I’ll chime in just for the sake of discussion. It seems that Bryant Wright, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has convened an elite study group to consider the need or possibility of changing the name of our convention. I will start the discussion with a couple of disclaimer-type statements:
- I’ve been Southern Baptist since riding in the womb. My father has been an SBC pastor for his entire adult life. I’ve served in a variety of ministry capacities in Southern Baptist Churches or ministries for the last 30 years. I was educated at several different Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning. In short, if you cut me I would bleed blue (or whatever color it is that Southern Baptists bleed).
- With this in mind, you should know that I really couldn’t care less one way or the other what the convention decides to call itself–as long as it has something to do with the building up of the Kingdom of God.
I have heard some (if not all) the reasons for changing/not changing the name of the old behemoth we know as SBC and have found sound reasoning behind arguments on both sides of the issue. As a matter of fact, this isn’t the first time such a suggestion has been made, and so far those who desire the tradition behind the old moniker have prevailed in keeping the name the same.
My reason for jumping in is not to tell anyone what he or she should think on the matter (as I’ve said, I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other), but just to drop a couple of cents into the bucket as they were voiced to me by a couple of the members of my church. Understand that these men are not ministers (as I understand most – or all – of the study group to be) and that their reactions would be considered knee-jerk reactions–saying what they thought in immediate response to hearing that someone is even suggesting that our convention change its name.
First reaction of one man: “Why?”
First reaction of another in the room: “It seems to me they’d find better things to talk about.”
I don’t know if these statements will have any bearing on the committee’s study, but I think it would be good to note that these men are members of a Southern Baptist Church that is over 100 years old and has always been a Southern Baptist Church. The church is located outside of the region designated in the name of the convention to which we belong, and is in fact located in a part of the nation where to identify your church as Baptist garners an assumption that you are to be identified as American (not Southern) Baptist.
Loom & Wheel Words 
11 October 2011 at 12:25 pm
I don’t know all the SBC reasoning, but I have been associated with other Christian, or Christ followers, er, believers, who seeking to be forward thinking or less offensive, have thought changing their name would somehow change who they were. I don’t see it as being very effective or fooling anybody.
11 October 2011 at 12:46 pm
Tina, Thanks for chiming in. Some of the arguments for a name change (no real suggestions as to what that might be, yet) are to remove the regional designation linking the SBC to the South and Southwest–where it started and has it’s strongest showing. The idea is that the convention has become more national and global, so the name should not be so restrictive and that this would remove an air of regional bias that might be distasteful to potential member churches outside of the Southern/Southwestern region. Another point is the issue of being tied to the stigma of slavery (which was, like it or not, part of the reason for forming the convention in the first place in an era when southern society was defined by slavery).
The two main arguments against any name change have traditionally been, well (1) tradition. “We’ve always been the SBC, what’s wrong with that?” Tied to that is the second reason: The convention has a long history that has been shaped by who we were and proponents of keeping the historic name suggest that the moniker SBC has developed into a name that can be trusted (which some may want to argue from both within and without the convention).
Certainly there are more arguments both pro and con in the issue (is it really an issue or a non-issue that is dragging us off mark?), but I would probably be pretty much in agreement with you that there may be little difference realized or even slightly felt in the change of a name for a 150-year-old institution. I think the one man hit it on the head when he said, “I’d think there were better things to talk about.”
28 February 2012 at 3:16 pm
[…] even tossed in my two-cents’ worth–which is probably an inflated price. You can read it here.) Most of our church members don’t really care one way or another, “it doesn’t […]