Name Change for Southern Baptists? Here we go again by Peter Lumpkins

Baptist Press released the Southern Baptist Convention President’s announcement that he appointed a task force to study the name of Southern Baptists  >>>

Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright has announced the appointment of a presidential task force to study the prospect of changing the 166-year-old convention's name.

Initially, I have to say, this is just plain wrong. We elected Wright to represent us here and abroad. And, what does he do?  Announces a task force to study changing our name. Excuse me?  Is tinkering with our name in the job description of the SBC president? Not the last I heard.

Even more troubling is President Wright’s audacity to appoint a task force, announce a task force, and approve work for the task force without soliciting any input from the Southern Baptist Convention. Of course, already this bold and unbaptistic move has been described by at least one task force member to be a raw act of courageous leadership. Al Mohler says, “During the discussion Monday night, President Wright demonstrated a strength of character that served the denomination well” (//link).

Sorry, Dr. Mohler. But you should have been among the first decrying such abuse of presidential powers. What Wright effectively has done is taken the entire process out of convention hands and put it in the hands of the president. With this type of top-down heavy-handedness setting precedent, do not think that it will never come around to bite you. Perhaps one day a president will be elected who appoints a task force, announces a task force, and approves work for a task force (without soliciting any input from the Southern Baptist Convention), a task force the duty of which studies The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, its unprecedented loss of students over the past few years, and why we're giving so much CP dollars to a school which focuses on a theology which 90% of Southern Baptists reject. I wonder if such a move would be applauded as a bold act of courageous leadership, or if historic Baptist polity would be pulled from the attic where many leaders, unfortunately leaders including yourself, have apparently stuffed it for so many years.

In the end, if Southern Baptists desire to change their name, so be it. However, to manipulate the process around Southern Baptists to get the question to the floor cannot be judged favorably by Southern Baptists. The truth is, one like myself is forced ipso facto against Wright's entire process in principle not because we necessarily negate changing our name. Like I said above: if Southern Baptists decide to change the name of the convention, then a name change we will have. Rather because there are those among us who unhesitatingly sidestep Baptist polity to get their personal preferences imposed upon Southern Baptists. President Wright unilaterally initiated a process for name change because he himself thinks we need to change the name of the convention, not because of a publicly expressed discontent from Southern Baptists at large.  One is inclined to think that at least part of the reason is because an absence of Baptist principle flows from some of our elected leaders and entity heads. 

I intend to write more on this. Actually, I wrote three pieces on this question a year and a half ago when some of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force members were floating the idea of changing our name (here, here, and here).

Finally, I suppose we must prepare ourselves to once again be looked upon as obscurantists, as backwoods, West Georgia rednecks who are hopelessly stuck in the 1950s.

So be it.

With that, I am…

Peter

Dr. Bart Barber has a defining piece on this issue entitled, “SBC Name Change Proposal”

SBC Today also gives a good report offering some highlights of the meeting which failed to make the Baptist Press edits “Breaking News: SBC President Proposes Name Change for the SBC”

Comments

[Al O'Quinn]

You have hit the nail on the head once again! Press on and keep us informed of the happenings in the SBC!

[Justin Owens]

I don't see it as an abuse of power to appoint a task force to advice the president as to whether this issue is worth bringing before the convention.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks, Al. Hope all is well...

Justin,

The president has no appointive powers apart from what's specifically given him by the convention. The president of the SBC is elected to represent Southern Baptists not to re-invent Southern Baptists.

Less than a decade ago, we flat turned down a recommendation to study the issue. So, it's clear Southern Baptists only recently expressed their will on the matter. However, rather than allow the SBC to openly vote on whether to proceed with what they had definitively and publicly rejected, Wright disses the normal process and sets a committee up on his own. Yes, that *is* an abuse of power.

Indeed it is not too much to say it's an in-your-face abuse which only adds more evidence to the already high pile of evidence that we continue to nudge toward a top-down, ecclesial model of church polity all the while claiming the contrary.

With that, I am...
Peter

[John Daughtry]

Thank you again for keeping us informed. I remember this name change came to the floor of the convention a few years back. The report that day was that it would take thousands of dollors in legal cost to change the name. It was stated that day that we should sent CP money more wisely than spending it on a name change.

[CASEY]

In 2007 a lady messenger went to the microphone and asked, "What is the cost going to be of having this 'Name change committee' bring us a report next year?" The answer was, "$250,000."
After the groans subsided she declared she was against it and the vote supported her concerns. So in these few years what has changed?
Wright talks about a "energy and unity" in PHOENIX this year. What? And the name change is "another move forward". Really?
That's the 'depth'(or lack of it) in your forming this committee? The truth is this is another step towards being "EVANGELICAL" and "LOSING OUR SOUTHERN BAPTIST IDENTITY". There is an agenda here...not so subtle any more and once again it's being fueled by the Acts29 crowd and those who want to pooh-pooh what the Conservative Resurgence fought so hard to gain. RISE UP YOU REAL CONSERVATIVE SBC INERRANTISTS!!!! WE NEED YOU NOW!!!

[Mary]

""Perhaps one day a president will be elected..... studies The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, ... so much CP dollars to a school which focuses on a theology which 90% of Southern Baptists reject.""

What are the chances of having a president going against the "annointed Pope of Louisville" when Al and Akin are now pre-ordaining who the next president of the SBC will be? Is anyone willing to run against Al and Akin's annointed and risk the label "rascist"?

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

It was unprecedented for a campaign for SBC President of the next convention to begin before current convention ended. But Akin started it in Phoenix. Unfortunately, that's the completely out-of-control atmosphere we experience now from entity heads.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

KC

You are correct. We are slowly making the SBC more "evangelical" than "Baptist."

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, somehwhat OT did Dr. McKissic ever post his "bluebloods" article? I looked but gosh I seemed to have missed it. This incident with entity heads deciding that "task forces" will now be put together by the "bluebloods" seem to fall right in line with the idea that there are those who want to go around certain "voices" in the SBC. A "president" assembled task force sounds legitimate to a lot of people who may not pay close attention to SBC business, but I think it was Casey who hit the nail on the head - this is a pure crass political ploy to force more "diversity" into our Baptist Identity by those who want an ACTS 29 convention. So when do we decide we need a task force to tweak the BFM?

[Mary]

OK, so reading around the internet, there's a huge disconnect between what is happening and what's being written. So here's the question for all those who are ok with the President of the SBC doing the unprecedented. You're ok with Wright doing this for an issue that you favor. The precedent is now set. So let's say the next president of the SBC isn't some patsy for Mohler et al and decides "you know there's a problem with two of our seminaries excluding from employment those who hold to the majority soterieolgy of the SBC - I think I'll do a task force and while I'm at it I think I'll commission a task force on the division and strife that's been caused by rabid Calvinist in the SBC." Of course that will be okey dokey artichokey! Because the precedent is now set! It's kinda like all those things that Bush did that were oh so controversial and fascist, but suddenly O does the same thing and it's within the President's authority. The issue isn't the name change. The issue is a President of the SBC wandering into an area that no SBC president before has dared tread. But you know let's ignore the real issue and blather about the name change.

[CASEY]

No offense ladies(Mrs. Hawkins and Mrs. Horner)...but you will note there are NO LAYMAN on this committee. Why? Because the laypeople are not the 'ruling class' 'the blue bloods' and a part of the 'elitists'. Yet, think of this, the overwhelming majority of those voting for or against a SBC-name change will be LAYPEOPLE. The LAYPEOPLE are already wary and skeptical of the 'ruling class' from the GCR(failure). This just adds #1 jet fuel to the already burning fire!!!

[CASEY]

One more thing for you "computer geeks". :)
I called Pres. Bryant Wright to leave a message knowing he is still in Nashville. I learned he owns NO computer, has no e-mail and depends on staff to keep him advised. Hmmmmmm... :) So your recourse is: JFBC
955 Johnson Ferry Rd. Marietta, Ga. 30068 or 770-973-6561 Give him your needed feedback.

[Debbie Kaufman]

My goodness, such overblown reactions.

The President has a right to gather a task force. He's not using SBC monies. Each person pays for their own way. He is simply studying the name change. We need to quit emphasizing Southern Baptist, as if it were the Bible itself,and focus on being evangelical. That is what the Great Commission and the Gospel are about, not the name Southern Baptist.

Also stick to facts. I read here made up comments that are not fact.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Excuse me, unless you can show where we've "made up" facts we'll assume you're just logging a protest.

With that, I am...
Peter

[John]

If we change the name, will you leave? That's enough reason for me.

[Max]

Lordy, Lordy, must we change everything?! From theological shifts to drifts in church polity ... and now a name change! Too much for these old bones to keep up with. Do you reckon "Baptist" will be in the new name?

God, forgive us. Help us to keep our focus and expend our resources as good stewards for Your name sake, not ours.

[Justin Owens]

Peter,

Bryant Wright plainly stated that this is not an "official" committee with any powers. It is simply to report to him and the EC whether or not this is an issue worth considering before the convention. He even clearly states that if a motion is brought forth to change the name it must be approved by messangers at 2 consecutive conventions. Dave Miller at SBC Voices wrote a good piece on this. http://sbcvoices.com/the-baptist-convention-answering-critics-of-bryant-wrights-task-force/

[Debbie Kaufman]

1. You write: "Initially, I have to say, this is just plain wrong. We elected Wright to represent us here and abroad. And, what does he do? Announces a task force to study changing our name. Excuse me? Is tinkering with our name in the job description of the SBC president? Not the last I heard.

Even more troubling is President Wright’s audacity to appoint a task force, announce a task force, and approve work for the task force without soliciting any input from the Southern Baptist Convention. Of course, already this bold and unbaptistic move has been described by at least one task force member to be a raw act of courageous leadership. Al Mohler says, “During the discussion Monday night, President Wright demonstrated a strength of character that served the denomination well” (//link)."

2. This is not a conspiracy. The comments and Opening post behave as if this is one great conspiracy.

And these are just the start of wrong information. I can go on and on.

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

It makes not a scintilla of difference whether Wright acknowledges the ad hoc committee has any "power". We know it does not have any "power". Hence, he didn't nned to inform us of that. The question is, does he have the power to appoint a task force for the SBC? He does not. He maneuvered in an unprecedented fashion to ensuring the question would be placed before the convention. suggest you answer Mary's question above: "You're ok with Wright doing this for an issue that you favor. [What about an issue you do not favor?]"

This move is a backhanded slap to all Southern Baptists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

The other thing too about the timing of this is that with the preordained next President anyone who would dare to oppose his ordination would be labeled rascist, I think we can see the discussion of whether to change the name pushed in the direction of race politics. "why do we want to hold on to our rascist past when we've finally evolved enough to vote in the President that the elites have selected for us, you're rascist who want to continue your hate and hold on to the name."

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Yes you could go on and on but you're not. If all you've got to contribute is a long quote from me and then, out of thin air, pronounce my words a "conspiracy theory" I suggest you're wasting my time and the limited space on this thread. Sorry.

Have a good afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Justin, the way the convention works this committee will be given "special" treatment because it's from the President - it will get on the schedule at the convention - thus it is a backdooring of an issue that has not been able to go through the front door. What other issues are you ok being backdoored because the poor dumb lay people at the convention won't let it go through the front?

[Mary]

Debbie, where the heck have you been? You're always good for a laugh. Debbie declare something is so and pooof it's so! She doesn't have to address any actual points with any counter points except that she declares we're all just tin foil conspiracy theorists!

[Justin Owens]

Peter,

I never said I was in favor of a name change. That is a big, and inaccurate assumption. Is the issue worth looking at? Sure. But there are huge ramifications to changing the name that probably outway the benefit of doing so. I couldn't imagine the wasted millions of dollars that would be spent to "brand" the new name & replace everything that says SBC or Southern Baptist Convention.

As to Mary's question, if the president wants to appoint a task force to advise him on something, he should feel free. Much like the President of the USA has advisors for issues that he's not an expert on.

[Mary]

Except Justin, this isn't a task force to advise the President. This is a task force to lobby for a particular issue that hasn't been able to go through regular channels. This is putting a legitimacy to an issue that has not been able to get any kind of momentum through the "front door" This isn't about advice. This is about a select few using the office of the Presidency to push a pet agenda onto the schedule of the SBC without having to get the permission of the SBC laypeople who have turned it down each and every time it's been raised.

[Justin Owens]

Mary,

It appears that the committe will actually report to Wright and the Executive Committee. If there's a motion, it presumably would come from the Executive Committee. The Chair of the EC is even on the committee considering the name change so they have a voice throughout the whole process. If they're not ok with it, then it won't make it to the floor of the convention.

And if everyone is so against changing the name, or so upset with how this took place, it will be quickly struck down at the convention meeting.

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

You write, "I never said I was in favor of a name change. That is a big, and inaccurate assumption." I'm not sure to what you're referring. I didn't imply anything remotely to what you're denying.

Justin, the issue is not the name change. Rather the issue is the president appointing a committee to study the viability of a name change.

Now as to your analogy that the president of the SBC may appoint a committee similarly to the President of the USA appointing a committee to study issues, I must sadly confess, reflects precisely why the SBC teeter-totters on disintegration.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Justin Owens]

Can anyone show how Wright has overstepped his authority as president? While it may never have been done before, and could be argued to be unwise, can it be shown that he didn't have the authority to do it?

[Mary]

And who didn't get a "voice" Justin in this whole process? Oh the messengers who with their voices time and again have rejected it.

You honestly think this isn't going to make it to the floor of the convention? Seriously! Mohler and Co along with the sycophants are already lobbying about what a great idea this is and you think the intention is not to get this on the schedule of the next convention? Why bother? All these people hand picked by the elites are going to use their time money and resources to "research" the idea as if there are some new thoughts about the ramifications of a name change all to say "Nah I don't think so." See me, I'm thinking the name is already chosen - look for something with the phrase "Great Commission" displayed prominently. Not only is it not a question that this task force will be presenting it's "findings" to the SBC but it's already prededermined it's findings are that we have to change our name in order to stay relevant because of the young people doncha know.

[CASEY]

Let me share a recent story of HOPE. At the PHOENIX SBC-2011 a young single pastor of a small church in Indiana stood up in a meeting of Conservatives that counted "21" in attendance. He offered his 'motion' to 'slap-the-hand' of Lifeway and our use of the gender-problematic version of the NIV-2011. With support in the room and the Lord he walked to a microphone during the business session and offered a resolution denouncing the SBC use of it. To God be the Glory the SBC listened, supported removing the resolution from the resolution comm., and brought it to the floor for support. It was overwhelmingly supported. Later two Seminary presidents supported the resolution. Sadly, the Lifeway trustees are(slowly) studying it...but the convictions and beliefs of Southern Baptists are in motion. We are a 'grass roots' led and initiated convention. Will I see you in NEW ORLEANS(2012) to continue the Conservative Resurgence?

[Mary]

And another thing....then I really gotta quit. People are acting like this is an issue that hasn't been brought up before the convention. Like Bryant Wright just got this great new idea all on his own and was so excited that he couldn't wait to get the approval of the convention so it's hunky dory for him to do this totally unprecedented "I'll make up my own dagblum task force" The convention has addressed this on more than one occasion. The convention has turned down the chance to even discuss this issue on more than one occasion. And don't think the elites didn't know that the will is not there to bring this up again at the next convention and have it go their way. But now we have the precedent that when the messengers wont' vote the way certain people like we'll just go around and force them to discuss the issue anyway. So basically, the precedent is now set that the messengers will be ignored, the President will do that which the convention has time and again refused to do, and somhow it's ok. The President is blatently doing that which the convention has time and again said no to? So none of those votes matter? But somehow the elites aren't getting more and more power hungry. Times like these I wish I had a mommy's basement to go hide in. Let me go find my comfy house coat and slippers.

[Mary]

Ok, and I didn't make the clear point I wanted to make. The only reason that Wright is proceeding in this way is because they cannot get this through the front door. So why on earth is this ok with anyone? Can't get it through what has been the legitimate historical way to get something like this done so we will just go around these dumb people who won't vote like they're told. People are absolutely ignoring that this is a poor crass politcal move to push through a controversial agenda all the while they are sycophantically saying oh but it's legal so what's the big deal. Why this way? and why now? (and for the record I'm rather apathetic to the idea of a name change, I understand the pros and cons - the biggest con being the multi millions it would cost to do, but the way the machine is being employed to push this through should offend anyone because it could be something you don't like next time)

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

I find it interesting that we always have people make the argument for the name change based on our forefathers slave-holding past. This is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst as it is an absurd argument. Changing our name does not change our Convention's past. No matter what our name, our forefathers owned slaves. It was wrong and sinful. The only way to divorce the SBC from our founding father's sin of slavery, is to dissolve the SBC and start a new Convention. Would it make sense for Georgia or Virginia or Alabama to change their names to something new in order to hide their past history of slavery? Absolutely not, that would be absurd.

On another note. What most people who seem upset with those of us who question the way this has been done by President Wright, are missing the whole point. He and the EC are acting in an entirely "un-Baptistic" fashion. Wright and the EC should have proceeded in a more circumspect manner by having the EC bring it to the Convention for a vote to appoint the task force. It does give the appearance that he and the EC have acted outside of the authority given to the President by the bylaws of the SBC. He and the EC has usurped the authority of the messengers and the churches that send them.

If we are going to discuss changing our name, let's do it right and above board. Let's be Baptist about it!

Blessings,

Ron P.

[peter lumpkins]

Justin

If you'll read the SBC by-laws, you'll find specifically what powers are vested in the presidency. And, you'll easily see there is absolutely no accommodation to setting up ad hoc committees at his leisure, especially a committee the full convention has only recently rejected from the floor of the convention. Which brings us to yet another way one can see this as an abuse of power.

Consider, for example, if I were to make a motion at the 2012 SBC for the convention to instruct the EC to appoint a task force to study a name-change for the convention. More than likely, the motion would be referred and, more likely than not, it would die in committee. It would never see the light of day. Compare that to Wright’s side-stepping the possibility of the motion dying in committee on the one hand with it getting defeated on the floor on the other. Through his committee appointment, he gets to keep his cake and eat it too.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Jeff Moore]

It appears some want to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention because of negative connotations. Here in the Bible belt even the name "Jesus" has negative connotations. Some use the name as a swear word. Some only use it on Sunday. Maybe our powers that be can find Him a new name with less negative press! Kill two birds with one stone.

[Ron Hale]

While the task force is studying this issue, do you think they should also study the potential name change of The "Southern" Baptist Theological Seminary? I'm just saying ...

[Mary]

Soooooo... Bryant Wright is soliciting suggestions as to new names for the SBC. I thought the purpose of the task force was to determine whether it would be a good idea and plausible. That Task Force sure done worked fast if we're already past the let's discuss whether or not to do it and moved on to OK SO WHAT's A GOOD NAME?

[peter lumpkins]

Well, I think "Southern" ought to at least be up for grabs in the seminary. Also, The "Southern" Baptists of VA as well as the "Southern" Baptists in Calif & Texas.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

And the media blitz begins? But oh no this isn't an effort to "force" anything on any one.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/20/southern-baptists-may-change-their-name/?test=latestnews

[Justin Owens]

Peter,

Agreeing reviewing the Bylaws & Constitution I dont see anything that prohibits the president from appointing a task force to study something & report to him & the EC. If there is something would you mind giving me a reference with a section number in the Bylaws?

God bless!

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

Do you mean something in the by-laws which expressly prohibits the president from doing such and such (i.e. setting up task forces)? If so, I'm afraid you're wasting your time. Who expects to look only for what is expressly prohibited in the presidential duties and/or qualifications? The cons/bylaws state specifically what powers lie within the presidency not what are not his powers, which could conceivable be hundreds--even thousands--of things he expressly cannot do.

As but a single example, the constitution does not specify whether the president must be a member of a church in good standing with the SBC after he is elected president. In fact, it does not expressly prohibit the president of the SBC joining a Methodist church the day after he's elected president of the SBC. But if it did, could he join a Presbyterian church? Sure! Because the constitution does not expressly prohibit joining a Presbyterian church, only a Methodist church. Even more absurd would be the president becoming a Mormon the day after being elected as President of the SBC since the constitution does not expressly prohibit his joining it. In other words, he could be a Mormon for an entire year while simultaneously remaining president of the SBC.

It may be responded how absurd to think of such a thing. Precisely! That's why it only makes sense that the constitution expressly states what powers are latent within the presidency.

Hope this helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Justin Owens]

Peter,

I understand that it won't expressly forbid something, but where does it even state exactly what powers the president expressly does have?

Thanks

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

Scattered throughout the Constitution and bylaws, there are indications of presidential powers. The instances below represent some of those powers:

Article V. 1. The officers of the Convention shall be a president, a first and a second vice president…

3. The president shall be a member of the several boards and of the Executive Committee

Article XI. 1. The Convention shall hold its meetings annually at such time and place as it may choose. 2. The president may call special meetings with the concurrence of the other officers of the Convention and of the Executive Committee

Bylaws: 1. Convention Session: B. The Convention sermon and president’s message shall be considered as fixed orders at the time designated by the committee on Order of Business.

8. Messenger Credentials and Registration: B. The president of the Convention, in consultation with the vice presidents, shall appoint, at least thirty (30) days before the annual session, a Credentials Committee…

10. Election of Officers:

D. The president, in consultation with the registration secretary, shall appoint the tellers.

11. Parliamentary Authority and Parliamentarians: The parliamentary authority of the Southern Baptist Convention shall be Robert’s Rules of Order (latest revised edition). The Convention president, in conference with the vice presidents, shall select a chief parliamentarian and assistant parliamentarians as necessary, to advise the presiding officers of the Convention on matters of parliamentary procedure…. It shall be the responsibility of the president and treasurer of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to sign, on behalf of the Executive Committee, any contracts or letters of agreement related to the services of the chief parliamentarian

17. Fraternal Messengers:

A. The Convention shall send a fraternal messenger to the annual sessions of the American Baptist Churches and the National Baptist conventions…

B. The fraternal messenger to the American Baptist Churches shall be the president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time of the meeting of the American Baptist Churches, and he shall also be the fraternal messenger to the other National Baptist conventions named. If the president is unable to attend, he shall be authorized to name another officer as a substitute.

19. Committee on Committees: A Committee on Committees, composed of two (2) members from each qualified state and the District of Columbia, shall be appointed by the president, in conference with the vice presidents, of whom one (1) shall be designated as chairperson... members so named shall be notified by the president in writing, at least 45 days before the meeting of the Convention. Their names shall be released by the president to Baptist Press no later than 45 days prior to the annual meeting of the Convention… The president may fill any vacancies on the committee when those originally named do not attend the Convention

20. Committee on Resolutions: At least seventy-five (75) days in advance of the Convention, the president, in conference with the vice presidents, shall appoint a Committee on Resolutions to consist of ten (10) members, any two (2) of whom shall have served as Committee on Resolutions members during the prior year, and any three (3)…

There are other stated duties and/or empowerments. I stand to be corrected, but at no place does it appear the president is expressly given “rights” “privileges,” “duties,” or “powers” to appoint task forces or committees to study issues at his discretion. Even more would it be problematic to suggest he has the “right” to form a “study” committee to engage an issue Southern Baptists have repeatedly turned down—money or no money to get the job done.

With that, I am…

Peter 

[Justin Owens]

Peter,

Thanks for the info. Question though, does the EC have the authority to appoint such a "study" committee? Just curious.

[peter lumpkins]

I think I know but let me check and I'll get back.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter