Georgia Missionary says name change for Southern Baptists "unnecessary" by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Eddy Rushing serves as associational missionary for the Northwest Georgia and Lookout Valley Baptist Associations in Rock Spring, perhaps the oldest association in Georgia. Recently, he wrote an opinion piece for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) concerning a potential name change for Southern Baptists >>>

Rushing writes:

One source proponents look to in support of this move is a recent Lifeway Christian Resources survey that found 40 percent of respondents held an unfavorable view of the denomination. This unfavorable rating has nothing to do with the name “Southern Baptist.” It has everything to do with what we believe and teach. Changing the name will not change an iota of what we believe and who we are

The study toward which Rushing points is available for download at Lifeway Research. While the study may offer some hint as to favorable or unfavorable attitudes of the American public toward Southern Baptists, the study fails to reveal the slightest information in understanding exactly why the public feels as it does. In short, the study gives Southern Baptists zero help in judging if the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) ought to change its name. Why, then, would we spend incalculable amounts of resources to change our name if we have no significant data helping us understand the reasons the public feels the way it does?

Indeed little, if any, sense can be made of name change advocates who insist on moving forward with a name change when they possess no real knowledge--that is, knowledge beyond personal but simplistic anecdotal stories about how they've encountered "difficult" persons who disliked the SBC branding--that name change is necessary. If Southern Baptists are going to spend untold amounts of potential missions monies on name change, they better be darn sure they have sufficient evidence before they rush full-throttle up a blind alley.   

Rushing went on to question the unorthodox protocol SBC president, Bryant Wright utilized in pressing upon Southern Baptists this issue:

The manner in which this was brought forward is not in keeping with the normal process of the convention. On other occasions, a motion to change the name was brought to the convention by a messenger at the annual meeting. The motion was addressed but either voted down by the convention or referred to the proper committee for consideration. This was not how it was done this time.

The president of our convention chose, without direction from the SBC, to appoint a committee to look into the possibility of a change. This way of doing things sets a dangerous precedent. What is the next issue that will be brought up in this manner by a president?... We just believe he overstepped his bounds in doing it this way.

Eddy Rushing's entire article in the AJC is worth reading.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[William Thornton]

Well, we've heard those arguments before. But the least Rushing could do would be to admit that (a) there is a negative perception of Southern Baptists, and (b) he cannot say for certain why that is. Ed Stetzer said: "The [LifeWay Research] study did not explore why some respondents hold a negative view of Southern Baptists."

Instead, Rushing states, "This [the LifeWay Research study] unfavorable rating has nothing to do with the name “Southern Baptist.” It has everything to do with what we believe and teach. Changing the name will not change an iota of what we believe and who we are."

"Nothing" and "everything"? We're into opinion here, categorical statements notwithstanding. Fine, unsubstantiated opinion noted.

LifeWay Research may not have put sufficient information on the table to persuade people, but they did put some facts, something Rushing did not do.

[peter lumpkins]

William,

You're just mad because you sold me your commentary on Romans too cheap.;&)

Now to the point. While I agree LWR placed soems facts on the table, the facts on the table, as Stetzer even conceded "did not explore why some respondents hold a negative view of Southern Baptists" which remains the only exploration whcih can give us any help whatsoever in determining the viability of a name change. That is, we don't know why the 40% were negative. Presumably, there would be a 'pie-chart' breakdown of the 40% revealing why people are negative. However, the possibility and even probability, for that matter, in certain demographics,that only a fraction post negatives which actually have anything to do with the name "Southern Baptist". Instead the majority of reasons may be that "we're too conservative" or "too strong in proselytizing" or "too republican" etc etc.

Additionally, I find it more than strange that not a single question was pursued concerning the term "southern" by itself. Why? We've already been assured that under no circumstances, "Baptist" is going to be removed. That only leaves "southern" and "convention." The latter is absolutely moot. So far as I know no one has mentioned a serious objection to "convention". Hence the only real question to asks concerns "southern." But Lifeway chaose not to deal with the term "southern" in their poll. How completely strange.

With that, I am...
Peter

[William Thornton]

I may have sold the Sanday and Headlam gem too cheap...but did I tell you I'm charging you $10 per day storage until you pick it up?

I don't understand why Ed Stetzer, our polling guru, sometimes doesn't seem to want to ask the right questions.

...but I am aware that my SBC colleagues like your AM there, like to make ex cathedra statements. That is the only thing that struck me about the AJC piece.