In recent days, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bryant Wright, publicly announced in his September video that he was commissioning a task force to study to see if a name change is necessary for the vision and purposes of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Immediately, as you can imagine, the blogs were off to the races. Facebook was also involved in this response – and it didn’t take long before many people were calling names and spewing harmful things merely because a study is going to be conducted on this issue. So, what’s the big deal? Why do so many people have opposition to the possible name change of the SBC? For some, it’s a concern about doctrine. For others, it’s based on the history and legacy of the SBC. However, no matter what the reason for opposition, should it really be an issue of division?
Doctrine
The change of a name will not change the foundational convictions and doctrine of the SBC. Doctrine is much more than a name – and quite frankly the name “Southern Baptist” does not mean what it once did in the late 1800′s. Today, we have a mixture of different evangelicals who seem to make up the SBC as a whole. From those with strong historical Baptist doctrine to those with a more Methodist (Free Will Baptist) background – the SBC has become an extremely diverse group. Doctrine matters, but how many churches have the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 as their official doctrinal statement but flat deny the doctrine of election (Article V of the BF&M 2000)? Doctrine may be an issue that should be addressed in the future of the SBC, but a mere name change is not going to alter the doctrine of the convention.
History / Legacy
The history of the SBC is diverse. It has both good and bad history that is connected to the Southern Baptist Convention. The good that should be remembered surrounds the desire for missions and a heart for the nations. This coupled with the solid backbone of doctrinal convictions is what shaped the SBC and what allowed it to shape America! However, the SBC also had ties with slavery that was later rejected. Following the SBC’s rejection of slavery and resolutions against slavery, the convention openly apologized and repented of the slavery issue and made it an open issue of opposition within those cooperating churches of the SBC. It’s clear – the SBC has a diverse history. Something that constantly needs to be explained.
Therefore, the SBC can be remembered and celebrated in many different ways! From documentaries, libraries, and electronic archives of past work and achievements of the SBC – the convention can move forward and still greatly honor its history. Many great leaders and preachers have helped work alongside the churches, associations, and missionaries to further the gospel to the ends of the earth. That should be celebrated and honored – name change or not. However, that raises the next question – can the SBC continue to move forward with the gospel in North America and impact the nations with the message of Christ?
Mission
Without doubt, the SBC exists for the purpose of missions. The convention doesn’t control the local church – but the local church can associate with other churches and accomplish great mission goals that would not be possible all alone as a single church. That is the important element that many young pastors and church plants should always remember! The SBC doesn’t have a desire to control any local church, but the SBC exists for the purpose of shining the gospel in the dark regions of North America and the far ends of the earth. Cooperation is essential to achieving these goals.
As we consider the need to plant churches in extremely difficult regions of the United States – such as Oregon and Washington State – we must realize that the people there are not connected with the title “southern” in the slightest degree. The first thing many of those people think of is – “What is ‘southern’ about Baptist?” Those of us who grew up in the Bible belt in the southeastern regions of the US – the “southern” title is normal to us – after all – we are southern Baptist! However, if you are in the mid-west or north western regions – the title “southern” just doesn’t make much sense at all. That’s the issue at hand. We should desire to see many churches successfully planted across these difficult landscapes and even throughout other nations, but the title “southern” is not a help in that process.
Therefore, when people are arguing about the desire to keep the name the same in light of the history of the convention, it’s as if those people are willing to sacrifice missions on the alter of tradition. If it can be proven that more success could be seen from a total name change of the SBC to something that simply reflects us as Bible believing and gospel centered Baptist churches – why would we not support it? Is it true that many of us are simply afraid of change? It seems almost humorous that many Baptist preachers will make fun of the resistance to change in their local ministries in order to get their agenda accomplished, but they are guilty of doing the same exact thing on a national level among the SBC. At the end of the day – many people are simply afraid of change. However, while we wrestle with the possibility of a name change among the SBC, we must not forget that literally millions of people all throughout our nation are dying without Christ and we must mobilize an effort to reach them. According to the latest statistics (9-28-11) from www.joshuaproject.net – there are 6,890 unreached people groups on planet earth. Among those groups – the total population of unreached individuals is estimated at 2.83 billion. These people are on their way to hell without any witness of the gospel. The mission of Christ transcends southern tradition and white America. We must have a mindset to impact the nations. We must also remember that it will not be the name of the SBC that saves them – but the name (total work of the person of Christ) who saves them (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).
So, what should the name be? Personally – I don’t care. If the SBC isn’t broken – let’s not seek to fix it. However, if a name change will help us – let’s affirm it with joy in June of 2013. I simply want to see us reach the nations with the gospel and I don’t have time to waste as a pastor in arguing about the name of a convention (a group of churches cooperating together for the purpose of missions).
Nait Saint once said, “And people who do not know the Lord ask why in the world we waste our lives as missionaries. They forget that they too are expending their lives… and when the bubble has burst they will have nothing of eternal significance to show for the years they have wasted.“
Pastor Josh Buice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task Force Considers Southern Baptist Convention Name Change – Fox News Article
Dr. Albert Mohler – Conventional Thinking Blog
Related Posts
20 Responses to “Would the SBC Sacrifice Mission on the Altar of Tradition?”
I am a Southerner and a Baptist but not a Southern Baptist, if that makes sense. I don’t think a name change will make much, if any real difference. If you teach and preach the same thing as always, people who don’t like anything Southern won’t be fooled and that is what this is all about: fooling people. Only a very superficial person would be so blind as to think that a name change means anything.Disliking the word “Southern” is just a ploy to reject Jesus. When I was seeking salvation, I didn’t care who told me or what I would have had to do. I just wanted deliverance.
Mark – You said, “If you teach and preach the same thing as always, people who don’t like anything Southern won’t be fooled and that is what this is all about: fooling people.”
First off, according to you, people who don’t like “anything Southern” will still reject the gospel – if you are teaching and preaching the same things. I guess I don’t understand that comment. If you are suggesting that we as “Southern Baptist” people should be teaching a Jeff Foxworthy “Redneck” gospel that will be rejected by those north of the Ohio river – I would have to firmly reject that way of thinking. The gospel transcends social and geographic borders – that’s why Jesus went to the woman at the well – a Samaritan woman – while He was a Jewish man. The SBC is about the gospel – not “southern” culture.
You also suggested that this is about fooling people. Absolutely not! I don’t know anyone involved with this debate in the life of the SBC who are trying to fool people into being a southerner. What I sense is a group of people with a pure heart to get the gospel out to as many people as possible without creating hurdles based on geographic boundaries. For instance, if you were a proud southerner (as it seems you are) and were a lost man who needed Jesus, if you were approached by a group of people who were planting a church in the deep south with the name – Yankee Baptist Church of Crooked Creek Alabama (not sure if that’s a real place – just trying to make up a good southern name) – would you attend? Most likely not! The name is a hurdle. So, since we are more focused on the gospel than the name “Southern Baptist” – we must do something to get the gospel to the nations! After all – the name “Southern Baptist” will never save one person. It’s all about Jesus! John 14:6.
No, I am not suggesting a “Jeff Foxworthy gospel”, what ever that is. How you can come up with this idea is beyond me. Makes me doubt your sincerity a bit.
The gospel transcends all borders. I agree. However, the SBC was started, is centered and has the HQ in the American South. The term Southern decribes the area where the most members are.It defines the geographical location of it’s strength. It doesn’t hinder the gospel to say so.
Also, my main point is, if you change the name, what are you saying? Are you saying, ” We don’t teach what we used to teach?” No. Are you saying,” We don’t believe what we believed before the name change?” No. So what then? Basicly you are, admit it or not, saying we are trying to fool the public into thinking we are not what we are.The term Southern is not politically correct so you want to change to please the fickle masses. Next year they will want to drop the term Baptist, I suppose.Where will it end? Liberalism is never satisfied. Look at how tv has changed in the last 30 years for example.
I have been to quite a few SBC churches in the past. Believe me, the name Southern is not the problem with them. Lack of reverence, sloppy doctrinal standards and weak preaching is causing a lot more problems with assemblies than any name concerns.
I disagree. The goal is not to fool anyone. If we are about the gospel – it shouldn’t matter where we focus – north or south – right? We planted a church in the mountains of Ecuador this year. They don’t know the first thing about southern culture – but they do know the gospel. Why force the southern” title on them? It makes no sense.
The fact is – the term “southern” is a hurdle rather than a help to expanding the mission of the SBC. This has nothing to do with changing the message of the gospel.
I think your posts prove my point. Your argument against what I said about fooling people is just semantical. There is no reason to change the name other than being politically correct. Quite frankly, if you hate the name Southern so much, you ought to leave the SBC.
Mark – I am a Southern Baptist – so allow me to speak clearly on this issue: I am very happy to be part of the SBC and I have a great appreciation for all of those men who labored before me in this convention of churches. I am extremely grateful for those who worked hard during the Conservative Resurgence days to bring back the SBC to a biblical position on inerrancy of Scripture.
I am likewise happy to embrace my southern roots. I am a Georgia Baptist preacher – born and raised in Georgia and now pastoring a 169 year old SBC church that I grew up in as a boy. I have nothing against southern roots or the SBC itself.
My entire point is simply this – the gospel isn’t southern. It’s really that simple. The mission of the SBC is not to spread southern roots, southern dialect, southern food recipes, or anything else southern. The mission of the SBC is to spread the gospel to the US as a whole – and to the ends of the earth. I am not against keeping the name the same if the title “southern” isn’t a hurdle to that mission. But, if it can be proven that planting SBC churches in Washington or Oregon would be like planting “First Yankee Baptist Church” in “Crooked Creek” Alabama – I think we need to consider change and embrace it for the gospel’s sake.
I hope this clears up any confusion on where I stand.
I find it interesting that someone who is not Southern Baptist is so passionate about our discussion about a name change. To me it’s totally common sense. Extra-biblical, legalistic tradition would be the only reason someone would adamantly oppose this discussion. I’m not saying people have to agree with it, but to refuse the legitimacy of the debate is all together ignorant.
Imagine a church that has traditionally been named 5th Street Baptist, but it is relocated to 8th Street b/c of its growth. Would that church, now located on 8th Street, keep its 5th Street name? The question is silly.
The SBC has outgrown its name. It’s not about fooling anyone, and that suggestion testifies to a judgmental spirit. The name change would not be a misrepresentation. Instead, it would be a more accurate picture of our current identity. The reality of our geographical distinction has changed. We are no longer exclusively “southern”.
I am interested in all sorts of things related to Baptist history, hence my interest in this debate.I hope that fact that I am not a member of a SBC in no way makes you feel uncomfortable.My wife was raised attending one, if that helps.
It is almost as if you feel that the Holy Spirit cannot convict people of sin if that word “Southern” is part of the name of the organization.I just don’t feel that a name change is going to be the silver bullet those in favor of change seem to feel like it will be.
Seems to me that eventually you will want to dump the term “Baptist”, which a lot of people also don’t like. Maybe just call your organization” The Convention” and surely nobody can object to that. It will pretty much mean nothing, like Exxon.
Mark – Dr. Mohler made a good statement in his article that I linked below:
“To be honest, I am personally traumatized by the very idea of changing the denomination’s name. I feel an almost physical loss at the very prospect. It is a deeply and unavoidably emotional question for any Southern Baptist whose life is intertwined with the Convention, its work, and its churches.
At the same time, our commitment to the Great Commission and the urgency of the Gospel must exceed our emotional attachments and fears. A responsible movement of Gospel churches — of Baptist churches — must be ready to ask this question and face it fearlessly. We can and will do this together.”
Mark,
I’m afraid your having never been a Southern Baptist has given you a stereotype of what we think. I’ll admit, we have some shallow people, as does any denomination or church. But to suggest that anyone who is open to removing a geographical distinction from the name of its denomination is somehow motivated by political correctness or seeker mentalities is simply uninformed and narrow-minded.
To be completely honest, I have not decided if I think we should change the name or not, but b/c it’s not a biblical mandate that we call ourselves “Southern,” I think Im obligated to listen and pray. The name “Baptist,” while distinctive, also can’t be found mandatory on Scripture. I never plan on removing it from our church’s name, nor would I think anyone plans to remove it from our SBC name, it would NOT disgrace God or His Word to do so.
And He & His Word are the issue here, not the opinions of men. If a name, “southern” or “baptist” becomes more important than the mission or the Messiah, it’s an Idol. Southern is NOT my god, nor is Baptist. Jesus Christ saved me, and if everything else fades away He will still be standing.
I suggest all of you read the book,” The Bible, The Baptists and The Board System”.You will see how little the name of your organization means as to why you cannot have the progress in evangelism that you seek.It isn’t the name that is your problem.
As to not being a member of a SBC: having been married to a woman who went to a SBC from cradle roll to late teens, I think I know a little about it. Her mother still is a member of one and her late father was a deacon in a SBC. I have been around these folks for 35 years. I picked up a little knowledge about members and what they think.
I think that changing church names is a fad, nothing else. The trouble you have with fads is that the running after them never stops. There is always another “new thing” you will just have to try. Yes, you can change the name to something less threatening. Grace Community Church may sound very generic but it gives no indication of what is taught inside the building. Is it : fundamental, liberal, pentecostal or….? Who knows? This is just a form of camouflage.
So Mark, What would you say is the reason we don’t have progress in evangelism like we seek? There is a good chance we would agree on your answer but I would like to hear what you think.
Mark,
I agree,dropping “Southern” just to avoid offending anyone is not what the SBC should do. However, I still think you’re mistaken. I myself take a dim view of churches dropping “Baptist” from their name and calling themselves say, “Elm Street Community Church”, or “Southside” Church, or whatever, as if they’re embarrased by being Baptist. What’s the difference? Baptist does, or should tell people something about the church that distinguishes it from other types of churches. Baptists aren’t the only Christians of course, but within Christianity there Baptist distinctives to which Baptists generally hold and if they believe those distinctives to be important they shouldn’t mind community knowing about them. Calling a church Baptist tells one something about what they should expect. That isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, true of the Southern in Southern Baptist. Are there specifically southern distinctives that militate for retaining Southern in the name? If there are there shouldn’t be. Hopefully southern identity isn’t the main thing to anyone in the SBC.
Josh –
“Therefore, when people are arguing about the desire to keep the name the same in light of the history of the convention, it’s as if those people are willing to sacrifice missions on the alter of tradition.”
I completely agree.
Note that we Southern Baptist encompass much more than the south! At least in the west, we fight misconceptions about who southern baptist are. The answer for most of is to simply downplay denomination, emphasize missions.
Does a denominations name really affect our outreach — or is it the CHURCH name?
David – true! We should be more interested in the power of Jesus name (Acts 4:12) than the power of the southern name.
The reason for chosing the term Southern was to reflect where the strength of the organization was and so the location of most of the members.Like Elm Street Baptist Church would be similar.The location of most SBC members is still in the South.
@Kevin: Read the book I mentioned. The author states it far better than I can.The rest of you ought to read it too.
I believe that the Holy Spirit can still convict people of sin, even in a church with the word “Southern” in it.Obviously this is true. What is the largest Baptist group in the world? I think you know the answer.
I feel the whole argument against keeping the term is one of straw. You who are in favor of the name change have no proof of what you say about how it hinders. I would guess if you were correct in what you say then the North American Baptist Conference has the same problem, as many dislike Norte Americanos?How about the Southern Methodists? Never hear about them changing the name of their group.
Just admit it folks, It is PC run amuck and smoke and mirrors. You don’t like the name because it makes you uncomfortable. You don’t care about the heritage of it. Also, you want to outfox those wiley sinners. Maybe you can trick them into going to a Southern Baptist church because you drop “Southern” from the convention name. People, wake up! Sinners don’t want to go to ANY church because it is a CHURCH!They don’t care what the name is, they hate it because they hate Jesus and the Gospel.
Even if the convention dropped the word Southern tomorrow, how many of you have the word Southern on your church sign? Precious few I would think.Unless you tell people what you were, they may never know anyway.
One more thing: How far do you think this ought to go? I mean, there are lots of Baptist groups with a region in their name. Should they all change to something else?
This is done with tongue firmly in cheek, btw.
For example-American Baptist Church (There’s that American thing again and so many people around the world hate Americans!)
National Baptist Convention of America (ditto)
National Baptist Convention, USA (ditto, again)
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America (oops, more ditto)
United American Free Will Baptist Church (oh, that pesky word, American)
And that’s just a few around here. What about other countries?
Union of French Baptist Churches of Canada (wonder if the word French keeps them back?)
Baptist General Conference of Canada (If Canada is ok, maybe they would take some of the SBC churches in. Nobody is offended by Canada)
Baptist Union of Italy(some people are still mad about Mussolini)
Baptist Union of Great Britain (may not play well in some former colonies or countries that fought Britain at one time or another)
Let me just say (seriously now) that you can’t keep worrying about supposed problems and perceptions. It will eventually get crazy.
Case in point: I was taken to task recently on a forum for using “ETHNIC SLURS”. What did I say that was so bad? I commented on how much I disliked some Triumph motorcycles I test rode the other day. I’m a Harley guy. I refered to them as “Limey” bikes and “King George’s revenge”.
The moderator sent me a stern email. When I said I was of British ancestry and didn’t care if someone said I was descended from Limeys, I was told I would have “firm action” taken against me if I said anymore about it. Plus, I was told it didn’t matter what I meant, it mattered how somebody, somewhere , somehow might take it. Think about that. You virtually kill free speech with that attitude. The name change reminds me of this mindset.And this happened when I was talking about motorcycles on a motorcycle forum.
It seems to me you worry way too much about what other people’s thoughts MIGHT BE about the word “Southern”. If you don’t get your SBC liberals straightened out, those who love the Baptist Cooperative Fellowship, ( really just imitation Baptists, like baptized paganism hiding behind a harmless name) you may find out what God is really offended by, ie. lying, denying the faith, etc.
I’m interested in what the new name would be if it were changed. I grew up in northern Michigan and the southern baptist churches up there had a reputation of being modernistic and unseparated. And of course, there was the cooperative program that supported seminaries that were modernistic. Having lived in the south now for almost thirty years I know many good southern baptist people but the SBC churches still seem to be unseparated in lifestyle and compromising in doctrine. Maybe this is a backlash from the years of compromise the SBC went through in its seminaries. Anyway, I think there is a definite impression in the minds of older christians when they hear the term southern baptist. God bless you.
I have reconsidered. Seeing the SBC is not anywhere close to being the organization it was long ago, the name should be changed. This way, you won’t tar those early members and pioneers with the brush of apostasy that is rife in the SBC today.Why should those great preachers and congregations of days gone by be thought to be part of the man-made , unscriptural beast that the SBC is now?
Mark,
For the record I’m no longer in an SBC church myself, but not because I think the SBC, whatever faults may be therein, is a “man-made unscriptural beast”. If that’s what YOU think then it is irrational for you to discuss or care what they choose to call themselves.