SBC name change: it's good...it's bad...it's ugly (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

Summarizing Part I, I explained the good, the bad, and some of the ugly stemming from this last attempt to change our name spawned by SBC president, Bryant Wright's appointing  of a "task force" to study the name change last September (2011). As for the good, "Great Commission Baptists" (GCB) surely captures the ideal of what and whom Southern Baptists have been throughout their history. From the moment of our beginnings in 1845, Southern Baptists have been, at their best moments, about carrying out the Great Commission of our Lord. Few, if any, imagined arguments could usurp this proposition  >>>

Even so, the bad about this name is, while it speaks to us about us and speaks to other Christians about us, "Great Commission Baptists" possesses little, if any, more explanatory power to our culture in particular and the global community in general about who we are and what we are than our present, time-tested name--Southern Baptists. The truth is, "Great Commission" is the language of the church, the language of the gospel-initiated. People familiar with Christ's words to go and make disciples, preaching the gospel to every creature, as constituting the church's undeniable assignment (Matt 28:18-20; John 17:5; cp. Mark 16:15) will surely understand our focus on the Great Commission. Unfortunately, the uninitiated, untutored, gospel-illiterate culture will most probably lack the faintest clue what "Great Commission" means.

If I am correct, what benefit will a "tag-line" offer Southern Baptists if it lacks literary power to explain to the larger population who and what Southern Baptists are? For my part, this may pose reluctance on the part of some to quickly climb aboard the name change bandwagon if for no other reason than "Great Commission Baptists" has, deposited to its credit, no empirical evidence to suggest the faintest probability that it will add tangible benefit to the Southern Baptist Convention. Are we to understand that the task force has proposed "Great Commission Baptists" because they feel it will give Southern Baptists more cultural likeability with less cultural liability toward greater evangelistic opportunity? If so, we ask the task force to present their case to Southern Baptists so we may decide for ourselves (more on this below and Part III).

We also noted in Part I how some are already greasing the bucket against those who have expressed reservations about the name change principle and process. Both Bryant Wright and Jimmy Draper framed the question about name change and the task force's decision for "Great Commission Baptists" as being led of the Holy Spirit, with Dr. Draper explicitly stating, "this is a name...nobody can object to the name...Great Commission Baptists. It's a way hopefully to focus our people again and thus encourage participation" (video embedded below; cp. Bryant Wright's words at approximately the 18min mark; Jimmy Draper's words approximately 21:30 mark). Is present in this assertion some sort of implication that if  Southern Baptists are following the leadership of the Holy Spirit in June, then we will come to the same conclusion? Again, given Draper's confidence that "nobody can object" to the name the task force has chosen, should Southern Baptists therefore view those who might try to object as the popular but mythical "crazy uncles" we're all supposed to love and tolerate in the SBC?

We find some other rather "ugly" implications in the task force proposal. Given the optional nature of the name change "tag-line"--that is, one church has it and another does not; one state convention adopts it, another does not; one association embraces it, another does not--how does this proposal reflect unity as Great Commission Baptists? We cannot tell.

Contrarily, it remains fairly easy to comprehend how an endorsed optional approach reflects the opposite--chaos, factionalism, and competitiveness. It's true we already possess liberty to not publicly affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention via name. But to have an officially endorsed option, how long will it take before one church is pitted against another, one association against another, one entity against another? How long will it take before sides--new Baptists and old Baptists--forge along the fault line between GCB and SBC? Haven't Southern Baptists already got enough factions without officially endorsing one on the convention floor of the 2012 Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans?

In my view, then, Wright's task force may have unintendedly created division where no official division necessarily existed. They have effectively recommended that Southern Baptists divide. How Dr. Draper thinks this is a "win/win" for Southern Baptists when it officially sanctions us dividing up along the lines of different names has not been explained.

Also in the press conference (originally posted Monday, Feb. 20 and same as linked above) Draper and Wright brought the racial issue back into the spotlight suggesting that since Southern Baptist origins are tied to slavery, then Southern Baptists need to change their name (approximately 22:30 mark). I personally grow weary of this particular reason for name change being publicized as if Baptists in the south somehow were alone in their skewed, morally repugnant acceptance and defense of slavery.

Virtually every Christian denomination embraced the godless institution of slavery as did our own civil government. To cite the south as if it alone remains worthy to take the lion's share of condemnation for slavery's existence because it was chronologically one of the last bastions of a long-line of slavery-supporting constituencies before falling to abolition's righteous crusade seems too incredible to take seriously. The truth is, if ones early (and unethical) position on slavery remains detrimental to ones identity now, consequently calling for a name change, perhaps we shouldn't stop with Southern Baptists. Indeed would it not require we drop "church," "Christian," and "Christianity" from our ecclesial vocabulary as well?

I would also argue, if Bryant Wright and others are correct, and it's morally imperative to create a distance (i.e. name change) between our Southern Baptist forefathers and Southern Baptists today concerning slavery, then not only making our name change into a mere "tag-line" add-on while retaining the offending name fully intact, but also making the change optional surely constitutes one of the most cowardly, sideways insults one might imagine.

Consider: if our name genuinely and morally offends; and we are concerned it definitively hinders both our effectual evangelism and healthy relationship with African Americans as well as other minorities; and that we are morally compelled to put substantial distance between our sinful roots and today's mature ethical position on slavery; then we have no right to retain our name regardless of the cost to change it. If it is morally right to change our name, then we dare not cite legal, fiscal, or other hardship costs prohibiting us from doing what's right and moral and good. In short, if Wright and Draper are correct that our name morally inhibits our service to God, including the effectual preaching of His Son's gospel, then it seems that anything less than a full name change remains personal preference at best and moral hypocrisy at worst.

Somewhere Martin Luther King, Jr. said something like, "I can forgive a white man for taking my pencil. But I can't reconcile til he gives it back." The task force apparently wants to confess on one hand we stole a lot of pencils, but on the other, they're not willing to give them back. Why? It's "too costly," or there are "legal barriers." Since when did our Lord place a price tag on doing the right, the good, and the honorable thing?

This is the dilemma in which the task force placed Southern Baptists by framing this issue (or allowing others to do so) in moral terms and bringing racism into the equation. If we accept the "tag-line" of "Great Commission Baptists" as sufficient but optional, all the while Wright and Draper frame the name change decision in moral categories by insisting our ties with our racist past must be severed, we're, in effect, accomplishing little more than soothing our own pitiful consciences while once again morally insulting the African-American community.

Southern Baptists ought to change their name if a name change is morally required; and we ought to change it both fully and legally no matter the costs to doing so. Pinning a "tag-line" on the end of our name while actually keeping the offensive moniker may be the cheap way out. It may also be a very easy thing to do, and do with the least resistance. Granted. Nevertheless, we are not called to do cheap and easy things; nor are we called to do those things which manufacture the least resistance.

Rather, we are called to do the right thing. And, contrary to the task force, the right thing is never optional.

With that, I am...

Peter

Part III up next 

Originally posted Monday, Feb. 20. Updated 1:10 p.m. Eastern Thursday, Feb. 22 with updated estimate of members present for vote

Comments

[Les]

Peter,

I'm not quite sure what I personally think of the name change thing. I can see both sides. Why change what has arguably been a great and historic name that has way more credibility than not. On the other hand, I can see where some feel that it hinders them in some locales.

Interestingly, I worshipped yesterday at Redeemer Fellowship in Kansas City. It was a great worship experience attended by about 1200 people in two services. It is in the heart of downtown KC.

Their webpage describes what they believe and who their partners, if you will, are. SBC is not mentioned on the website as far as I can see. I had to go the association website to see if they are SB. They are. http://www.redeemerkansascity.org/

Seems to me that congregations like Redeemer are already choosing to not use SBC if they believe that is to their benefit. I suppose with local church autonomy that is ok. So I don;t think the name change will affect churches like Redeemer at all. That's probably the case with many SBC churches like Redeemer around the country.

BTW, great sermon yesterday and no mention of Calvinism. Purely biblical and gospel centered.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Thanks. The truth is, it's hard to accept arguments from those who insist on name change because they rarely offer compelling reasons. Perhaps the most compelling is the "southern" is a hindrance. But, as you rightly observe, no one compels a church to openly identify as SBC. Even NAMB since the late 90s or so have been encouraging new church starts to have "Southern Baptist" in their name at their own discretion. So for Draper to suggest we've never really encouraged that or told people it was "OK" is grossly unfair.

But to make things worse, we want to "vote" on something that is optional. Why? Well, let me make a prediction. Watch the entities--without the least concern from SBs who fund them--change their monikers overnight--at least those entities which have been GCR advocates. "Top-down" decisions in the making...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

National Public Radio conducted an interview with Bryant Wright regarding the SBC/GCB name change. That exchange provides some insight into what SBC segment was primarily driving this and why now.

NPR: “Now, you called a taskforce to debate the issue of the name change. How was this issue first raised with you?”

Wright: “Especially from younger pastors beginning new churches in different parts of the country …”

NPR: “This has been a long-going discussion. What does it say to you that this is the year that people talked about it so seriously?”

Wright: “… because our North American Mission Board has such a huge focus on planning new churches outside the South …”

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147301485/southern-baptist-convention-debates-name-change

[peter lumpkins]

Let's see: this is driven by young church planters? Planting churches "outside the south"?

I wonder how many voices that constitutes over the whole scheme of things? I wonder also how many of the church planters felt compelled by NAMB to identify their church start as Southern Baptist? I wonder also how many of the church starts are also partnered with either A29 or SGM?

With that, I am...
Peter

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

If we were going to start from scratch on a new name, we might consider "Southern" Baptist ... as supported by this graphic: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

[Steve]

My church history teacher at Southern Seminary in the early 2000's explicitly denied that Southern Baptist origins were tied to slavery - said beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery had no implications in the Southern split of Baptists. Guess he didn't get the memo...

Oh, and I'm a church planter (not a young one :) ) planting in the Phoenix area where less than 10% of the population believes in Jesus. The name Great Commission is as foreign to them as Southern Baptist...none of them are going to "come" to church no matter what I call it. That's why we "go"...

[Les]

Maz, I realize that graphic is 12 years old, but still...that's stunning.

[selahV]

Steve, such a great word: "Go" I was incredibly impressed by those who "came" and "told" and then "showed" me the Gospel. Wasn't long after that I "followed". Much later I discovered that they were Southern Baptists commissioned to do so. By then I was sold on Jesus and simply wanted to learn more about Him. So they "taught" me. selahV

[Dwight McKissic]

Peter,

I'm in favor of a name change because of regional, racial and public relational baggage/issues associated with the current name. However, I agree with you: if the original stated reasons for the name change proposal were valid-and I believe they were-then money-is an invalid reason not to change the name. To not change the name for monetary reasons is almost an insult, again, if the stated reasons were valid.

Given the convictions and courage of the persons on the name-change committee, I'm surprised and disappointed that they didn't recommend a name change. As far as I'm concerned the descriptor leaves us with an identity crisis: "The SBC-the Regional, Racial & Public Relations Baggage/Issues Convention" vs. "The GCB-the Inclusive, International and Kingdom driven Into All The World Convention".

Electing Fred Luter as president will be a very positive impact on gaining the attention and some level of respect from Black churches that are not SBC, but would embrace the 2000 BF&M stament. But I don't believe you will see any serious additions of Black churches joining the SBC until we see at least two-three minority entity heads.

At the moment I have not decided for sure how I will vote on the descriptor proposal.It is a step in the right direction, but I'm inclined to vote against it. Why? To vote for the proposal is a vote to retain the name SBC. And a vote to retain the name SBC,is a vote to retain the baggage that comes with the name. Therefore, Peter, you, Howell, and I, may vote the same way for different reasons.
The committee attempted to "split the baby." The problem we're left with though is, one baby-with two identities.
Who is she;The SBC? or The GCB?

Thanks for an interesting and provocative post.

[Steve]

Thanks selahV - you know, in the debate the other night Ron Paul made this statement: ""But I think the obligation of all of us should be the oath of office. We should take -- and it shouldn't be the oath to the party. I'm sorry about that, but it isn't the oath to the party, it's the oath to our office."

Too often as an SBC pastor I feel as if I'm being asked to take a greater oath to the convention than I am the to the position of shepherd.

[boB Cleveland]

If it's the lost world we're supposed to be reaching and teaching, I'd have thought the Committee would have presented evidence as to what those folks think of, when they hear the words "Great" and "Commission". I don't imagine it's about church, religion, Saviors, or anything of the sort.

You're right. If changing the name is the right thing to do, it's the only thing to do. To be frank, though, the whole affair reminds me of Health Inspectors in restaurants. They have to find something, don't they?

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Wow!! You and Brother Dwight in agreement on something and for the same reason. You have truly positioned yourself for the next state Baptist editor position. :)

While we look at the history from the moral perspective we should look at our theology that began the SBC. If it was a purely Calvinist theology that began the convention and we are begun in agreement with slavery, then we need to take as hard a stand against Calvinism for the moral effect.

Blessings,
Tim

[Donald Holmes]

Dwight said "I'm in favor of a name change because of regional, racial and public relational baggage/issues associated with the current name."

Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that the negative baggage that people bring up has more to do with the SBCs stances on current moral issues than on historic errors. People seem much more concerned with our "errors" on homosexuality and the role of women in church and home.

[selahV]

Donald, seems to me that it all depends upon who one talks to on any particular day. When we look in the mirror of life and only see the speck in someone else's eyes, we have an identity problem of monumental proportion. As I see it. I think the folks in my sphere who do not come to Jesus and the Southern Baptist church I attend, has more to do with my voice, my actions, my attitudes than what our forefather's did over 167 years ago...but that's just the reflection I'm seeing these days. Can't really speak for other folks. selahV

[Max]

Tim Rogers writes "While we look at the history from the moral perspective we should look at our theology that began the SBC."

It's clear from blog and social media buzz that the YRR crowd are encouraging adoption of the GCB nickname in their ranks. Bryant Wright's NPR interview indicated that young church planters were a key consideration in launching the name change task force. Could it be that the YRR and their influencers view the new name as a mechanism to move away from majority non-reformed SBC belief and practice, rather than an avenue to distance themselves from geographical or moral referents? Would GCB be a new banner to encompass primarily YRR ministries in the days ahead, while still enjoying access to SBC funds and entities?

The tag-line nickname poses a dilemma to SBC pew-sitters. Why would any Southern Baptist not get behind something called the “Great Commission”?! After all, haven’t Southern Baptists always been Great Commission Baptists?! If this had come at any other time except in the midst of concerns about theological drift in our seminaries, publishing house, and mission entities, there would be an overwhelming cry “Do it!” Yet, in the minds of many of us, we remember another nickname from a Charles Spurgeon quote “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” Call me a wacadoodle, but I sense this is not only about geography and past sin.

[Donald Holmes]

"If this had come at any other time except in the midst of concerns about theological drift in our seminaries, publishing house, and mission entities, there would be an overwhelming cry “Do it!” Yet, in the minds of many of us, we remember another nickname from a Charles Spurgeon quote “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” Call me a wacadoodle, but I sense this is not only about geography and past sin."

I think you just verbalized what I have been feeling.