On our fabulously new but entirely optional name change by Peter Lumpkins

I'm off to the hospitals early today so I have no time to bloviate on our fabulously new but entirely optional name change for the Southern Baptist Convention  >>>

My initial reaction? I don't know whether to laugh, sigh, say "I told you so," or be angry. After all, they made a fairly big deal about our name, indicating in the beginning the absolute necessity of a name change for many reasons not the least of which is Southern Baptists' alleged dark connection to slavery. Now, after their intense "study" which comprised a whopping two round table discussions, they reveal that a name change remains impossible but a "nick" name will be optional. I'd like to see the mountains of data they considered to come out with that profound recommendation.

Question: do Southern Baptists not have anything better to do than sit around an executive table doing what C. Peter Wagner once called navel-gazing? Don't seminary presidents hace seminary business which needs attending? Don't mega-chuch pastors have churches to build? Don't state convention personnel have states to evangelize? Doesn't the SBC president need to be representing Southern Baptists--excuse me, Great Commission Baptists--somewhere? Doesn't the Executive Committee have the SBC to run until June?

I'll try to think through this a little more toward the end of the week.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Comments

[lmalone]

Imalone said "I am not sure Patterson cares as long as he is invited."

Clearly, you do not know Dr. Patterson. I do."

Note I said "I am NOT SURE..."

And you are right, I only know Patterson by his words and actions or lack of actions. I have disagreed with many an action but I won't list them here because Peter won't publish if I do. :o)

[Max]

Ron Phillips, Sr. writes "In all of these areas I never encountered anyone who had a problem with 'Southern'. The issue was Baptist and what we believe. If we are not willing to forsake the Word of God and tickle men's ears, then it will not matter what name we are called. We will not be liked as long as we are faithful in preaching God's Word."

Amen, Ron! Perhaps Lifeway's survey indicating an "unfavorable" opinion of Southern Baptists has more to do with our stand against moral degradation, than our namesake. Faithful pulpits in our ranks have certainly been in the face of American sinners on moral issues of our day: removing God from the public arena, alternative lifestyles, substance abuse, bioethics, break-down of the family, gambling, pornography, etc. etc. Why would Americans at large give us a favorable report?!

[Norm]

Do we remember that the giraffe is an animal designed by a committee? Apparently, not a single person on the name change committee has an ounce of branding savvy. Would to God that some on the committee had as much branding savvy as agenda. When is the last time IMB made a business machine? When is the last time AT&T strung any telegraph wire? The SBC has more than 160 years of brand identity. I daresay there is a marketing specialist on the planet who would advocate abandoning eight score years of such identity.

The mindset behind the name change began when many of the YRRs were toddlers -- when Jimmy Draper, then head of LifeWay (another Baptist brand sacrificed, this time on the altar of economic considerations), who said the young leaders needed (actually, whined for) a place at the table. Apparently the youngsters weren't satisfied sitting at the kids table. Now that they've gotten their 'binky', we are headed for even more childish decisions.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Louis,

My reply disappeared when I tried to send it yesterday. So I am sorry for the delay. I hope I was clear in that I do not believe this at all to be an issue of hyper-Calvinism in the least. I agree that Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) as a rule, are trying to preach effective sermons, to be sensitive and careful when sharing the Gospel, and yet believing that God is sovereign. I would not make a broad accusation of that nature against either camp.
However, it still seems to me to be a matter of an inconsistent practical application of one's theology to claim the name "Southern" is a hindrance to the Gospel. If it is, then a couple of the petals seem to be unable to withstand mild scrutiny. I'm not arguing against the theology on this point. I am stating that the hindrance argument coming from YRR's makes them the ones undermining their theological position. I can see where a non-Calvinist could argue for it being a hindrance, but not a Calvinist or YRR.

Your comment about being circumspect and not to give offense might be well taken if "offense" was the primary issue being raised. Some have raised it, but the issue I heard about the most was the hindrance one. But even the offense issue is not really pertinent. Others more eloquent than I have stated what a wonderful testimony of God's grace and forgiveness the members of the SBC have received in spite of our sinful past. If anything our history and God's grace to forgive us is a wonderful illustration of what God can do in the lives of sinners who repent. Murderers, blasphemers, liars, adulterers, slave holders, etc. can be forgiven by God and made new again! That is what has happened in the lives of those before us and today in the SBC. We have repented of our sinful past and God has used the SBC to be one of the mightiest Great Commission Missional people in the history of the world! Praise be to God for his magnificent mercy and grace. What a story the SBC has to tell. And we get to tell people that God can do the same for them!

It seems to me the only consistent argument for changing the name is that we do not want to be known geographically as Southern. We are a convention of churches that want to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. But who does it affect by having the name "Southern"? Is it lost people we are trying to reach? I doubt it as this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (Mary's comment above at 5:14 is a great illustration). Is it believers who are currently attending other denominations or non-denominational churches? Who is it? The only evidence presented so far is anecdotal.

I have stated elsewhere that I grew up in Illinois, lived in Germany, TX, OK, CA and served as a summer missionary with the HMB in Nebraska. In all of these areas I never encountered anyone who had a problem with "Southern". The issue was Baptist and what we believe. If we are not willing to forsake the Word of God and tickle men's ears, then it will not matter what name we are called. We will not be liked as long as we are faithful in preaching God's Word.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

David,

I think we could ask Al Mohler to foot the bill for the DVD and mailing costs. I understand he makes about a million dollars every three years, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that he's going to be there at least another three.

-- HMT

[Donald Holmes]

Imalone said "I am not sure Patterson cares as long as he is invited."

Clearly, you do not know Dr. Patterson. I do.

[lmalone]

True Reformed Baptists would not be pro nickname or for a name change at all.
"Louis gave the example of Tim Keller but he is very liberal in many
aspects of his teaching. When my church studied his "The reason
for God" it just about split up the church especially his teaching concerning creation. The home school crowd was ready to revolt.
He is also very egalitarian and his wife frequently teaches at Redeemer. He is soft on homosexuality in the Church."

Robert, While I have little problem with Keller's stance on "mutuality", I have serious problems with his "mysticism" and "contemplative" style. To be real honest, these YRR guys are presenting the Gospel in ways that keep people at the Cross forever...never growing in Holiness (never past the Reformed leader of course) staying totally depraved. That is where the mysticism comes in. Gospel navel gazing. My guess is that their love of power and position makes them think they are qualified to be a sort of Holy Spirit for their followers.

[lmalone]

"I think those tweets by Al Mohler speak volumnes. In his giddiness at his victory he shows a side that a lot of us have suspected for years"

Some of us have "seen" it for the last 15 years. What shocked me was his nerve to go public with his "well known in some circles", snarkiness and arrogance. He is not a nice guy at all. Very political and disdainful of those he thinks are not in his class. Remember, he got power very young. He knows nothing else. This is a man who had no problem at a very young age making sure a man near retirement got fired short of retirement for daring to disagree with a chapel speaker. Mohler has no problem ruining people.

As to Moore's tweet pic of Patterson. Most of us have sat in long boring meetings and done the same. While I am NO fan of Patterson's, this was disrespectful of Moore and it was tweeted for a reason. Patterson might go along but he will be a charicature of his former self around these guys. I am not sure Patterson cares as long as he is invited.

[Max]

You elite-tweet collectors might be interested in this one from the name change meeting: http://twitter.com/#!/drmoore/status/172053117171531776/photo/1

I'm not sure what to make of it.

[selahV]

Casey, according to another "source" with whom I spoke, that was not quite the way the DVD conversation went down. It was actually said, that they would "look into it" and they'd "see what they could do" to get the information to all the SBC churches before June. Maybe it will be a trailer-style piece like the one for Home Missions Giving...maybe it won't.

However, on another note. Perhaps that is exactly what we need. To see for ourselves how they envision what will occur with this "optional nickname". What have we to fear in seeing their ideas? After all, the horse is out of the barn. Let's have a look at its teeth. If God be for us, who can be against us?

As far as Dr. Mohler is concerned, that tweet doesn't mean he will change the name of Southern or adopt the name change himself. Did he speak to the issue? Did he sign onto it? Did he verbalize his support of the change??? Is he on record for the change?

Anyone got any solid sources like Peter is always calling for on this blogsite? just wondering. selahV

[Robert I Masters]

Also for the record..I know a lot more people in the Greater Siouxland area of Iowa, South Dakota , and Nebraska then Dave Miller. They do not reject the Southern Baptist name and Identity. They appreciated Southern Baptist World Changers for the work they did in many houses in Sioux City. Ask Stuart Dekkengga, Chief of Police in LeMars, what he thinks of Southern Baptist. Ask Bob Vanderplaats what he thinks of Southern Baptist.Ask the Dutch in Orange city, or Sioux Center. Ask the Hispanics in Nebraska.
Almost all will sing the positive praise of the "Southern Baptist Church".

Look even this black church in Baltimore calls itself Southern Baptist; must not be too negative a thing in a Northern Black church.
http://tinyurl.com/7hpv3ub

[Robert I Masters]

Mary,
True Reformed Baptists would not be pro nickname or for a name change at all.
Louis gave the example of Tim Keller but he is very liberal in many
aspects of his teaching. When my church studied his "The reason
for God" it just about split up the church especially his teaching concerning creation. The home school crowd was ready to revolt.
He is also very egalitarian and his wife frequently teaches at Redeemer. He is soft on homosexuality in the Church.

Emergent-Acts29 loving but not Reformed!

[volfan007]

Casey,

Thanks for the info. Wow! So, this study...which was not gonna cost SB's a dime...is now gonna cost us the price of 40,000 DVD's being made, and the costs of shipping them...

wow.

David

[CASEY]

David:
At the "presentation" on Mon/Tue of this week the "name-noname" committee asked informally of the SBC Exec Comm staff if they could get a "DVD out to all the churches in short order"? The staff responded, "Yes." This was not reported by BP.

[Max]

Christopher writes "Calling Paige and Jerry...Calling Paige and Jerry...Calling Paige and Jerry."

I suspect at this point, that ring won't be answered to the satisfaction of majority Southern Baptists. I'm not even sure we need to place that call any longer. It's probably time to turn the Paige.

As things unfolded this week, I kept wondering where another Page was at in this book ... Frank Page, President of the SBC Executive Committee. Baptist Press has published excerpts from his address before the name change task force delivered their report earlier this week. In the BP piece, Dr. Page was quoted in his father/prodigal son analogy "I'm convinced He's waiting for the Southern Baptist Convention to come home. I'm convinced of it. We can change the name, but if we don't change how we act, it will do no good," Page said. "... I believe our Lord will celebrate when Southern Baptists say, 'It's time we do what we do for the right reason.'" http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37227

"It's time we do what we do for the right reason." Dr. Page's exhortation was all about motives. I sincerely believe that his comments were directed at the hearts of some of the men gathered to examine themselves and their agendas. If you listen carefully to his words, it's not so much what he says but what he doesn't say that indicates to me that not all SBC leaders have surrendered.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Given the political machinations of this whole ordeal, I think it more appropriate to use the name "Great Commission Resurgence Baptists."

[Mary]

I think those tweets by Al Mohler speak volumnes. In his giddiness at his victory he shows a side that a lot of us have suspected for years. He's king of the world uhh SBC and can be as petty and unchristlike as he chooses and who will call him out? If his name were Caner there would be demands for his head today.

Howell, if people are going to wake up they're gonna have to do it soon. The SBC is about to go into full propaganda mode with videos about our racist past and looking to the future with all these "young leaders" Who could be against the Great Commission? A few years down the road they'll be talk that the Baptistsssssssss at the end has too much of a hiss and why don't we just "tweak" that too since it's unofficial and all.

I suspect that a few yesmen will tallk to whomever have been patting them on the head for their continued blogging on conpsiracty theories and wackadoodles and will have some posts soon on how great this unofficial name change actually is - it's a "win win" - the name is still officially SBC so what's your problem?

[Stephen]

Christopher, actually Patterson spoke staunchly in favor of the name change:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37226

"Since I was a boy-preacher somewhere back in the Pre-Cambrian era, I have been concerned that Southern Baptists needed to change our name. Every time the issue arose, I cast a losing vote contrary to that of some of my dearest friends. The logic that appealed to me then was as simple as the mind that assessed it. (1) We were no longer regional and (2) If the regional moniker were an offense, a barrier to some, used in turn by the Enemy to keep them from Christ, then we should remove the barrier. "

[Howell Scott]

Mary,

Spot on analysis of the political machinations. If the grassroots waits until New Orleans to "get it," it will be too late. Check and mate!

Hobart,

Dr. Mohler had one tweet which seemed (at least from my reading) to ridicule an EC Member's audacity to vote against even receiving information from an unofficial committee that should not have gotten a hearing at the EC. The tweet was as follows:

"A member of the SBC/EC just voted against receiving information. It does tend to cut down on mental clutter."

I appreciate the openness and transparency that some leaders are displaying, even before the Convention votes to "approve" a dual identity. It does make things ever more clear for grassroots Southern Baptists.

Christopher,

Dr. Patterson has made his choice. He will not rally anymore troops to stop what seems inevitable. I can't speak for his motives, but there is a principle which says that those on the winning side of history get to write the history.

Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Tim B]

Peter,

It is pretty clear how this is going to work its way out. All our sbc entities will refer to themselves as GCBs. After a period time folks will warm up to the name and there will be a push to make it official. Maybe this is the least painful way to change the name but who says it has to be changed at all. It is a way to force a name change w/o a real discussion or vote. We are utterly abandoning the very foundations of what it means to be baptist. I don't care for the name. Every church in the bible was named for its geographical location and I would think such an approach would fit a convention as well. I find it ironic that the very ones who pushed for the conservative resurgence saying that it was not missions but doctrine that united us have chosen a name that says that it is missions that unites us.

[volfan007]

Casey,

Where did you get your info on the 40,000 DVD's? And, who is making them? sending them? paying for it all?

Thanks,

David

[Rick Patrick]

At first I thought it was just a nickname, but a nickname is simply used by someone and it either sticks or it doesn't.

This is more than a nickname. It's an "unofficial, optional replacement name." If and when it catches on, at least some of the leaders believe it will grow to become the official name.

In the words of the Deputy Sheriff of Mayberry, we must "nip it in the bud."

[Mary]

Christopher, I told my husband that it seems like we have a lot of Hezekiah's in the SBC - "well, everything's ok for me, who cares about the future?"

[Christopher Bullard]

Patterson and Vines, Wake up from your nap. All you have to do is stir up the avg Southern Baptist pastor and church and you have enough people to shut the Akins and Mohler's down along with the YRR crowd. The question is : Are you willing to lead the charge or have everybody else do it because you want to make sure you have a seat at the Mohler and Akin table when the music stops ?? Are you actually scared if you stand up that you will stop getting invites to places or something like that. Get your troops up and we will stand with you and Vines.....You have the majority of the SBC behind you....just get busy or just continue to let Mohler and Akin put tape over your mouth . Has Akin said " Paige and Jerry you have had your time and now let me have my time " ??? Calling Paige and Jerry...Calling Paige and Jerry...Calling Paige and Jerry.

[Mary]

Howell, I'll look forward to what you write. It's funny watching the people who haven't quite "gotten" it yet.

The name is changed by not officially changing the name. Anybody who thinks that we are not being manipulated by master politicians after this is either just willfully ignorant or just too innocent to see the hardball political machinitions for what this really is.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Howell,

What did Mohler tweet and at which member of the EC?

-- HMT

[Robert I Masters]

The problem with this name is that it represents half of the message of the whole Word of God.
See Jesus said "Seek ye First the Kingdom of God" When we preach only the Great Commission we are leaving the Cultural Mandate off!
When we leave off the Cultural mandate we are not seeking the Kingdom of God First!
Let me give you a two current examples. Belmont university here in Nashville and Vanderbilt University here in Nashville. In both cases we, Southern Baptist with over 600 churches strong, have thrown out the command to obey the Cultural Mandate and soon may lose our ability to share the Great Commission.
BTW ...as a Calvinist I stand shoulder to shoulder with Dr Lemke to encourage Southern Baptist Churches to affirm the Cultural Mandate in this sphere!

[Howell Scott]

Just got back to NM from Dallas. On the road gave me much time to think and to re-evaluate my initial reaction to the proposal. I believe CASEY is about as close as you can get to understanding what is going on. I'll have more on this tomorrow at www.fromlaw2grace.com.

And, Mary, you are joking, right? Dr. Mohler really didn't tweet that,did he? No, he did. I just read his tweets, including a disparging remark directed at one of the members of the EC. As the Mendelbaums told Jerry on Seinfeld, "It's go time!" Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Sure would be timely to look at the denials by Akin, Mohler, Stetzer, Floyd, and Hunt right now to see what is true and not a "myth" now.

Just thinking.

[lmalone]

aaron, we have enough cult of personalies as it is vying for power and position. And you want to crown Driscoll as king. go figure.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Sure would be timely to look at the denials by Akin, Mohler, Stetzer, Floyd, and Hunt right now to see what is true and not a "myth" now.

Just thinking.

[Mary]

Casey, it's mind boggling the audacity of this move.

An unofficial task force has unofficially changed the name of the Southern Baptist Convention - all under the guise of "win win" and "non legal"

Aaron if we're arrogant enough to think we are the equilvilant of the NT Saints who began the church in the Book of Acts and worthy to add a chapter to God's Word why stop at Acts 29 - isn't that name, like, so five years ago? How bout we move on to Acts 30 now?

[aaron]

I was hoping for Acts 29 Baptist convention.

[CASEY]

MARY...plenty of room to be 'cynical' in the last few years...but I think one thing the 'elites' do know, is. if they don't let the messengers vote on this...there ABSOLUTELY will be a severe backlash. I'm already hearing from serious church leaders about 'fully designated giving'. The GCR has no idea what they've unleashed!!!

[Mary]

And just like that without a vote THE Southern Seminary is no longer a Southern Baptist Seminary but a Great Commission Baptist institution. Al Mohler declared it so!

"Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, got the ball rolling in a tweet on Monday night after the proposal was presented.

"Let the word go forth: THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary proudly is a Great Commission Baptists institution."

Associated Press

The name has been changed without a vote by our rulers.

[JND]

"The elite have spoken yet again and they've decided.'

I believe I'm starting to see a patern.

[Mary]

40,000 DVDS? They sure got a lot accomplished with no money and only two meetings didn't they?

So this is going to be a top down name change - everything "official" will be changed but you racist red necks holding on to your guns and flags can stay in the past where you don't care about the Great Commission and can keep your Southern pride.

Before a vote (is there going to be a vote since this is "optional") before a vote videos are made and all the official arms of the convention will "volunteerily" adopt the new name? The elite have spoken yet again and they've decided the name is going to change. Can trust the messangers to vote the right way? Go around 'em! Change the name and tell 'em it's all optional!

[Louis]

Ron:

I think the simple answer to the question is that man still has a responsibility. And that Christians have a responsibility to make disciples.

I think that there are some scriptural references where Paul, and perhaps others, talk about being circumspect so as not to give offense etc.

I don't believe there is any inconsistency with trying to preach effective sermons, to be sensitive and careful when sharing the Gospel, and yet believing that God is sovereign.

Charles Spurgeon preached with great passion and power, and was, I suppose, the father of illustration in modern sermons. He did that so as to make them connect with the hearers.

But at the same time, Spurgeon was an ardent Calvinist.

So, being thoroughly Reformed and thoroughly Evangelical are not mutually exclusive in historical terms.

In modern times, D. James Kennedy might be a good example.

He was Reformed, and yet developed an effective evangelism course. In fact, the PCA was, at one time (and may still be) very effective at evangelism. It's not my cup of tea, but to suggest that the PCA is not evangelistic would be absurd.

I mentioned in another blog that the PCA planted a church in Manhattan 20 years ago. Tim Keller is the pastor. That is a tough mission field. Thousands attend that church today. It is thoroughly evangelical and presents a very clear Gospel witness.

I know that the SBC launched a strategic cities initiative in the large cities around the same time. I am not aware of an SBC church plant in Manhattan that has had an impact anything like the impact that Redeemer Presbyterian has had.

I know that the PCA, before planting that church, thought very hard and engaged in lots of strategic planning, that included trying to understand the culture of Manhattan, NY, NY.

So, I am sure that the Reformed camp sees nothing inconsistent with trying to be evangelistic, and being strategic in evangelism and church planting efforts and believing in the sovereignty of God.

[Mary]

I was so hoping for the Skippy Baptist Convention so we could remain the SBC.

Ron, the YRR is all about rebellion. Everything the SBC has done is wrong and so must be rejected. To the YRR we're all a bunch of idiots who don't know anything and it's up to the YRR to rescue the SBC (or if you are not a racist Southern pride loving fool who doesn't know a lick about the Bible GCB).

I am just so glad that the church planters have been given permission to stop introducing themselves as "Hi I'm Skippy, from the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention is going to plant a Southern Baptist Convention church here because the Southern Baptist Convention really cares about this here community as the Southern Baptist Convention cares about communities across the globe. Would you like to come to a Southern Baptist convention Bible Study where I'll use materials from the Southern Baptist Convention in ways that I learned at a Southern Baptist Convention school so that we can inculcate more members into the fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention. Did I mention this church plant is funded by the Southern Baptist Convention?"

[CASEY]

40,000+ DVD's are being prepared to "sell the story" of the "NO NAME CHANGE BY THE NAME CHANGE COMMITTEE" to be mailed to all SBC churches so they "clearly understand" the issue. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....this was the 'no cost' committee wasn't it? What happened to that idea?
Sadly only 5 brave souls, with little discussion, voted against the "name change" issue.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Not to pour gasoline on two open fires... I am not being flippant or trying to find a "gotcha" here. But I really have seriously wondered about the following over the last several months.

Based on the many statements by YRR's about the name being a hindrance, why would YRR's care or want to change the name of the SBC? If they are Reformed and hold to the TULIP or at least four points, and if they believe in unconditional election, and that grace is irresistible, what effect does the changing of the name have on anyone being redeemed by Christ? I'm not talking about hyper-Calvinism here but seek to find a logical consistency of theology and practice in the desire of some to change the name.

In other words, if one's theology would presuppose that the name of our Convention does nothing to bring about or hinder someone coming to Christ, why the uproar by YRR's to change the name? I can understand the reasoning of others even if I do not entirely agree with it. But not the YRR's.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[volfan007]

Peter,

Will you be attending the Great Commission Baptist Convention in New Orleans this year?

David

:)

[Michael L. Ford, Th.D.]

I am wondering how much this piece of genius cost?
The change to Lifeway because some are embarrassed to be called Baptist and embrace Baptist belief which extends back to the early church is disgusting enough.
Then there was the HCSB. I reviewed the New Testament up into the Gospel of Mark against my Scrivener's Greek text and quit in disgust. Then I wrote "Mud on the Romans Road" and "The Critics Examined." I was there the day Dr. Patterson said that thing was done, $14 million worth, because they did not like paying NIV royalties. There was a simle solution to that too. Since these Last Days hirelings are so embarrassed by what has been a great name, which never kept me from preaching in Black Churches by the way, I now identify myself as a Messianic Baptist.
Michael L. Ford, Th.D.
jonsquillministries@yahoo.com

[Max]

Casey has nailed it on the head. YRR social media were abuzz this morning with this development, while majority Southern Baptists were still asleep in Zion.

[selahV]

Casey, In the blogosphere streams, some are already saying (in agreement with you) that this is just the first pass. The touchdown will come when it is made permanent. selahV

[Max]

My daughter teaches a rag-tag bunch of first graders. Most are from broken homes. Many bear a different last name from the one their current father has. They are not sure what their real identity is.

I was particularly struck by Brother Draper's comment in the Baptist Press article "The goal from the beginning was to consider the removal of any barrier to the effective proclamation of the Gospel and reaching people for Christ."

As if any name of any denomination could be a barrier to the Gospel message!! I was reminded of Acts 12. At the beginning of that chapter, James had just been beheaded, Peter was in prison, and Herod was basking in his new popularity and power. At the end of the chapter, Peter is free, Herod eaten by worms and dead, and the Gospel message flourishing! Call it what you will, but no name or power on earth can stop the Gospel - it's unstoppable!

Great Commission Christians under the banner of Southern Baptists have been carrying the Gospel torch effectively throughout the world. YRR church planters have been handed a compromise from SBC leadership - even though they didn't really need it since they have already been using cool church names not describing affiliation for years.

[Louis]

Peter:

You wrote, "I don't know whether to laugh, sigh, say "I told you so," or be angry."

I don't disagree.

I understand why the committee did what it did, that is, not recommend a name change.

But beyond that, it seems weird. The nicknaming is strange. And the nickname is bad.

Even our local paper here in Nashville had to explain what "Great Commission" meant.

I am one of those who support the use of an assumed name.

But the committee obviously felt like it did not have support to really propose anything, so it didn't. Kind of...

Someone said this would have to be voted on at the Convention. Why?

A Baptist church can do what it wants. I don't think they need permission.

The only reason to vote on this would be to give permission to the Convention to hold itself out as "Great Commission" Baptists.

[CASEY]

What we have witnessed is a stroke of ""GENIUS""....that is, if it passes in N.O. this June. Genius in the eyes of the "Emergent-Acts29" crowd who pushed this agenda...saying that the young upcoming leaders and their followers will "go somewhere else" if we don't accommodate them. Try and think how this will be viewed in the next 8 years on our literature and logos. It is a "name change" without a "name change". As the YRR crowd "takes over" the "SBC" font will decrease gradually...at the same time the "GCR" font will increase. This is a camel with his nose stuck in the tent who will not be satisfied with playing second. Make no doubt...if passed, the wheels in motion to "take over" without "taking over" are in place. All the while the "elites" will tell us "the messengers said it was ok".
Do you ever feel like Zell Miller D-Ga.? Who gave a speech at the GOP Convention saying(as a Democrat), "I've lived in this house many years and I feel strange in my own house....finding out that people I don't know have moved into the house."(paraphrased).
Well, I've been in the Southern Baptist 'house' a long time and I don't recognize these people who think alcohol is tertiary, homosexuality is a no-win strategy, pro-life will chase people away, leadership can't be a big-deal in the diverse culture we live in, and a "name change" without a "name change" will have no negative affect on us.
Give me the 'tellers of the truth' who seek to lead us to 'righteousness and purity'.
This effort at best is "window dressing" on a Spiritual problem and at worst a "wide open door" to a new diversity we can't even imagine yet....

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Well, I was convinced this was going to go the other way because they did not consult any true experts (organizational development or branding) to get an objective view.

But, despite ...

... the Ed Stetzer controlled LifeWay poll which he spun negatively as an apparent attempt to counteract a genuine Zogby survey conducted on behalf of the SBC in 2006 (Zogby showed that everywhere Southern Baptists had ministries that touched lives, Southern Baptists were viewed favorably. Check the favorability ratings here:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=24344) ...

... AND ...

... despite attempts to quash previous research findings against a name change (Here is the 1999 report that stated its findings about the overwhelming legal obstacles, financial costs, etc.: http://baptist2baptist.net/pdf/NameChangeBKG_02_99.pdf) ...

... the task force (even after conducting two roundtables :^) ) could not get away from the realities of the overwhelming legal, financial, and name recognition factors that made such a proposition untenable in the first place.

[volfan007]

Bob,

You win the prize, Brother. lol

I'm stealing this one, BTW.

David

[boB Cleveland]

As someone once said: "The mountain labored, and gave forth a mouse".

[selahV]

Peter, come on now. tell us how you really feel

[Bruce H.]

From what was presented and made available to us as laypeople, we did not know what the "charge" was to the committee looking into the name thing. Were they given a charge to "Find a new name!" or "Should we consider a new name?". I was not aware that the charge was to provide an "Optional new name until it caught on". This seems to validate my point about the well educated. My point is, the brain may be full of knowledge to do great and wonderful things, but we are still just human where the heart resides. Now, back to work we go.

[Philip Miller]

Do you mean to tell me all that heart burn about the boogey man who taking over the convention was only that; heartburn about a boogey man? Maybe that's the better question. Don't Baptist pastors have better things to do than"bloviate" on blogs?