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

   A considerable amount of attention continues concerning whether “Southern” in our official name as the “Southern Baptist Convention” should not finally experience a decent burial, presumably making sure it “dies with dignity,” so to speak.

And, so far as I can tell, the voices to euthanize “southern” in “Southern Baptists” show no signs of going away.  For example, last week GCRTF member, J.D. Greear, asked this question in his concluding remarks of a blog entitled “Do Denominations have a Future?”:

“And how about the name of the SBC? Anybody besides me ready to change the name? Why does our name highlight one region of one country, when our vision, our makeup, and our goal is the world?” (//link).

Almost all of the respondents agreed with Greear’s proposal.  Upon one commenter’s objection, however, Greear reiterated what he implied in the questions above:

“My concern is with the word "southern." Southern" is somewhat parochial and not at really [sic] reflective of where God has taken us in the last century, or where I believe we are headed in the future!”

Greear's view identically reflects the view of Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary where Greear serves as adjunct professor.  The Biblical Recorder reports Dr. Akin’s position as favorable of burying the name, "southern":

“With everything up for consideration Akin even said the name “Southern Baptist Convention” needs to be changed, because it isn’t “best for identifying who we are and want to be in the future” (//link).

Going back a few months further and considering Dr. Akin’s “Axioms for a Great Commission” chapel address, Dr. Akin made it clear Southern Baptists must face their future without the inhibiting name of their past.  He queried, "Is the name “Southern Baptist Convention” best for identifying who we are and want to be in the future?” (//link).

More significantly, neither Akin, Greear, nor other GCRTF members are first to hold up their hand to change the name of the convention. In fact, generally speaking, changing the name of Southern Baptists—that is, dropping “southern” out of the name--pops up fairly regularly about every decade or so beginning in the 1950's.

While undoubtedly other occasions exist where the name of the convention was up for grabs, the earliest I found in my rather sketchy research was the late fifties of the 20th century.  On September 19, 1958, Baptist Press released the finding of an official survey taken at the May, 1958 session of the Southern Baptist Convention held in Houston, TX (//link).  Messengers to the Convention were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing a number of matters related to annual conventions including time, place, costs, and other factors.

Significantly, on one portion of the form were questions dealing directly with determining whether Southern Baptists should change the name of the SBC.  Just under 1,400 responses were recorded and the results were tabulated by the department of research and statistics of the Baptist Sunday School Board (now Lifeway).

According to the report, "About three of every 10 messengers favor a change in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention" with the greatest support coming from states with "newer work." The study also found "more women than men" were opposed to a change in name. Most of the respondents were both college/seminary trained and served in city rather than "rural" congregations. Hence, the move to change the name of the convention has been around for at least the last 50 years or so.

What remains highly interesting is, during the 1950's, which conventional wisdom so often suggests were the wonder years of Southern Baptist expansion--a time when evangelism was white hot--Southern Baptists nonetheless discussed changing their name.  Why?  Was evangelism not working then?  To the contrary, SBC growth during the fifties was perhaps unprecedented in recent times.

Why, then?  Why change the name when, from what we now know, the name "Southern Baptist Convention" did not pose a hindrance to evangelism?

Nor does it seem to me reasonably arguable--and was not argued to my knowledge in the 1950's--that since Southern Baptists had so much negative baggage at that time, advocates felt the need to change the name of the convention like we hear floating around the airwaves these days.

For example, in April, 2009, Dr. Thom Rainer, President of Lifeway twittered the question, "What do you think when you hear ‘Southern Baptist’?” ((//link).  According to his report, "the results were fascinating, if not a bit troubling," results being 60% negative views of Southern Baptists.

Some of the responses included, Legalism, Controlling, Fights, Pharisees, Don’t drink, Fundamentalism, Bickering, Suits and dresses, Old school, Not real, Behind the times, Extreme conservatism, Crazy people, Restricted missionaries, and being Inefficient.

In fact the "negative" image is precisely the baggage Moderate Baptist, Robert Parham, then Cooperative Baptist Fellowship's executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics,  indicated Southern Baptists were attempting to unload when in 2004, the  SBC President, Jack Graham, proposed a name change for the convention (//link).  Parham dubbed the proposal nothing more than a "cosmetic makeover," framing it as a way for Southern Baptists to cleverly get rid of their negative past:

"Under fundamentalist leadership, the name Southern Baptist has become synonymous with fundamentalism, which after 9/11 has become the first dirty word of the 21st century."

For Parham then, scandalous fundamentalism came to mind. For Rainer's twitter followers now, is there a dime's difference?  If there is, I do not see it.

Even more, what I find fascinating, if not a bit troubling about Dr. Rainer's admittedly "unscientific" research is twofold.  First, the responses to his question, from my perspective, should have been predictable. Arguably, given the way the Twitter social network functions, the 60% who were negative requires more explanation than the 40% who were not.  In other words, why only 60% were negative is the real surprise!

Second, and a wee bit more significant, is why a research expert of the SBC would twitter a research poll and then quote the "non-scientific" results on a research site which specializes in church data and consultation.  Nonetheless, when a credible statistician like Dr. Rainer quotes statistical numbers as "fascinating, if not a bit troubling," who is not going to be significantly influenced by them?

Was this a way to solicit predictable public opinion toward a name change of the Southern Baptist Convention? I don't know if Dr. Rainer saw it as such or not, but it certainly resulted in the "right kind" of evidence to argue the point.  Perhaps others could prove a darling hypothesis by twittering to followers concerning whom the overwhelming majority are his or her own fan base, not far from the exact circumstances under which Rainer gave his "fascinating, if not a bit troubling" results from his "unscientific" poll.

In Part II, we'll explore other attempts to change the name of the SBC and log some deep concerns many have publicly expressed about the name change, concerns which, so far as I can tell, not a single current advocate for changing the name of the SBC, has either cited or addressed.

Greear, for instance, poses the question in simple cheer-leader fashion, citing as indisputable reason to change our convention name because "southern" depicts regionalism.  Well, so do Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and a host of cooperate names. Regionalism does not appear to hurt their business. 

Indeed Greear's own employer depicts regionalism as does every other seminary we own.  Yet, I do not think any prospective student from anywhere in the world would be hindered because of a regionalistic name.

We often hear how we must trust the sovereignty of God, believing the Spirit of God able to overcome the most challenging circumstances imaginable.  I say amen to this.

But then we turn right around the next breathe and make the most ridiculous, mundane, inexplicable nonsense of an assertion like, "If we don't change our name, people won't be saved"; "if we don't change our name, we won't reach the world"; "if we don't change our name, people won't ever like us or even get to know us"; "if we don't change our name, we won't reflect a global vision"; "if we don't change our name, the young people are all going to leave."

I can't help it. I'm reminded of Israel's sparring with Samuel over a king.

Through God's counsel, Samuel told them what a king would mean for them but they insisted nevertheless, citing as evidence for having a king, among other things, that  we also may be like all the other nations (1 Sam.8).  One blogger wrote about all the cool names other church networks possess, networks with names which represent something about their future vision rather than about their past: Acts29, Resurgence, Elevate, Exponential, Fusion, Catalyst (//link).

Come on, Southern Baptists!  Let's change our name so we can be like them!

Oh my...

Whatever the case, for me, it remains irresponsible for name-change advocates and especially GCRTF members to tease the public--whipping up a frenzy so to speak--with calls for changing our name but only citing the perceived advantages and not also revealing the profound hindrances--including legal hindrances--to changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention.

We'll explore some of those hindrances next.

With that, I am...
Peter

Part I

Excursion

Part II

Part III (Conclusion)

Comments

[volfan007]

Peter,

While I agree with what you're saying here, I still wouldn't care if we changed the name, or not. I see what you're saying....exactly. I think you've hit the nail on the head, once again. But, I wouldnt lose too much sleep if everyone decides to change the name.

Hey, I really liked your illustration of Northwest Airlines, etc. not hurting their business. Classic. Also, showing Israel's desire to be like all the other countries around them leading to King Saul. Wooooo hooo, Bro. That's what's happening a lot in Churches today. Sadly.

David

[peter]

David,

Thanks. To be honest, I could not agree with you more. With you, I haven't a plug nickel's worth of sacredness for "southern' in the Southern Baptist Convention. Now "Baptist" on the other hand does hold more weight with me, I confess.

For me, the real issue is, why are GCTF members focusing on peripheral issues at best? Nobody is going to hell because we have 'southern' attached to our name; we are not bad stewards of CP dollars because we have 'southern' attached to our name; vision won't be greater than it already is if we don't have 'southern' attached to our name; we won't become more 'gospel-centered' if we don't have 'southern' attached to our name; churches won't give more to the CP if we don't have 'southern' attached to our name; more churches won't be planted if we don't have 'southern attached to our name...

Just as God counseled Samuel He'd look on the inside when choosing the second king over Israel, in direct contrast to Israel who chose Saul because he was a 'foot taller' than everybody else and was one stud of a handsome male specimen, is it going to make a difference for the Kingdom of God if the SBC outwardly changes their name when inwardly it remains the same?

I do long for the 'good ole days.' But it's not the 'good ole days' some of our brothers today think. I long for a time when the universal answer to the church's problems was a good old-fashioned, heaven-sent, Holy Ghost revival...a time, a season, a call to prayer, pleading with God to bless us or we die.

Instead, those with the microphone are issuing appeals to drop 'southern' in "Southern Baptist Convention" or we will die. What in Sam Hill's name are these guys talking about? So far as sober reason goes, they speak in unknown tongues.

Sorry for the sermon.

Grace, David.

With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

Peter, I rather like your commental sermon. Kinda makes me think of Kentucky Fried Chicken; it is and always will be the chicken that makes the difference in whether folks buy a bucket of the real thing there or squashed chunks at their local burger joint. Maybe we could just identify ourselves as SBC, like Kentucky Fried Chicken identifies itself as KFC. Initials work in today's world. FYI, BTW, LOL, JK. :) selahV

[Phil Leslie]

Frankly, in order for the SBC to change its name effectively, it must have an identity. And I'm not sure we've established that yet.

[peter]

Phil,

Thanks for logging on. I fear we're buzzing on two different fuels, Phil. No identity? Ummm....

Grace for your day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Phil,

NO identity? Really?

lol

Peter, I completely agree with what you're saying about the change we need in the SBC. We do need a mighty moving of God's Spirit thru out our Churches. That's what we really and truly need.

David

[Big Daddy Weave]

Peter,

Were the SBC to change her name, I do wonder whether J.D. Greear would then question the value of keeping "Baptist" in the new name?

Perhaps the dumbest name change I've seen came a year or two ago when the Baptist General Conference changed its name to CONVERGE WORLDWIDE!

Left in the hands of a hipper, younger generation, I'm sure that the more post-modern, emerging crowd in the SBC could come up with something sillier than Converge Worldwide for the SBC...

[peter]

SelahV,

You've made a great observation comparing SBC and FYI, IMHO, ETC. And, most of us do use the "SBC" most of the time.

Grace today, my SelahV.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

BDW,

It's interesting you post your valid point about the young dudes. I had the same thought on the "Excursion" I just posted. :^)

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Patrick]

From what I hear out of the blogosphere, the word Southern isn't the issue. It's the word Baptist that is being abandoned. I'd go ahead and change it to "Presbyterians That Baptize Adults as Well", or PTBAAW for short.

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

I fear this effort to change our name is more attributable to the "coolness" factor than anything else. Our name just doesn't sound cool.

As for the negative viewpoint associated with our name by many people, a name change isn't the answer. That issue needs to be addressed more deeply than just within the context of changing a name.

Quick fixes may work in worldly matters (which I doubt), but they are rarely the right approach in spiritual matters. Let us not be influenced by culture but be influencers of culture.

Good post.

Les

[volfan007]

Patrick,

:) That's funny. lol

Or, maybe we can change it to "Cool Believers Who Are Creative in Approaching God Dudes?" I guess that would be CBWACAGD for short. :)

David

[Patrick]

It was meant to be funny and not a flame. After I read it on screen it looked kinda mean. Sorry guys.

[volfan007]

Patrick,

I thought it was just funny, Brother.

David

[Dave Miller]

I pastor in Iowa. My desire to take Southern out of the name has nothing to do with wanting to be cool or any shame over being Baptist. If the SBC wants to be a regional denomination, Southern is perfect. And in places like Iowa, it is counterproductive. It places us as foreigners in the frozen north.

Changing the name of the SBC would be a blessing to Baptists outside the deep south.

[peter]

Dave,

Your point had more teeth in the 1950's when no ever dreamed of naming a "Southern" Baptist church "Fellowship Church", "The Octagon" "Church on the Way" or a million other church names some as creative or even goofy as one wants to be, while nonetheless being a loyal SBC church. That was no option to them. They did not think in those categories. It is to you and any other church in the SBC now, however. It's even encouraged.

Nor is there heretofore any marshaled evidence other than a few anecdotal tales that "southern" in "Southern Baptist" remains definitively "counterproductive" as you say. If so, please point me to it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Miller]

I have worked as an Iowa Baptist for nearly 20 years. It is a hindrance here. It tells Iowa Baptists that we are extraneous, not really a part of things because we are not really Southern.

[peter]

Fine, Dave. Collect the evidence and publish it for examination. You very well may be the catalyst who finally changed the name of the SBC.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

By the way, Dave. Why are you commenting here? You live in Iowa and I live in Georgia. This is a regional blog...a SOUTHERN regional blog. You just don't belong....;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Miller]

It is called "SBC" Tomorrow.

[Dave Miller]

Maybe you could call it BC Tomorrow.

[John]

How about World Baptists or, if that's not big enough, Universal Baptists. That should cover enough territory.