The Southern Baptist Convention—Name that Denomination
By now you’ve probably read that SBC president Bryant Wright has appointed a task force to study the possibility of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. Wright’s announcement has elicited a number of responses, ranging from elation to despair. Besides differing opinions about the possible name change itself, there is an ongoing debate about whether or not Wright’s task force violates Southern Baptist polity, the stated will of engaged Southern Baptists, or both. I suspect much more will be written on these issues in the coming days.
I confess I’m somewhat ambivalent about the name change debate. On the one hand, I have no personal qualms with the Southern Baptist name and seriously doubt that people are going to hell in Vermont or Oregon simply because they object, in principle, to new church plants that affiliate with a denomination that has the word Southern in its name. Furthermore, while the name Southern Baptist Convention is clearly regional in its origin, over time our name has come to mean far more than a group of Baptist churches down in Dixie. I also have some concerns about the timing—like it or not, a lot of Southern Baptists are still upset with either the agenda or the execution (or both) of the Great Commission Resurgence.
On the other hand, I can’t say I object in principle to changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention—no denominational name should be sacrosanct. Furthermore, we’ve been a national denomination since the mid-twentieth century and have what I believe is a godly desire to further expand our witness to those places in America that are most underserved in terms of the gospel—most of which are outside of the South and Southwest. I understand why many Southern Baptists think our regional name doesn’t accurately represent our national reality (or at least our national aspirations). Will the name Southern Baptist look silly in a generation if, say, 40% of our churches are located outside of the South and Southwest? Perhaps.
All that to say, I’m not enthusiastic about changing the name, but I’m certainly not opposed to it. I have nothing but respect for Southern Baptists with stronger opinions than mine one way or the other—I think there are good arguments on both sides. I suspect we’ll change the name at some point, even if not now. For what it’s worth, if we do change the name in the next couple of years—and I have serious doubts we will—I’d recommend something like the Baptist Convention of North America.
Having laid my own irresolute cards on the table, what I want to offer some thoughts on the manner in which we will have this family discussion in the coming months. I’m urging my fellow Southern Baptists (even those who don’t want to be called that anymore) to be as civil and Christ-like as possible. I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to change the name are closet Presbyterians who are embarrassed of our Convention’s southern roots. I also seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to keep the name are redneck racists who don’t care about reaching all of America with the good news.
That said, I think it’s both inevitable and unfortunate that we’ll hear from some obnoxious voices on both sides of the debate. I’ve already vented via Twitter about anti-southern hipsters who love all things urban and are embarrassed by all things rural and southern and southwestern. Let me say now on this blog I’m also troubled by those who imply that the South and/or Southwest are somehow superior than other parts of the country because we have more Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and Republicans. I hope few voices will argue for or against the name change who represent even a close approximation to these two (admittedly exaggerated) extremes. But I suspect some will.
I want to plead with you, whatever your opinion might be on a name change, to call down the strident and unhelpful voices that share your perspective. Don’t let the mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant tones dominate this conversation. For the sake of our collective witness, let’s mortify the name-calling, motives-judging, power-grabbing tendencies that appear almost every time we engage in some sort of public debate. Let’s agree to act like Christian grownups and love one another on the other side of this debate, whatever our name may be. And let’s agree to continue to cooperate together for the sake of the gospel, even if we don’t get our way when it comes to our denomination’s name.
(This post is cross-published at Between the Times)
3 Responses to “The Southern Baptist Convention—Name that Denomination”
Leave a Reply
Nathan A. Finn serves as Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He's a husband, father, elder, baseball enthusiast, and Broadway musical fan. He's still trying to figure out why we drive on parkways and park on driveways.
Dr Finn: I am not convinced on changing the name. However, with this move, I see a continuing trend where big decisions are being made from the top down. Presidents and agency heads pushing agendas down, instead of agendas rising up. This is disturbing. I remember learning that in SBC life the local church, made up of baptized believers, was at the top of the pyramid, and Nashville at the bottom. Lately it seems that Nashville, Louisville, Wake Forest, Atlanta (& suburbs) are at the top. Just an observation. Thank you for yours. — Heath Lloyd Reidsville, NC
I hope all Southern Baptists will follow your sound advice as we debate this issue. I personally oppose changing the name–we have so much invested in our particular name brand that I fear any other name would simply be lost among the hundreds of other Baptist groups. Even the name “Baptist Convention of North America” would likely be confused with the North American Baptist Conference. While we are planting churches north of the Mason-Dixon, there is still a critical need for new church plants in our southern homeland as well.
I am opposed to any name change as too many will benefit by it, that is, it will advance hidden agendas. In other words, it will lead inevitable to the wrecking of the largest Protestant mission force in the world today, an aim that many, no doubt, would like to see accomplished. Besides is the SCLC can maintain Southern in its title, then the sBC can do the same. 20 years down the road we will be past the racist problem…which is now beginning to be rectified on a local scale in the local churches. Once the issue of Blacks and Whites worshipping is resolved for good and forever, we can get on with what Southern Baptists were all about in the first place,namely, missions and evangelism. Also we have a direct link to the First and Second Great Awakenings and to the launching of the Great Century of Missions, and, like it or not, the African Americans were finding equality in the spiritual realm which was bound to spread to all other realms. One church excluded a member just before the Civil War due to his opposition to treating African Americans as equals in the church. That tells us the source of the Black Americans tremendous spirituality, that which Toynbee and King felt would bring about the renewal of Western Civilization. The time for the Third Great Awakening is almost upon us. The establishment of prayer meetings to plead the promises for such a visitation like Cary, Fuller and others pleaded the promises in Jonathan Edwards Humble Attempt which lead to the launching of the Great Century of Missions, will surely lead to that Awakening which will result in the conversion of the whole earth and every soul in it and continue for a 1000 generations and reach thousands and thousands of worlds as mankind spreads to the stars. All of that so God can make a humorous remark as He has in Rev.7:9 that the number of the redeemed in Heaven is a number no one can number (even God Himself?).