Excursion: What’s in a Name? Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

In Part I, we considered the current call to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  While today’s thrust appears to be generationally-driven (though not exclusively so), it would be a mistake to assume the age of the name-change advocate plays a primary factor historically.

To the contrary, neither age nor even the theological perspective (that is, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal) stood out as the primary motive for dropping “southern” from the official name of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Therefore, as a side-note I may pick up later, beginning in 1958 and ending with Dr. Jack Graham’s proposal in 2004, with no exception I can see, the name-change focused exclusively on “southern” in the SBC.  However, the move to change the name today is so bound up with other issues, that it is virtually impossible to unravel them. 

And, while I am not prepared to argue the point at this time, I believe a reasonable case can be made that not only do many name-change advocates desire “southern”  expunged from the SBC, but also, when all is considered, they desire “Baptist” to be buried as well. 

That leaves us with “The Convention”, hardly descriptive, mind you, but pretty cool, wouldn’t you say? 

Even more significantly, “The Convention” surely holds no negative connotations, cannot be accused of regionalism, and best of all, it oozes exclusive, global unity:  there’s only ONE convention--THE Convention.

With that, I am…

Peter

Part I

Excursion

Part II

Part III (Conclusion)

Comments

[peter]

GABaptist

Sure! Pipe in, out, and all around! I appreciate your participation. Interestingly, all things being equal--meaning if no real hindrances existed to a name-change in space-time reality--and a vote came up tomorrow, I'd either abstain or vote yes (on the "Southern" part). I most likely would not vote no.

You're right, however. Not only is the name-change craze tain rolling, but the last stop would be to haul off "Baptist" as well.

Grace. With that, I am...
Peter

[gabaptist]

Brother! Can I pipe in?
The name change is indicative to the ongoing trend...to lose all names of denominationalism.
Examples: Foreign Mission Board, now International Mission Board (Nobody should be 'foreign'...btw, the new idea is circulating to just say IMB without the wording)
Home Mission Board, now North American Mission Board (Canada and Mexico are now continental, not foreign)
Baptist Book Store, now Lifeway (Heaven forbid you buy any books from those Baptists)
SBC Annuity Board, now Guidestone (Don't tell your church that you are investing in those Baptists).

Now, the problem historically...how can you claim any tradition when you change your name? The name could deny the past. Besides, "Baptist" would have to be next. Who would want to tell the world that you actually immerse? You would rather have a community or Bible logo, so as not to offend? :)
I'm a country Baptist preacher of the South. I understand the problem elsewhere, but no problem here.
GABaptist

Spencer King Jr., Mercer history professor (c. 1948-1985) "What's wrong with the Southern Baptist Convention is--it is too southern, too Baptist, and too conventional."

[peter]

Zachary,

You are very welcome. And I'm glad some of my ramblings may be helpful in some small way.
Grace now.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Dave,

I am sure Brother Peter will probably pursue this perspective so I will not do anything to steal his thunder. However, have you considered the legal ramifications and how that may play out on the polity of our convention?

Also, you say; "When you work outside the Bible Belt, the name Southern is not one you want. If you want to reach Iowans, tagging your denomination as Southern is no big help." I know we "southerners" are a bunch of ignorant rednecks to Iowans. That is ok because that is the nature of the beast.

But, let me get this straight. You are in a church that freely affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention and you are saying that you have problems encouraging other Iowans to come to the church because you have "southern" as your denominational affiliation? Have you thought about changing your church name? If your thesis is correct then it is your church's name (Southern Hills Baptist Church) that is keeping people away, not the name of the convention. Have you ever considered before you ask a denomination to change her name you ask those Iowans to change theirs?

Blessings,
Tim

[Zachary Pruett]

Thanks for the visit to my blog, Mr. Lumpkins!

I am interested what you're writing here and will be sure to check back for more.

God bless,
Zachary

[Dave Miller]

I would like to see the discussion of these two issues remain separate, and I think they are different issues.

Using the name Baptist is fundamental to who we are.

Using the name Southern is both deceptive (I think) and detrimental (to our stated purpose.

It is deceptive because we are not trying to remain a regional convention. We want to be a national denomination, right?

Why not just call the whole convention "The Iowa Baptist Convention"? Ridiculous, right? We Iowa Baptists are a small part of the whole convention. Well, the same can be said of you folks with the drawls. You are certainly a bigger part of the denomination than we are, but you are still only part of it.

Why do we name our WHOLE denomination after only a part of it? Why do we exclude those of us outside the Bible Belt from the essence of the denomination?

The name is also detrimental. When you work outside the Bible Belt, the name Southern is not one you want. If you want to reach Iowans, tagging your denomination as Southern is no big help.