop.
It looks like we northerners will continue to be the stepchildren of the SOUTHERN Baptist Convention.
Strider, I talked to a counselor who uses a confrontational style. He deals from a basis of sin and repentance. I asked him how often people left his office angry. He said, “about half”.
I have been working with a lady who is angry at me. She wanted me to justify all she has done and tell her she was right. I showed her where I thought she was wrong. She doesn’t want to talk to me anymore.
I feel bad that she is angry, but I still think I spoke the truth.
Nothing arouses our fury more than when someone exposes our idols, our misplaced affections.
One thing is true – this is not an us-them thing. It is not like one side of this argument is idolatrous and the other side isn’t. I think we all struggle with keeping our hearts focused.
Anyway, I think I get your heart and understand where you are coming from and I appreciate your perspective.
The Southern Baptist Convention is not a corporation in the strictest sense as other corporations. Nor is it a non-profit corporation. Accordingly, the legal status is, the SBC “is a Georgia corporation by virtue of a legislative act granting the Convention a charter.”(emphasis mine). The SBC is definitively a special animal, existing by “legislative act” on the basis of our hand-written 1845 “charter”. We exist as a “chartered” convention. Hence we have no Articles of Incorporation, etc. And, there is no “DBA” option. “DBA” is not even for corporations.
For anyone interested in the facts, the links to the legal opinion are posted on my site.
Grace all.
With that, I am…
Peter
Thanks, Peter.
I do not have the legal expertise to analyze those documents. I have said throughout this discussion that the legal difficulties may be the fly in the ointment.
We would, I am convinced, be better off with a national name, one that does not have some of the ramifications this one has.
I’ve followed enough legal matters to know that for every point there is a counterpoint, for every opinion there is a counter-opinion.
I wish I had the money to hire a lawyer figure these things out.
re #133
For your edification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE
That is a classic. One with a grain of truth.
I don’t know why I feel the need to write this post as I have little doubt that it will make absolutely no difference to the discussion. Still, I think it needs to be said that simply because I do not agree with changing the name of our Convention does not mean that the Convention or the name is an idol to me (or others who may share the same opinion). Such an argument is a weak attempt to cast aspersions upon people with whom others disagree, thus seeking to discredit their argument as they are thus seen as nothing but idolaters.
Have I been in the past idolatrous? Yes, sadly and humbly I confess that I have – but never about the Southern Baptist Convention – much less its name. It has been a long and difficult struggle to lay aside those things of the flesh that have hindered my walk with God. I’m not saying that I have yet arrived – but I can assure you that I seek daily to keep a very short list. Does it offend me to be called an idolater when I don’t agree with a need to change the name of the SBC? Yes, it does. Does that offence in me secretly mean that I must in fact have some idolatrous tendencies – no, not necessarily. It may simply mean that I am very conscientious about my spiritual walk and don’t care for someone who doesn’t know me making such an accusation simply because I dared to express my opinion (even if it wasn’t directed at me personally).
I fear that this is a perfect example of why we can’t have really open and free discussions in our Convention. Express an opinion around here (conventionally speaking) and you get called an idolater (or liberal or Landmarker, or fundamentalist, or charismatic or drunk, or – well, you get the point). I think we all need to stop calling into question the motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ – and seek understanding though dialogue and not aspersions.
I’ve tried to express my opinion here that our name, while it does have its drawbacks, also has opportunities that I don’t believe are being fully utilized. I have also expressed my opinion, that whether or not we change our name (1) we are going to continue to have to explain why – thus bringing up the very things we are seeking to distance ourselves from, and (2) it’s not going to change who we are.
Change the name if you want to – it’s not going to really change anything but a name.
I’ve had my say.
Grace,
Wes
Dave,
I think what Peter has attempted to point out is that, as a Convention, we do have lawyers who have considered this issue (point-counterpoint) and come back with the aforementioned discoveries and warnings as to the problems of having to “update our house to current code” if we go through with a name change. I, for one, do not wish to be encumbered by additional secular bureaucracy.
SG! (And still a ‘Southern’ Yankees Fan!)
You’re welcome, Dave.
One of the most salient points in Dr. Chapman’s report is when he indicated “the window of opportunity” closed. Had Southern Baptists, perhaps at a key defining moment earlier in our history–say, for example, at the 1925 SBC when the first confession was approved–had they the foresight to have seen the complications that would inevitably develop over the descriptor “southern” in decades to come, the window was wide-open to change it. I, for one, wish they had. But adding the non-profit corporation act to the mix seals the window shut.
You make a valid point: can it be legally disputed? Most certainly. The question to answer is, are we willing to gamble our pristine free church heritage–a present freedom from every encroachment of governmental interference with the body of believers known as The Southern Baptist Convention…are we willing to risk that against another set of lawyers who say, “Sure! We can beat this thing!”?
Nevertheless, potentially after we lard their pockets nice and fat, we’re told by a judge, “Sorry, guys. You have been counseled unwisely. Oh, and by the way, you cannot return to go. And you have no ‘get-out-of-jail-free-card’. Welcome, Baptists, Inc.” Is not our free church heritage worth more than a bet we’d keep it?
For me, we’re better off making peace with our name, teaching others the positive aspects of being SBC, and even honestly dealing with smudges in our history the same as we do in our personal lives–when and if it’s necessary. With Wes, I’m convinced it does not come up nearly as often as we like to think it does, in the broader context, than in our individual parishes.
Grace.
With that, I am…
Peter
Wes, I think we are saying the same thing here. I believe we all struggle with the idolatry of the heart. I am sure that there are some who have made idols of the SBC, and some who have made idols of Southern culture and heritage.
My point was that we all struggle with this issue and I don’t think this is a “one side is idolatrous” thing. We all need to check our hearts and attitudes.
I do not think Strider (who can speak for himself and clarify if he wishes to do so – and when time zones align)that he really had you specifically in mind when he said what he said.
Again, Peter, this point is the one that makes the most sense as a counterpoint to my point.
I think we would be far better off with a non-regional name. Every person who has commented from outside the Bible Belt has agreed that it is not helpful to our work (granted – a non-scientific sample) to have Southern in our name.
Is it worth the effort to change it? Obviously, if the legal opinions you link to are right, it probably isn’t. I find that unfortunate. I do not have the legal expertise to critique their legal opinions.
It annoys me that decisions like this have to be made on legal issues, not on the merits of issue itself. I guess I will keep hoping that someone figures out a way to make it work.
Scott, your answer hits at the question I am wondering. Did the lawyers genuinely go with a “point/counterpoint” attitude or did they research the issue to buttress a viewpoint? Don’t know them and don’t mean to question their integrity. Lawyers work for clients.
I have two funerals and by the time I have time, this issue will have likely faded again (till someone annoying like me brings it up again.) And I’d rather go to the dentist than read legal opinions. But I guess I need to do that.
I have these questions:
1) Did they research all possibilities or begin from a particular viewpoint?
2) Does the “dba” possibility really not exist?
3) What are the legal horrors that attach to reforming as a non-profit? Other denominations exist happily without the protections this handwritten document provides us.
4) As I read the unknown language of “legalese” will I receive a manifestation of the interpretation of tongues.
Scott, we are going back-to-back this year. We will sign Damon in the next week or two and nothing will stop us.
One more unscientific observation.
Our comments have fallen into several categories.
1) People from outside the South who have unanimously and uniformly said that “Southern” is not helpful in our work in the East, North and West.
2) People from the South who think that “Southern Baptist” is a theological term and positive “brand name” that we should keep.
3) People who assert they do not care about the name “Southern” but say that it is not worth the hassle, money, time, etc to make the change. That has been a large contingent.
4) Peter has argued, and some have agreed, that it is not just a hassle, but legally unadvisable to do so, citing links to a previous study by convention-sponsored lawyers.
I remain in category 1. I disagree with category 2 (at least outside the south). I argue with category 3 that the trouble is worth the effort. However, I do not know enough to argue the legal aspects. If there are “controlling legal authorities” (not to quote Algore or anything) then that would certainly make me reassess my argument.
I understand. As for all the commenters who are non-regionally “southern” representing a view to ‘discard’ because of viable hindrances was acknowledged in Dr. Chapman’s report. He wrote: “in some areas the Convention name is perceived as creating barriers.” Indeed, this was acknowledged in 1967′s report and criteria put in place for a potential new name. One of the decided criteria was, “Is it [a possible new name] geographically accurate?”
What does not appear ‘concedeable’ at any level from the other side is, Dr. Chapman’s assertion that “these difficulties have been ameliorated by not including the word “Southern” in church names.” As early as 2000, NAMB was strategically planting churches not only without “southern” (which I personally do not mind) in their names, but also without “Baptist” in their names (which I personally don’t care for). Hence, it’s not only acceptable to not have focus on “Southern” Baptist Convention, it’s being encouraged! Those who questioned our name “southern” in the mid-50′s had no such luxury.
One more thing–and folks can check this in the assembled sources at http://www.sbc.net–not only is it not accurate to suggest all US SBC work out of the regional south is hindered by “southern” in SBC, it’s highly questionable if the majority is. Many northern and western states studied reported no remarkable hindrance to work in there states because of “southern.”
With that, I am…
Peter
A few corrections. I did not mean to imply the “hassles” have no substance. Indeed I affirmed the opposite on my site. The overwhelming case–apart from any legal matters–would be enough for me to look for other ways to spend my time. However, the final nail in the coffin is the legal complications.
And, Dave, for the record, I am no lawyer either. Never studied a day in my life for it. But I can read just as you and others here. The attorneys’ opinion is written in ‘layman’s’ language. It takes no special skill to understand their opinion. They explain it very well.
Nor were the attorneys “convention-sponsored.” I read that probably with an entirely different lens than when you wrote it, Dave. The attorney group was reputable, sound and were not paid to feed us info we wanted to hear. Rather they were on retainer to keep our behinds out of hot water.
With that, I am…
Peter
As for “DBA” Dave, I’d say again is no option within incorporation. Instead it is an alternative to incorporation. I personally have a “DBA”. I do business as SBC Tomorrow. Fill out a single page form, pay your $25 (or whatever it is in Iowa) and you can have a “DBA” as well. To “incorporate” is an entirely different process for an entirely different status. One has to draw up Articles, bylaws, form a board, get an IRS ID #, and a laundry list of other tedious hoops through which to jump, usually taking 9mos to a year.
Now, you don’t have to be a lawyer to find this out. Just google it.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Peter,
Like WesInTex, and being raised in Texas,…the “word” Southern didn’t have much of anything to do with thinking it was a “South” related or regional type of philosophical or prejudice issue. I guess Texas is sometimes referred to by many directions, West, South, and even Mid-West sometimes…..so “Southern” really never registered as a certain type of identifier.
The most effective way to change the name is to live up to the doctrine it espouses. That way you don’t have to even spell the name differently when that type of change is made.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thank you, brother. Especially for this: “The most effective way to change the name is to live up to the doctrine it espouses.”
Arguably, no better summary, no better strategy, no better counsel, no better wisdom has been offered on this thread.
Grace, brother. And, I hope I have opportunity to perpetuate your principle. Indeed I encourage you to develop an entire post of it.
I think it will assist us in making peace with those things over which, while we may not like, must live with nonetheless.
With that, I am…
Peter
Chris and Peter
“The most effective way to change the name is to live up to the doctrine it espouses.”
That line–while we certainly need to do it as individuals, churches, and the convention–illustrates the kinds of misunderstands being made concerning how the SBC is perceived and the need for a name change. The differences between the north and south are not so much theological (ie we are not the only ones who affirm inerrancy, biblical christology, etc. ). Even if we live out our theology as we ought, there will still be a problem with the name. This is due to the fact that the “us/them” divide which exists, is cultural, political, historical, perception-al, economic, urban vs rural, etc.
To use an outside example:
This kind of thinking is similar to the farce that if all the Muslims get saved that “terrorism” will end. The problem is that terrorism is rooted deeper than religious and theological differences between Islam and Christianity. The issues are cultural/political/historical, you get the point. Granted, religion is exploited on both sides of the terrorism fence, but even without religion, there are facets of Arab culture which would keep the fighting alive [eg: Honor/Shame demands blood for blood.] This is why there is infighting among Muslim groups. They aren’t killing them because they “hate their freedom” “they don’t worship the same God” or any of the other inane reasons we hear on talk radio. Another obvious example would be the fact of the continued fighting in Ireland. Both sides are “christian” factions. But we could take religion out of the picture or we could make them baptists and there would still be fighting either way. Case in point, Ireland makes a great example as to the stigmatic nature of a “foreign” ideas. My sister lives in Ireland and has always wanted to name her son Patric. She was completely wrong when she assumed that since she was living in Ireland that her name choice was a shoe-in. The problem is that it is a popular name on the other side of the fence and if they named him that he would have no end of beatings in school. Imagine a “Northern Ireland Baptist Association” trying to plant explicit NIBA churches in the south…
Chris, I agree with the premise that we should live our theology–no argument there. But that does not fix the other issues that people have with south.
David Miller,
You write “I think the name needs to change. But we need to also remember that name changes don’t change the nature of a thing.”
AMEN… AMEN… AMEN…
Like the views and opinions expressed on certain blogs named “SBC-Today” and “SBC-Tomorrow” represent neither the views nor the opinions of the Southern Baptist Convention today or tomorrow.
Grace Always,
Greg
Rastis,
I concede, Rastis, that one end-all, be-all approach may not “fix the other issues that people have with south.” On the other hand, to make the analogy you do, skews the difference beyond recognition. According to your analogy, we are in a non-fixable, culturally embedded situation when even changing the name will not solve the issue. The intrinsic hate is much too severe for a simplistic “name-change” to fix it.
To my knowledge, Rastis, no one would put forth a position like that. And if they did, they’d better have some darn good evidence–hard evidence–to substantiate it. Anecdotal deductions cannot make that case.
But even granting it did make the case, Rastis, we’re looking at deeper issues involved here. If you have potential congregants who are so saturated with such unmitigated hate for the south, a pastor had better continue focusing on the love, acceptance, and forgiveness of the Lord Jesus. If I counseled a southerner who had that kind of hate for those O*I&YI&U^GOL yankees, that’s precisely what I’d do. His or her problem is not “cultural”; his or her problem is unmitigated, raw sin. “Cultural” talks would definitively take a back seat.
Sorry. Your example makes little sense to me.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter (#146) yes, in fact, you picked up on my suspicion. I was wondering whether they were convention lawyers telling convention leaders what they wanted to hear.
Again, that is not to cast aspersions. That is just to say that was my suspicion.
Thank you for answering that suspicion.
I am breathing a little easier. I thought for a second I was going to have to ban Peter from the site.
He said, “If I counseled a southerner who had that kind of hate for those O*I&YI&U^GOL yankees, that’s precisely what I’d do. His or her problem is not “cultural”; his or her problem is unmitigated, raw sin. “Cultural” talks would definitively take a back seat.”
When I first read it, I thought he was referring (O*I&YI&U^GOL yankees) to the New York Yankees, which would have been a serious evidence of turpitude and gotten him banned.
I realize (I hope) that it was a small “y” and therefore referred to northerners, especially those from the Northeast. I am breathing more easily now.
Peter,
I never referenced any kind of intrinsic hate. I merely pointed out that the issue is more complex than theological differences. We can united in theology and be divided on so many issues. Eric Geiger makes this point well [though he was certainly applying it elsewhere] when he said “Just because someone agrees with the BFM 2000 doesn’t mean that they are a good match for your staff.” He was pointing out how something as simple as differences in ministry philosophy can cause rifts on a team. But we can take that culturally as well.
My assertion that ““us/them” divide which exists, is cultural, political, historical, perception-al, economic, urban vs rural, etc.” Is a well documented fact as it relates to Northern and southern cultures. People who are historians, political analysts, and sociologists have wasted no small amount of ink on the topic. I could send you a bibliography if you are interested, but the evidence is ubiquitous to one who is watching. In fact, it is next to impossible to go through an election cycle without someone talking about the significance that these divisions has on politics.
I agree that such divisions are awful, particularly when perpetuated within the body of Christ. Nevertheless, such differences are real, even among believers. I don’t think the real issue is “hate.” it is simply cultural differences.
As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, the examples I give are real and well documented. Our inherent ethnocentrism often prevents us from listening.
It is not a sin to have a difference in culture. For instance, there is no moral value ascribed in the Bible to cultural differences in personal space or time. That does not mean that, however, that these differences will not cause a “rub” among the brethren. Now what if we took a particular cultural view point on those and other issues [Granted, these are not enumerated in any BFM, but they are inherent within us and to an outsider they are implied by a cultural term such as "southern"] and put them in our name, it stands to reason that people who are not like us perceive this as ethnocentrism.
“Sorry. Your example makes little sense to me.”
As is clear.
I went back to the links provided on Peter’s site and read the 99 EC report and some of the other documents. I was under the impression there was some sort of independent legal analysis, but I could not find that document, or misunderstood about its presence.
Having read those documents, I am still left with some questions.
1) What exactly are the legal ramifications that everyone is so fearful of?
It is not my impression that the government (at least at this point)interferes in the life of religious organizations to any great degree.
I would just like to know what the advantages are that are such that we simply cannot give them up. What government control do other denominations put up with that we do not because of our legislative charter?
2) I would like to know a little about the zeitgeist of the 98/99 EC. What was their attitude toward the name change before the study began? No one is completely objective, no matter how hard we try.
Brother Rastis,
I do not disagree that prejudice does exists on all sides of any name. So yes, there probably is a generic name that might merit some type of benign sense of corporate identity.
It would be worth finding out the real cost of such a change. Whatever the name may be. I have lived through several name changes at substantial size companies…and we would spend upwards to $100 Million to make changes not even based in prejudice. So yes, it can be done, yet unlike the profit motivations that rest with businesses, the stewardship of the one dollar given may outweigh the prejudice to initiate change. After all, the convention is not the identifier for the church, Christ’s doctrine should be.
As far as our congregation is concerned, we are happy to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention as long as biblical doctrine is upheld in that cooperation. It matters little to us what the name is….so if the doctrine changes, we simply will not cooperate any longer. But, it not because of a name, it must go deeper than that IMHO.
Blessings,
Chris
Here is a link to a site with some discussion of this topic. I have copied and pasted an article Derek Gentle, an Alabama pastor. I liked it.
Let’s Change the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention
By: Derek Gentle (pastor of the First Baptist Church in Tallassee, Alabama; undergraduate degree at Samford University (a Baptist university) in Birmingham; Master of Divinity degree at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas)
Date: 13 March 2000
Source: Suite101.com
URL: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/southern_baptists/35375
I was in a northern state last week. I asked a pastor if the name of the Southern Baptist Convention was a hindrance to his work. He replied emphatically that it is. He told how one person had asked him why Southern Baptists would build churches in the north. He replied that not all Roman Catholics live in Rome. It was a great answer, but why did he have to waste his time discussing the name of his denomination? That night, we were together with some other pastors and their families and it came up again. The same feelings were expressed there. Why do we Southern Baptists do this to these guys? I have been wondering about this for years. Why do we insist on having a name which throws up an emotional barrier? We don’t even get them in the door before we turn them off; it’s on the sign out front. When many people outside our region, especially those who have never lived in the south, hear the words, “south” or “southern,” they don’t picture friendly folks speaking to strangers on the street and neighbors who bring you a casserole when a loved dies. They don’t hear gracious accents or men with genteel politeness. They don’t remember good food or sweet women. Unfortunately, they picture the turbulence of the sixties, the Ku Klux Klan, Pettus Bridge in Selma, and fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham. When they hear the words Southern and Baptist together, they have the media driven image of narrow minded fundamentalists. Why should anyone have to overcome all that just to talk about Jesus?
We should change the name because the word Southern describes where we have come from, but it does not describe where we are. Admittedly, the SBC was founded because northern Baptists would not agree to send southern slave owners as missionaries. But that was then. Southern Baptists have confessed the sins of our fathers in this area. We are becoming increasingly a multi-cultural denomination.
We should change the name because the word Southern does not describe where we are going — which, of course, is into all the world. While most of our churches are still in the south, we start churches everywhere we can. Southern is no longer an accurate discription of the region where we start churches.
We should change the name because the word Southern is not a theological statement. There is no Biblical or doctrinal truth which we would be discarding or to which we would be disloyal by changing the word. The two words together have come to be linked with certain beliefs and doctrines. But Southern Baptists believe what they believe as Baptists. They believe the same things other Baptists believe (or at least, have historically believed). We believe those truths because they are what the Bible teaches, not because we are Southerners.
In years past, some have objected to changing the name because there was doubt as to what we could change it to. Look, if our name is a hindrance to our work, then almost anything would be better. We can find something. Continental Baptist Convention. . . Global. . . North American. . . Joe’s Grill and Baptist Convention. . . Sure, keep the Baptist part; that’s what we are, but if we want to be effective in our times, almost anything is better than Southern.
I am for changing the name because southern pride is not our priority, the great commission is. And I do have some southern pride. I am a son of the south. I have something inside of me that is respectful of Robert E. Lee, and swells at the sound of Dixie. I am tempted to resentment when some northerner moves down here and tells us how backward we are (usually because they are upset that we don’t sell liquor on Sunday or support state sponsored gambling). I get tired of seeing PBS showing something every-other-night on the sins of the sixties and those same pictures from Birmingham. I am tired of having our noses rubbed in something that happened decades ago. I realize that the word southern shouldn’t mean what it does to some, that they are being unfair. The south really is new. For example, Birmingham has some of the best medical care in the world. Race relations really have improved. The prejudice against the south really can be offensive to us. And it is a temptation to be defiant in the face of the slander. But our ultimate citizenship is in heaven. We are Americans by birth, but citizens of heaven by the grace of God. And if that be true we should say with Paul: “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed” (2nd Corinthians 6:3). Let’s change the name!
Rastis,
You did not need to reference “intrinsic hate.” The analogy did it for you even if you stopped short of it by asserting it was but “cultural/political/historical.” The same with Protestant/Catholic conflicts of Ireland. Unless you’re prepared to argue their conflict is about justification by faith alone???
Yes. Put the bibliography together. But only include those sources which cite the “cultural” issues we continue to face in America today between north/south are definitively analogous and on the same level with Muslim terrorists toward both non-Muslims & Muslims alike, as well as the C/P wars in Ireland. I want the sources. Send them to peterlumpkins@gmail.com
Dave,
I do not know how to respond to your question pertaining to the “legal ramifications that everyone is so fearful of?” I’m stunned. And, I guess that means I’m also through here.
With that, I am…
Peter
Sorry, I left out the link
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_namechangeSBC.html
Peter, I’m actually not trying to argumentative here. What are the advantages we have as a denomination that the others do not?
Dave,
Just a few quick thoughts concerning the paper you posted:
(1) “When they hear the words Southern and Baptist together, they have the media driven image of narrow minded fundamentalists. Why should anyone have to overcome all that just to talk about Jesus?” Change the name and in ten years you will have the same problem. A name change is not (hopefully anyway) going to change our theology or polity. This is an argument that simply plays to the world and honestly, I don’t let the world define me or what I believe. Besides, I get call “narrow minded fundamentalist” by some of my Southern Baptist brethren.
(2) “But that was then. Southern Baptists have confessed the sins of our fathers in this area. We are becoming increasingly a multi-cultural denomination.” And that should be a point of celebration and a witness to the grace of God that can change any life. If I could dare use the word “pride” (and I prayerfully hope everyone understands how I use it here) this is one of the things that I am proud of as a Southern Baptist. I do not believe we have arrived yet but we are making progress. Also, even with a name change you are still going to have to deal with this issue.
(3) “The two words together have come to be linked with certain beliefs and doctrines.” That is precisely the argument he is trying to counter. We are not just Baptists – we are “Southern Baptists” which have a distinct understanding and position on things such at cooperative missions, education and ministry. I won’t join a Fundamentalist Baptist church because I disagree with them on certain points of polity. Certainly we have agreement with other Baptists on certain doctrines, but we also have agreement with Presbyterians, Methodist and other faith groups. We are identified as a particular type of “Baptist” by the name “Southern.”
(4) The “southern pride” argument is not even a starter for me (at least).
Dave, I can honestly see the argument that those outside the south feel left out of the process and that needs to be addressed. I just don’t see how changing the name is going to change the process. Perceptions maybe – but I really doubt it. Whatever we change the name to, the perception will be that we’re still that bunch of southerners who came up here and started a church. If the issue is a feeling of belonging, or one’s perception – I just don’t see how a name change will change that.
Grace,
Wes
BTW, ever feel like a dog chasing his tail?
Brother Chris,
Or, we could just leave the SBC name as is and not call our churches baptist or southern. In fact, we could simply leave the words “baptist” and “southern” off of our church websites… except maybe in reference to a seminary under our education pages.
Sorry brother, couldn’t resist a little sarcasm in calling you out on that one… please don’t hold it against me.
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Wes, in answer to your last question – Yes.
It seems like, after 150 comments or so, we are unlikely to hit anything new, especially on a topic like this.
However, spring training is just around the corner and we could always talk about the Yankees.
FTME (By the way, we miss you around here)
It would be an interesting survey to go to Baptist church websites and see how hard it is to determine that a church is SBC. It is almost treated as a state-secret at some sites.
That would be an interesting study for someone to do.
Dave,
Unfortunately, even though you are not trying to be argumentative, the result is, in fact, virtually the same. To even bring in “other denominations” serves only the purpose of switching the topic. Who cares the “advantages” over or below “other denominations”? What does “other denominations” have to do with the question of whether SBs would lose their golden “chartered status” if they amended their charter?
This is beginning to get rather silly, from my perspective. Read the opinion. The attorneys answered questions about Southern Baptists. They did not issue a statement on the Presbyterians’ situation. But even so, it would not matter for their church polity is hierarchical.
Your former position made much more sense, Dave. Accept it as the ‘fly in the ointment’ up and until actual factual data overturns it. The questions you are asking have no real relevancy and certainly pose no threat to the legal opinion SBs possess. Unless, of course, you simply want to be argumentative;^|
I trust your evening well.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dave,
I just checked our website and sure ’nuff there it was right on the front page – the fact that we worked with the SBC. Anyway, the “Yankees,” is that some kind of minor league softball team in Iowa?
(Just joking, just joking – I know there a hockey team) LOL
Grace,
Wes
Brother FTME,
Yes, (you sneaky thing you) we do not use Baptist in our name. But, we consistently cooperate with the Tennessee Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention. That really drives my point home…. to us it’s not about the name of a convention.
We simply use Grace Church, because we are planting these fellowships all around the city. So we have Grace Church at Providence, Grace Church at Vine Hill, and Grace Church at Hermitage, and more to birth during the next ten years. All of these will cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention as long as her doctrine remains solid,..which hasn’t seemed to waver in that respect since its inception.
Southern Grace Church just didn’t make sense to us. And there is a ton of Grace Baptist Churches already… We liked the ability to name the church according to where it was…and keep it simple.
Its a local thing
Blessings,
Chris
I think it is a relevant question, Peter. The theory is that we cannot change the name because by doing so we would lose the benefits of our legislative charter.
I’m simply asking what those benefits are? Something about government interference was mentioned, but I am not under the impression that the government interfered much in denominations.
I have a friend who is a lawyer and may have some insight on this. I think I will ask him.
And now, I am officially ignoring Wes!!!!
Brother Chris,
I guess that is my point. Grace Church does not fly the SBC flag anywhere on the website… yet you are cooperating. Maybe we could keep the convention name the same and those churches who do not like the connotation, could simply minimize their status as a cooperating church on public materials (websites, brochures, bulletins, etc)… it seems there are a lot of local congregations doing just that these days.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother FTME,
What we do “fly” ….is the Southern Baptist Convention “cooperation and doctrinal stances” while living around a religious world of conventions slipping into “whatever is popular and political”.
We don’t have any problem flying a flag of cooperation. Our congregation is great friends with all of our sister SBC churches in the area (except for one Grace Baptist Church). But, I don’t think they like any others in the area either. I think they enjoy being tough to cooperate with
We’re gonna love them anyway though….
Blessings,
Chris
Ahhh, Dave, I’m sorry. Please forgive me and I’ll buy you some grits in Orlando this June. You’ll have to eat them, of course. As I’ve said, I can’t stand them.
BTW, as another strike against me – I am NOT a baseball fan.
Grace,
Wes
Wes, as long as you aren’t a fan of the Red Sox, we have something to build on.
I guess the solution for we in the north is to simply not tell people that we are Southern Baptist. We’ll stick with Baptist and hope they don’t ask more than that.
Am I the only one who is hearing in the back of his mind that old classic Southern Baptist refrain: “we’ve never done it that way before”?
Dave Miller: Please stop making so much sense. You are upsetting the carefully crafted image I have in my mind of Yankee fans.
Bill, I’m all about breaking down stereotypes.
And, in fairness, those who have advocated keeping southern in the name have done so for a variety of reasons.
But, as I said in my opening illustration above about the light bulb, I think structural conservatism is certainly at the root of some of this. Many people have a deep fear of change.
Brother Bill,
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a name change. Legally, as Peter has brought forward, there are some hurdles that would need to be cleared. But even those hurdles are not all that difficult to conceive and implement. Our church for instance is non profit and “corporately” has no members in the State of Tennessee (we did that on purpose). So the legal forms are available to construct a similar organization that was formed for the SBC in it inception in Georgia, although the new construct would have to be amended to comply with the current laws of the state. Probably other states could do the same.
What is still unclear to me is the real need vs. a perceived need for a name change,…. since the Southern Baptist Convention is by oversimplification a container for money distribution to other agencies. The churches, through doctrine and edification, drive the meaning of whatever we name the container. Maybe the container itself has too much clout, and has overshadowed the churches that seek to cooperate by coming into the container. What “is” a fact… is that the cost of changing the name on the container is very expensive. So my concern… is the use of the money and resources, not necessarily the name on the container.
Like I have said previously,…if what is represented in written form on the container becomes too ambiguous, unbiblical or moving away from Christ and into cultural politics for instance….then a simple, expensive name change will not yield fruit of any sort. The Southern Baptist Convention is not bound up in the “name” Southern, it is bound up in the doctrine taught by every local church. The edification of every single person in the SBC is held together by the Spirit as He gives understanding concerning that doctrine. That is the cooperation that is worth having…. Cooperation is lived out by the people and the substance of the doctrine that leads to truth and freedom for Christ’s church,….Cooperation is not by the tenor of a name. When we begin to understand that,…I think we can learn to cooperate.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I tell you what, brother. Dave just gave the knock-out blow. Let’s us both throw the white towel in and concede it: it’s over. I can’t believe I didn’t see this before. Who cares about the legal obstacles. Legalities are nothing compared to Dave’s death-blow. Every study performed since 1959 bows its knee. Every person who’s ever considered this issue and concluded it’s best to live with it would have had a change of heart if Dave’s death-blow had been handy.
I actually feel sorry for Dr. Criswell. Dave’s death-blow makes him right the first time, remember? Dr. Criswell was for the name change and served on a committee to get the job done. But after a year of consideration, he changed his mind. Had he only known of Dave’s death-blow, he wouldn’t have been tricked into changing his mind. Poor, poor Dr. Criswell.
And all the votes we’ve had since then about a name-change. You know–1983, 1989, 1998, 1999, 2004…those poor souls would not have made such nincompoops of themselves if Dave’s death-blow to their position had only been known.
Not to mention the Executive Committee’s unneeded research had they only realized Dave’s death-blow. The attorneys? A waste of time, energy and resources, spending CP money and getting a professional legal opinion when it didn’t matter one way or another (not to mention their professional firm’s view would be biased anyway and hence their legal opinion no good for actual use. Who’d believe um?)
And just what is Dave’s death-blow to the other side, the side who’s the only one that’s presented any scientific studies many of which done outside SBC ranks, the side who does possess a professional opinion from outside sources which balances their prejudices and biases in answering the question…
So what is Dave’s death-blow? Read it very carefully. It is a direct quote, though I do put it all in caps so every body will memorize it, meditate upon it, and pass it along to everyone he or she meets.
Ready? Here is Dave’s death-blow to the other side, the side that throws in the towel for good. No more debate. Case Closed!
DAVE’S DEATH-BLOW:
Next up. I’m sorry. I’m so shaken I can’t write it. I’ll send it next, I promise.
With that, I am…
Peter
Whew. I apologize. I think I’m O.K., now. I can write it.
DAVE’S DEATH-BLOW:
“MANY PEOPLE HAVE A DEEP FEAR OF CHANGE”
All that’s been presented washed down the drain with one line. I have to say, I am now speechless.
(except for;^)
With that, I am…
Peter
And to piggy-back on Peter’s recitation of Dave’s Death-Blow, we can summarize it in one word: http://www.despair.com/tradition.html
Rick,
While we’re on the point of tradition, stupidity, and the running of the bulls, from what I’ve been told, a good percent (if not the majority) of those who get hurt or killed in the running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain are American tourists.
Peter
“You did not need to reference “intrinsic hate.” The analogy did it for you even if you stopped short of it by asserting it was but “cultural/political/historical.””
I didn’t reference intrinsic hate, because I do not believe that hatred is intrinsic to the issues—in the same way that I do not think that Theology is necessarily intrinsic to the issues. The whole point of my argument was to say that the basic reasons which we use to explain many cultural divides [theology, and as you interjected, hate] are trite and reductionistic. My “analogy” [it is actually a simile] does not need to reference hate, because I am not making that argument in the slightest.
“The same with Protestant/Catholic conflicts of Ireland. Unless you’re prepared to argue their conflict is about justification by faith alone???”
Are we having the same discussion? The reason I took issue with the “living our theology” answer was to demonstrate that the theological answer over looks nontheological explanations for why there is a divide and/or why a name change makes good missiological sense. So why would you even ask if I thought the P/C conflict was over justification? There are issues beyond theological differences and even hate issues which would spurn on the violence in Ireland even if everyone were to become Baptist…
I have chosen vivid examples in hopes of making it clear and obvious as to how and why settling a theological dispute will not necessarily fix deeper issues. I assumed a certain common knowledge of these events. It seems obvious to me and cultural analysts that even if all the Muslims in the world were to come to faith in Christ that this would not necessarily make them more proUSA and would not necessarily end the violence. Like I said, I assumed a common knowledge of this. Perhaps I will have to flesh that out another time in a full post.
Since these global examples are less clear, I will bring the issues back home. It is a common misconception in the broader culture in the states that southerners are dumb rednecks. We can “live out our theology,” as we should be doing, and that will not necessarily change the public misconception that southerners are dumb rednecks. There is a common misconception that all Christians in the south are republican, part of the moral majority, or part of the vast evangelical right. We will not change this perception by simply living out our theology. The reasons that make “southern” stigmatic are not change by virtuous living.
“Yes. Put the bibliography together. But only include those sources which cite the “cultural” issues we continue to face in America today between north/south are definitively analogous and on the same level with Muslim terrorists toward both non-Muslims & Muslims alike, as well as the C/P wars in Ireland. I want the sources. Send them to peterlumpkins@gmail.com”
Your reply in the above paragraph is a complete straw man which only carries your self admitted misunderstandings from your first reply into the current reply. Whether you are doing this knowingly or unknowingly, one can only speculate. I can sympathize with your sentiment from #42 “One spends more time correcting superficial responses than having genuine dialog.” I never made the claim that people compared Muslim and Irish terrorists to the N/S divide in our country. Neither did my simile make that point. The comparison, just to clarify, was to say that as the simplistic answers for explaining other cultural divides-the violent ones included-neglected deeper cultural issues which would continue even if the trite answers were put into practice, in like manner, what divides our country is something deeper than simple theology. To have a name which is rooted in one subculture of our country is counterproductive at best to harmony and hospitality with our theologically near but culturally distant brothers and those waiting to hear the gospel. Again, I picked vivid examples because I assumed that there was common knowledge and that they would be readily understood.
That said, I will post the bibliography here because I believe the books to be of great value in expanding cultural understanding—something we desperately need in the convention!
If you wish to understand Arabs better [and understand the other factors relating terrorism beyond the Christian vs Muslim divide], read Margaret Nydell “Understanding Arabs” I don’t think she is even aware that southern Baptists exist.
Newsweek recently released an article of Taliban interviews. That article and general articles which let the other side speak will help one to understand how deep some of the issues go.
Roland Muller “Honor and shame” is another great book which explains the cultural presuppositions of the majority of people in the 10/40 window. Applied, this will help the reader understand how things that are “Islamic” such as honor killings and female circumcision may continue in spite of theological changes.
“Foreign to Familiar” by Sarah Lanier is a quick introduction to the nature of hot and cold climate cultures. It will demonstrate how many cultural confusions and divides are intrinsic. The facets of culture are beyond moral judgments of theological differences. Again, it will demonstrate how cultural differences can keep groups apart.
“Ministering Cross-Culturally” by Mayers and Lingenfelter will demonstrate the nature of cross cultural ministry and the changes necessary in the evangelist for effective cross-cultural communication.
John Macionis “Cities and Urban life” makes the point that what divided the south during the civil war went far beyond a simple “slavery is bad” “we are for states rights” kind of explanation to more cultural issues including urban vs rural, industrial vs agricultural, economics, and trade. Macionis also has put out major sociology text books which will help one understand cultures better. As a top Sociologist, I don’t think he cares about southern Baptists issues.
To help one understand the difference between a simile and analogy and how to properly understand and address the point of both I would recommend Copi and Cohen’s “Introduction to Logic” or the more accessible “Thinking like a Christian” by Norm Geisler.
To better understand the need for contextualized approaches to ministry and how we can be misunderstood by those who are culturally distant I would recommend anything by Paul Hiebert, particularly “Incarnational Ministry” “Cultural Anthropology” “Anthropoligical Insights for Missionaries” and “Understanding Folk Religion”
Dave: The SBC tries to evolve. Certain forces will favor the evolution, others will oppose it. Both forces believe they are right. We’ve seen it. A resurgence of Calvinism. Opposition. Plural eldership. Opposition. New forms of worship style. Opposition. A different attitude towards beverage alcohol. Opposition. A move towards regenerate church membership. Opposition. Great Commission Resurgence. Opposition.
You’re right. People fear change. That does not necessarily mean that all change is good, but it does mean that all change will be opposed.
Chris: I think you are on to the answer. Rightly or wrongly, the word “Southern” is not going away. But it doesn’t matter. We should just stop referring to ourselves as Southern Baptists, because, in reality, we aren’t. I’ve seen on the blogs over and over again that the SBC is not a denomination, so we should stop self-identifying as a denomination. I’m not Southern Baptist and neither are you. We are both Baptists whose churches happen to send some money to an entity called the SBC. I guess that would make the only true Southern Baptists to be the ones who receive a paycheck from the SBC.
Does that mean we need to change the name of this site to BC Impact?
David: You’d better consult your lawyers. It may be too difficult to change it now.
Bill,
Peter, I wonder why you cannot discuss things without resorting to this kind of rhetoric. As Christians we can share opinions and disagree without this kind of pettiness and silliness.
I stand by what I said. Many people have a deep-seated fear of change.
Any reasonable reader of this comment stream will see that you misinterpreted and twisted what I said and that your comment was way out of bounds.
Thank you, Bill, David and Rick for bringing a little levity after Peter’s detour into the slough of sarcasm.
Rick, that was really funny. I love the demotivators. I guess they motivate me.
Maybe could call our site “sbcIMPACT IF THE LAWYERS AGREE”
Dave,
Didn’t you know that Peter was on paid staff at
SBCBC Impact? Whenever he shows up, the number of comments always increases dramatically.Frankly, I thought this comment stream was dead (as perhaps it should have been.) I did a funeral today and opened by laptop back up and checked into the site. Lo and behold, there was a flurry of activity.
Frankly, I think your article today is more important than this anyway, and people should go read that.
Unfortunately, it is probably true enough that no one is going to disagree with it and get a good brouhaha going.
Maybe you should retitle your post and include Calvinists or Baptist Identity in the title to stir things up.
I could play the devils advocate to get things going but I am too busy working on my next non controversial post.
Fighting the urge to incorporate much of the material from this comments stream…
Maybe you can use the title I just suggested at David Roger’s post.
I got tied up with a funeral, but I haven’t forgotten you, Rastis!
The solution would be to change the name to the SABANATION BAPTIST CONVENTION and it would still be the SBC and everybody would be happy.
Then it would be well established that ALABAMA is the lead dog in the SEC and the SBC which is the truth anyway. All you boys are for truth, right?
Then that settles it. BUZZARD EYE boy, Dave Miller, you can make the motion in Orlando to change the name to the SABANATION BAPTIST CONVENTION and David Rogers can second it. The motion will pass with less than ten negative votes and those will be from DUKE basketball fans who have no character anyway.
We will still be the SBC and the logo can stay the same. Everyone will be happy. and I guarantee you baptisms will go up……especially in the fourth quarter.
cb
according to this posts ranking in comments above the “hills on which to die” the name of the convention must be one of them!
Brother cb,
If I remember reading the history books…weren’t you on the original committee in Georgia at the inception of the convention? Why the name? I thought you might have some insight.
Blessings,
Chris
Taking the comment I left with the least bit of seriousness, stuns me, Dave. Of course, it ‘twisted’ & ‘misrepresented’ and was filled with silliness. Spoofs and/or caricatures usually do blow things out of proportion. And in my mind that was my intention–a spoof.
Indeed I thought Rick’s follow-up at my expense was both clever and funny as well as David Roger’s dig about me being on the blog’s payroll. Either or both may have been dead serious for all I know but if they were, they blessed me with a perky little giggle when I read them.
Nonetheless, you feel you have been wronged and for that you have my deepest apologies. I am sorry.
And know I will avoid, in the future, if we exchange again, attempting to reference one of your comments in a humorous fashion.
Grace & peace.
With that, I am…
Peter
Rastis,
Why you chose to belabor to death a single objection to your point I have no way of knowing. I know where it began. But, from my perspective, the ‘nuking’ tactic because I disagreed with but one point you made–your using Muslim/non-Muslim conflict (& wars in Ireland) to describe the issue here, remains too fantastic for words.
Nor did I suggest you implied “hate” was a part of the equation. My point was and is the examples you cite are too radically different to be of use for us as we attempt to hammer out whether “Southern” ought to be in the SBC. The analogy (or apparently for you, simile) itself (i.e Muslim contra non-Muslim) contains…oozes intrinsic hatred. Not just hatred mind you but a significant hatred nonetheless. Moreover, I see a deeper theological grid in play than you apparently do when it comes to Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflict.
Thus “hate” is my premise, not yours. Nor did I imply it was yours, or at least certainly had no intentions of doing so. Rather hatred is an extension of the Muslim vs. non-Muslim image you cited (from my side of the street, that is).
And, because of my premise, I see no practical use for the example (which in my view contains hate). From my standpoint, surely no SB from either side of the name-change conflict is motivated by hatred for the other side, be it north or south. Once again, because of this, the Muslim vs. non-Muslim example remains nonsensical to me.
That’s it. That’s the substance of the disagreement–at least at that juncture. And you have my express permission, Rastis, to disagree with it and/or dismiss it all you wish.
Now, as for your bibliog, I’m afraid that’s not what I had in mind. But, for your effort, I thank you kindly anyway.
Have a good evening.
With that, I am…
Peter
Now evidently,
CB, so good to have you around. You were missed. sort of.
Peter, we joke around here all the time, as is pretty evident, and I love that – in fact, I am responsible for much of that.
I did not read lightheartedness into your comment. I read pointed sarcasm. Only you and God know your heart. If I misjudged you, I am sorry.
Chris,
Your wisdom astounds me at times. You are right. I was there, although rather young at the time (in my thirties).
I was young and not fully reformed yet, so I was, at the time, running guns to the King of Spain but a Baptist none the less. (I had already stopped smuggling Irish Whiskey into the Southland, because I had stopped using beverage alcohol at my conversion. And you know, smuggling whiskey is far worse than running guns for a true Baptist and a fellow has to make a living….and business was good.)
I was using the coast of Georgia as my sea port. It was May and a very pretty one in the year of 1845. Me and my boys (most of them were left over pirates from New Orleans after the War of 1812.) thought we would go over to Augusta for a little R&R.
When we got there we saw a big crowd at the First Baptist Church. Sure enough they were arguing about what to name the new convention.
As you know, my initials are CBS. My trusted first mate and famous pirate, Jean Lafitte pulled out his pistols and told the crowd that the name of the new convention would be the SCOTT BAPTIST CONVENTION (SBC)
Well you know me, Chris. Being the humble fellow I am, I said, “No Jean, let’s not name it that. Let’s name it after my homeland. We will call it the “SOUTHERN” BAPTIST CONVENTION. I don’t want people to think me prideful.”
Four Yankees from IOWA protested, but Jean shot them. After the smoke cleared, the vote was 100% in favor of the new name.
Later on, I named the SEC, but that is another story.
cb
I can’t think of anything to add. I just wanted to be comment 200.
Peter,
I only belabored the point because you asked for substantiation. Or was that the other Peter I was talking to?
“Nuking”? That is a bit dramatic… Does that imply intrinsic hate?
You have both affirmed that hate was intrinsic to my argument, and that it was not mine, but your point. If the two of you could get together and decide which case yall are making it would be helpful.
“And, because of my premise, I see no practical use for the example (which in my view contains hate). From my standpoint, surely no SB from either side of the name-change conflict is motivated by hatred for the other side, be it north or south. Once again, because of this, the Muslim vs. non-Muslim example remains nonsensical to me.”
You are right. That is nonsense. Good thing I didnt make that case… That is also why I said you were using a straw man. You [or depending on which post one reads, I] inserted a premise into my argument [or yours...] and then rejected it as absurd.
Since I never said that hate was not part of it [only that there are more factors than hate and religion alone], and since you said that it is not only hate [at least in your last post], Then it appears we agree.
Beyond terrorism, are we agreed that simply living our theology does not erase other cultural misconceptions? That was, after all, the original point in contention. We only went into terrorism because we have differing understandings as to the root causes.
Rastis,
Like I said–disagree or dismiss. Your have my express permission to do either or both to your heart’s content. For me, time’s much too lovely today to waste: I get to see my two precious granddaughters!
Hope you have a great day as well.
With that, I am…
Peter
CB, that was some of your best work.
cb,
I knew it, I mean I just knew you would set the record straight.
Of course you know that Jean’s guns were found and he was one of the first to inscribe a hidden biblical code on the body of the gun. For many that served with Jean He was known as one of the better committee chairs as the convention struggled in her infant years.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave Miller:
Is it not unbelievable that you blog about something as simple as changing the name of SBC and Peter Lumpkins and others feel the need to castigate you for even considering the idea.
It is this narrow mindedness and it can only be their way that is leading the SBC into decline.
Dave,
Tom Parker came over to my place and implied that I was beating up on you. That ignorant and ridiculous idea having been thrown out into public, I thought it important to come over here and place a comment into the thread.
For the record:
1. I like you, and have since the first time you commented on my site. I enjoy my interactions with you always; I cannot say the same for every person who comments on my blog.
2. I respect you and always take your posts seriously.
3. I believe that you are entirely within your rights as a Southern Baptist to launch a conversation about the name of our convention and to advance your argument. I understand why the particulars of your ministry might dispose you to advocate the position that you have advocated herein.
4. I disagree with you on this matter, but do not regard our disagreement as being important at all. I hope that my contributions to the topic are as substantive as yours have been and as Peter’s have been, and I hope that together we are able to provide some little bit of help to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention as they sort through all of this (presuming that this question will be coming to any sort of a vote).
I don’t know what everyone else thinks about this (except, of course, that Tom Parker thinks that this, as well as the risk of inflation and the designated-hitter rule, are among the uniformly evil legacy of the Conservative Resurgence), but now you have my thoughts.
Dave Miller:
Wow! Bart feels the need to come back over here and set the record straight. If he and the other guys were not beating up on you I’m really glad they were not beating up on you.
I feel very confident that Bart does not respect anything I post but I’m really ok with that.
I am probably going to get lynched for this…
Many have referenced the changes that would be required if we were to change the name regarding the nonprofit laws in Georgia. If we went through the time, energy, and expense, would we have to keep it in Georgia? Couldn’t we shop around and find a state more lenient nonprofit laws? After all, if we changed the name out of a heart to demonstrate more openness and less cultural homogeneity, what would say that better than moving headquarters to the north?
And now back to my bomb shelter in an unnamed location…
Yankee Baptist……..
For the record, I read Bart’s post and did not take it as any kind of attack.
As Bart mentioned above, I have the right to advocate change and he has the right to say it is a bad idea.
Actually, I thought Bart had some good points.
Well, as our old standby, says “Stupid is as stupid does.” I just figured out how to unsubscribe to the little box below the “Submit Comment” option. Silly m….NO WAIT! STUPID ME! What temptation now vanishes into cyberspace’s black hole. Bliss, I tell you, Bliss!
With that, I am…
Peter
In my experience, name changes, mission statements, purpose statements, etc… tend to be tools used by management to keep the workers busy and attention away from the internal structural problems and inefficiencies that could place management at risk. The thinking goes along the lines of “if we can just keep folks looking ‘over there’ until we’re rescued from our medicre management by the next improvement in the business cycle, we’ll be safe (until the next downturn).
Despite survey after survey that shows that the name on the door matters much less than the content beyond the door, this subject has come around again…and at precisely the time when SBC agency heads are in need of some slight of hand to avoid a real institutional analysis of how CP funds are being spent (and to what end).
I share William’s optimism that the GCR task force report will be something more than an occasion for some highly placed folk to stand in a platform and paraphrase former Pres. Clinton’s “I’ve worked harder on this than on anything in my life” about a report that, in essence, will say little more than “churches need to give more and states need to keep less or else the sky will fall on the SBC!”
The above are not my words, but a quote from Poster Jonathan, a devout Baptist Conservative on this topic in discussion in the SBC forum of http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
I found it spot-on, and notable and wanted to share it you folks here……sfox
Dave Miller:
I personally am glad that you did not find comments from some about the proposed name change to be an attack. I personally would question the spirit of some of the comments addressed to you.
I’m really glad that you are able to make your points and others make their counter points and that you all can shake hands at the end of the day and that you can continue to be in good standing in the SBC.
Just has not been the case for some. They are quickly labeled “Liberals”, etc. and no longer wanted in the SBC.
Good day!
We don’t need to think Southern, or American, our name should reflect that we are a world wide organization.
Rick:
Amen. Are not SB around the world or have I been mistaken and they are only in the South.
But some will always find excuses to keep their pets.
We send missionaries around the world, and we cooperate with churches and believers around the world, in different ways, and in different projects. But technically, the only churches that are officially members of our convention (with the exception of a handful of churches comprised mostly of American expatriates in some other countries) are located in the US.
Another strong critique of SBC leadership is made by the Conservative Jonathan of comment 212 at the SBC forum of http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
I would think many of you would want to take a look
Bart Barber,
I would like to know what is wrong with the designated hitter rule?
In my opinion, it give old men longevity in the limelight and a greater chance to achieve a place in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Are you a bigot against old people or are you just mad because your batting average was never above the Mendoza Line?
cb
I missed that part of Bart’s comment, CB. I’m glad you called it to my attention, causing me to go back and read it.
By the way, in addition to changing the name of the SBC, isn’t it about time that we went back and got the National League to adopt the DH?
I am guessing its more of that southern tradition that is holding that back.
Beyond joking, Bart has made some pretty good points (at Praisegod Barebones). If you have not had your fill of this discussion, it is worth going over and reading what he had written. Just click on Bart’s name in his comment above.
He give fairly convincing evidence that which we may not be an exclusively Southern Convention anymore, it is not all that inaccurate to declare us a Southern convention. I advocated in my post that the name had a deceptive effect. (At the risk of overkill, I corrected Peter about 5 times and he continued to say I accused the SBC of “embracing deception.” I said the name had an unintentionally deceptive effect). Anyway, Bart gives some solid statistical evidence about the demographics of the SBC.
I also recommend you read the comments made by “Louis” on the comment stream. I actually have no idea who he is, but he is consistently one of the most thoughtful and well-spoken commenters on the blogs. If I knew how to get in touch with him for permission, I would copy and paste his comments into this stream. Go over there to read them.
He makes the case for a new name for a new focus in our old denomination.
Of general interest…
It looks like the BGCT [texas] is looking at a name change. They are renaming stuff on their website [Texas Baptists]. Does anyone know if they are looking at changes beyond the surface? If so, that might be instructive to the conversation at hand concerning what kind of legal gymnastics there might be.
They probably don’t have the same charter problems that some have referenced.
CB, just this morning I skunked the Wii Baseball team 14-0 and coerced the game to invoke the mercy rule. I take offense that you have impugned my baseball skills, I demand satisfaction, and I offer you your choice of weapons, sir.
Bart, I like you a lot, but I’m scared of CB. I do not think challenging him in any kind of combat is a wise idea. I don’t care how very old he is. I just have this feeling he doesn’t fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
I would be interested to see opinion based on demographics. If there are Southerns who are for the name change, or Northerns who are against it. I wonder if there is an age distinctions, if younger SBC leaders and older SBC leaders differ in this area.
Dan, I made a comment earlier which would take longer to find than to retype. In this unscientific comment stream, we’ve had the following breakdown.
1) People outside the Deep South have unanimously been for dropping “Southern” and claim it is a hindrance.
2) Many from the south have said that the name is no hindrance or is too much trouble to change.
3) Several Southerners have also said the name should be changed.
4) A lot of people just think its much ado about nothing.
“Much ado about nothing”? How can you say such a thing, Dave?
Of all the topics that have come up on this list, has any generated as many responses as this one?
I read a blog post today that was very instructive. Instead of being an incendiary blog post, it was a deconstruction of one that was most arftully done.
See: http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/
And just as instructive as the blog is, the comment string is even better. I think more than a few of us will see some resemblance to things said here.
Rick, that link was absolutely hilarious.
So, the GCRTF report was strangely silent on the issue of the name change. What a surprise.
State Conventions need to gut up and gut Richard Land’s political action committee that fronts as a Religious Liberty and Ethics organization.
God is not pleased with the work Richard Land does for Karl Rove underwritten by the Cooperative Program.
And the IMB needs to cut its trustee board in half and save half million or more.