(Part II) What’s in a Name? Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

In Part I, I attempted to put the present call to change our official name as “The Southern Baptist Convention” into historical perspective. 

Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) members like Drs. J.D. Greear and Danny Akin who are actively soliciting support for discarding the name, “Southern Baptist Convention” are by no means the first to raise the issue¹.  Indeed since at least the late 1950’s, about once a decade the issue resurfaces.  Let’s look at some of the more prominent ones...

In 1961, an Arkansas Executive Committee (EC) member, Rheubin South, proposed to the EC to study changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, and subsequently, the matter was referred to the Administrative Committee (AC)². And, even though the AC moved, at a pre-convention meeting of the EC in 1962, that SBC “best describes” who Southern Baptists are and “needs to be retained,” the EC voted the recommendation down.  Hence, no action was taken to the convention floor on the name change that year.

State papers were apparently flooded with editorials and letters of continued interest in the name change for the next few years. One task force—The 70 Onward Project—which had a working group in excess of 615 members on 41 sub-committee groups, took special interest in a name-change and appealed to the EC to continue to explore the possibilities of the proposed change which seemed to interest many Southern Baptists.  Consequently, Illinois messenger, Charles Chaney made a motion at the SBC in 1965 concerning the name-change, which subsequently was referred to the EC. 

After studying the proper protocol for a name-change, the EC asked “Dr. Routh… to work with Martin Bradley of the Department of Research and Statistics of the Baptist Sunday School Board to make a survey of attitudes and possibilities of a name change of the Convention, and report to the committee in its pre-Convention  meeting." A survey of a “selected sample” was performed by Routh’s team and the vote for a name-change was practically dead even: “48% favoring a change, 48.7% opposing, and 3.3%  indicating  no opinion.” However, a later follow-up study indicated the sampling was hardly representative of the broader convention.

In addition, a survey of state paper editors, state convention secretaries, and SBC agency heads clearly indicated one two-fold conclusion: there was no consensus to change the name and there was no consensus on a suitable name. Consequently, in February, 1967, the EC voted that

“any proposed change of name of the Southern Baptist Convention--if such should be proposed--be tested as to its public relations implications; also, that the following list of questions be used as suggested criteria to test these implications.”

Thus far, it seems to me what we have seen is wise and sober caution in proceeding forward with changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Why some would frame the debate in terms of “deception”¹ (Miller, see footnote below) or accuse Southern Baptists of fostering “parochialism” (Greear, see Part I) is surprising, not to mention disappointing. It also appears historically clueless concerning the larger issues with which Southern Baptists have dealt concerning a name-change.

Some of the criteria for a suitable name the EC assimilated in 1967—if such a name were proposed--include:

• Is it legally available?
• Is it distinctive?
• Would it be confused with other Baptist organizations?
• Is it easily recognizable?
• Is it short?
• Would it be capable of world-wide use?
• Would there be any unfortunate meanings, visual or auditory, in any foreign language?
• Is it easy to pronounce?
• Is it geographically  accurate?
• Is the name consistent with Baptist history?
• Would it be acceptable to other Baptist bodies?
• Would it be received favorably by non-Baptist bodies?³ (p.36).

These criteria are well thought-out and represent an entirely different level of thinking than name-change advocates seem to generate today.  What appears as the bottom line for them tragically is, anything but “southern” is an improvement over our present name.

At the Dallas SBC in 1974, the famed Dr. W.A. Criswell, Pastor of the influential Dallas First Baptist Church and twice-elected president of the SBC (1968, 1969), moved the president of the SBC appoint a committee of seven members to study the possibility of changing the name of the SBC.  Criswell himself was named by the president along with other high profile Southern Baptists including Hershel H. Hobbs (p.37).

After a year’s study, the Committee of Seven brought to the SBC in Miami Beach (1975) the recommendation that “in light of its findings it is the committee's considered judgment that the name of the Southern Baptist Convention should not be changed at this time" (p.38).The Committee of Seven appeared to exhaustively study the issue. 

Included in their work were the following projects:

(1) An invitation through Baptist Press to all Southern Baptists to express their views.

(2) Participation with the September, 1974, Public Relation Advisory Conference in a name change study

(3) Study of past name change studies, especially the 1966 opinion survey conducted by the Research Services Department of the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board

(4) A mass opinion poll through ballots placed in all state Baptist papers

(5) A professional opinion survey conducted by the Research Services Department of the Baptist Sunday School Board (p.68). 

In every sphere considered, the results were “decisive,” the overwhelming majority of which favored no name-change in the SBC. There was simply not enough support among grassroots Southern Baptists to make the change.

Dr. Criswell formerly advocated a name change.  However, after observing the complications up-close as a member of the Committee of Seven, he changed his position in supporting a name-change for the Southern Baptist Convention. This fact is often overlooked by those who are aware of Dr. Criswell's support for the name-change.  While many name-change advocates today regularly use Dr. Criswell's public support of  changing the name of the SBC, it's rarely mentioned that after careful, studied consideration, Dr. Criswell also changed his mind on the matter. 

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude the Committee of Seven did not discover positive reasons to change the name.  They concluded:

“The Committee of Seven reached its decision on the name change issue after careful study of all known reasons for and against a name change. Some valid reasons exist for a name change, especially in pioneer areas for Southern Baptists” (p.69).

For them, the issue was not a stubborn resistance because of some sacred allegiance to the term “southern.” Rather, for the Committee of Seven, the issue revolved around whether any of the reasons which exist for a name-change trumped what they considered the overwhelming reasons to retain the name, Southern Baptist Convention. 

Hands down, the Committee of Seven concluded the reasons for a name-change could not overcome the insurmountable reasons to keep the name as it was. Some of the reasons to keep the name “Southern Baptist Convention” included:

1) the overwhelming number of people strongly against a name-change (all polls were decisive, some ridiculously so)

2) the name “Southern Baptist” was identified with doctrinal stances with historic proportions

3) the danger of other groups capitalizing upon the name once we forfeited it and the confusion it would cause

4) the long and arduous task of communicating a new name to all constituents;

5) the difficulties of instituting a new name into charters and documents of the SBC at all levels of convention affairs; also, the legal ramifications of wills, trusts, etc.

6) the absence of consensus on a new name (p.51).

Concerning the latter, a whopping 52 different names were considered with no real front-runner.  The top five were: Cooperative Baptist Convention, Continental Baptist Convention, United Baptist Convention, World Baptist Convention, and Baptist Convention of America.

The issue squeezed back into the SBC conscience during subsequent years with motions at the 1983, 1989, and 1990 conventions. If I am not mistaken, all of these motions were referred to the EC and were lost in motion to consider.

Other than the most recent rhetoric about name-change coming mostly from GCRTF members, a push in the early twos to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention came from then, president of the SBC and mega-church pastor, Dr. Jack Graham (//link). Baptist Press reported Graham as saying: "I believe it is time for us once again to take some bold steps as Southern Baptists."

Dr. Graham surely had the right attitude: "It is my view that we need to stop meeting and just talking about this... We need to either put it to bed forever or get on with it."  Well, put it to bed the convention did though by a slim margin. 

At the June, 2004 meeting in Indianapolis, the motion lost for a study committee to be appointed (//link). The report of the Executive Committee led by Dr. Morris Chapman had apparently made its way into many Southern Baptists' thinking (next up).

The focus next will be Dr. Chapman's wise contribution to the name-change issue along with some concluding remarks. 

With that, I am…

Peter

Part I

Excursion

Part II

Part III (Conclusion)

¹What is a first, from what I can tell, is framing the name-change issue in moral categories.  Amazingly, Dave Miller, at SBCImpact did just that (//link).  According to him, apparently those of us like myself who are not convinced there exists a worthy enough tension between retaining “southern” and discarding it to justify the resources to change it are embracing deception!  Why do we embrace deceit?  According to Dave, because we are “no longer a Southern denomination and we should not call ourselves such.”  My reply was and is, if Dave’s point is valid now, it was valid in 1845, for one of the first actions the newly formed SBC did was set in place a board to oversee taking the gospel to the heathen.  In other words, the SBC has never been about “the south” so far as our vision goes. Hence, if we embrace deceit now, we’ve always embraced deceit. Note also, Dave attempted to answer my comment on his post with a complete dismissal of it.

²The information source for these posts may be found at www.sbc.net, under a special page with documents on changing the name of the SBC 

³The entire list of 25 criteria can be seen online at www.sbc.net.

Comments

[David R. Brumbelow]

Very interesting information. My vote goes with those who chose to, forever put the matter to rest and keep the name, Southern Baptist Convention.
David R. Brumbelow

[Dave Miller]

For anyone who might read this, I have tried to clarify this issue to Peter, but let me speak clearly to the reader.

In his footnote above, Peter says, "According to him (me), apparently those of us like myself who are not convinced there exists a worthy enough tension between retaining “southern” and discarding it to justify the resources to change it are embracing deception!" That is, in my mind, not an accurate portrayal of what I said.

I did not say that Peter or anyone else was "embracing deception." I said the name is misleading - it gives a deceptive view of who we are; a regionally focused denomination.

I would invite you to follow Peter's link and see what I really said.

[peter]

Dave,

The reason I place links to sources (when possible) is for the decided purpose of encouraging readers to judge for themselves whether the quotes I offer and/or the conclusions I draw are warranted. Hence, I'm delighted if a reader follows the link. And if they do, I'm sure they can make up their own mind about it.

Your main heading stands: "Our name is deceptive and should be changed." And your explanation, stands: "Our name gives a deceptive impression. It is not an intentional lie, but as the denomination changed, the name stayed the same."

Yet to argue, as do you, it's "unintentional" deception is profoundly confusing, Dave. Intended or unintended it nonetheless is deception in your view.

Hence, it implicates those like myself who do not agree with your point on dropping "southern"...it implicates us as embracing, at minimum, unintentional deception; but still deception nonetheless.

And to place this issue in moral categories like you have done, Dave, makes only for sharp division.

But instead of dealing with the point I made, you dismissively counsel I should go back and read your post again.

Sorry, Dave. My time is limited. Until you can make sense to me of your own point, I'll just have to pass.

Good evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ryan Abernathy]

Peter the SBC used the term southern to associate themselves with southern states and slave holders. It may not have been regional in scope but it was regional in location as you well know. Dave has a valid point whether you agree with it or not. Further, outside the SBC structure the name is not associated with many thoughts reflective of our Savior. That is a good enough reason to change the name IMHO

[peter]

Ryan,

Please. No slavery comments here. Nothing about that is germane.

And, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain exactly the distinction you're making between "regional in scope" and "regional in location" and what difference your distinction makes. I, for one, do not understand it.

And, unless you can prove your assertion that "outside the SBC structure the name is not associated with many thoughts reflective of our Savior" I see no reason to embrace it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ryan Abernathy]

By regional in scope I mean that the focus of the founders of the SBC was on international missions, partially, should slave holders be allowed to be ordained as missionaries. By regional in location, I mean that the founders of the SBC were largely a part of the Southern side of the Civil War. The name Southern Baptist Convention distinguished them from their Northern, abolitionist counterparts.

There is a lot that is germane about the slavery connection to the name Peter, and your desire to dismiss it is part of the problem. There is a great deal of racism that has permeated the SBC until very recently. Check out the online version of the Baptist Messenger for a great article on the subject.

You keep asking Dave and now myself for proof that the name Southern Baptist Convention is not viewed negatively by outsiders. I would invite you to come and visit me in OKC and spend some time with people who have been burned, castigated, and shunned by SBC churches, members, and pastors. The real onus in my opinion is for YOU to prove that there is a favorable view of the SBC OUTSIDE of its own members. Good luck. That is the real issue here. Too many SBC are so involved in navel gazing and self congratulation that they fail to see the real reputation they have in the community outside their walls. Stop and think about how many SBC churches are being started by biblically sound, evangelical conservatives that do not have a denominational affiliation in their names. Do you really think that this is just a fad or a rush of youthful rebellion? There is a reason and the reason is the reputation of the SBC outside the SBC tent.

[selahV]

Ryan, "naval gazing"??

[peter]

Ryan,

First, I asked you not to inject slavery into this conversation. Why you insist upon it is thoroughly annoying. You write, "There is a lot that is germane about the slavery connection to the name Peter, and your desire to dismiss it is part of the problem."

To the contrary, my friend, we are definitively not speaking about why Baptists of the south broke away from other Baptists. Rather anything I've written on these blogs about our history & Dave's point with which I have contended concerns whether Baptists of the south possessed a vision beyond themselves when they broke away. There is a clear distinction in the two. And for you to inject a needless side-bar issue--an issue mind you that could be productive another time, another place--and insist that it is germane and that my problem is I dismiss it remains fantastic.

Here's the deal, Ryan: If you can't discuss a focused point, without lobbing an easy, universal catch-all--Baptists split over slavery, Baptists owned slaves, that's the issue!--I have no interest in exchanging with you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

I'm looking for us to rename the SBC "Jesus Follower Dudes."

David
A member of the JFD

[kim]

Thanks for the informative post, Peter. I was aware of much of the name change history, but not the role Georgia would play if we did this now. That is a serious problem that those in favor of name change should not dismiss lightly.

I went to the link you had where some of this conversation was going on, and I also read the comments here. A common pattern that is not new, but one that I'm increasingly weary of, is the charge of being afraid of change. It can't be because we've done our homework, researched the legal and other ramifications of this decision. We're just old fogeys and stuck in the old days.

Kind of sounds similar to the charges being hurled at many Americans today who disagree with changes and policies being pushed. It can't be because they have a legitimate argument. Their just afraid to change. I expected more understanding from fellow Christians, when those in the SBC, myself included, have serious concerns, with facts to back it up.

When you start using charges against those in the SBC, based on motives attributed to them without proof, the debate really is over. As Peter has shown, discussing using facts and research will help to inform and make decisions. Having to always defend against being stuck in the past as the only reason folks won't agree with you, is a waste of time.

[peter]

Kim,

You're very welcome. And you are correct: we have far too many "weighing in" on an issue before they've done jack squat's worth of homework. Why we think that just because we can express an opinion--even if it's a dumb opinion--that it follows we must express an opinion sails right by my head.

Grace, Kim. May both of us commit to being as informed as we can be about the issues we speak for God's glory.

With that, I am...
Peter

[James]

Peter,
Will you please post links for all this legal jargon within Georgia. I want to read up on the charter and other information you have proposed here.

Mainly because this is the first time I have heard any of this and I like to do my research with my own eyes not from the words of a fellow blogger. No offense to you, but a great professor once told me not to take the words of a preacher/speaker as absolute truth without reading the scriptures/documents from which his words are based. Thank you.

James

[peter]

James,

There is a link at the post's end, footnote #2, that says, "the name of the SBC." If you'll click on that, it takes you to "Baptist2Baptist". Look then in the right hand column and scroll down to "SBC Name Change" Click there and read away!

Thanks for stopping by.

With that, I am...
Peter