« Whats in a Name? Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins | Main | (Part II) Whats in a Name? Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.01.19

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The comments to this entry are closed.