I've yet to hear any good reason articulated in support of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. The data do not support the idea that changing our name will make us any more effective, and the present process is transpiring in direct and willful defiance of a prior, yet-unrescinded vote of the messengers of the SBC.
Nevertheless, I can think of a circumstance in which I would entirely support—even advocate on behalf of—a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention.
There are a number of smaller Baptist groups around the nation that are biblically conservative and convictionally Baptist. Some of them might not regard the Southern Baptist Convention as conservative enough (even now!) for a partnership, but some of them would. Some of these organizations historically came into being as splits from the SBC, and others of them are refugees from the unabated leftward decay of the ABC.
What would happen if the SBC made active overtures toward these fellow Baptists in the interests of mutual cooperation and merger? Would some of them say no? Probably. Would all of them move slowly and have concerns? Likely. But could such an effort lead to a greater synergy of Baptist effort in the United States of America? I think it could.
Consider, for example, the recent rapprochement between the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas. This is a bold, exciting new detente between the two parties of what was a virulent debate in our grandfathers' days. It took place without any movement whatsoever beyond the bounds of the Baptist Faith & Message.
Why is this happening only in Texas? Why is this happening only with the BMAT? There are similar groups of Baptists throughout our land! Our Executive Committee should place a high priority upon this kind of outreach to other inerrantist Baptist groups in the USA.
If we were to accomplish something substantive like such an alliance, I'd be delighted for us to adopt a new name for our expanded fellowship (so long as we honored the will of the messengers and worked honorably through our polity to do so). A name change would be highly appropriate in such a circumstance, and would be something higher and more inspirational than the empty Madison Avenue posturing that plagues our fellowship on occasion.
Growth is based upon structure. It began when the Apostles wanted to focus more on scripture than serving tables. I believe a complete new structure is appropriate for a new name, not just a new name.
ReplyDeleteYou said: Nevertheless, I can think of a circumstance in which I would entirely support—even advocate on behalf of—a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention. There are a number of smaller Baptist groups around the nation that are biblically conservative and convictionally Baptist. Some of them might not regard the Southern Baptist Convention as conservative enough (even now!) for a partnership, but some of them would.
ReplyDeleteYou are saying bring in more Fundamentalists to the SBC, isn't that about it Bart?
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteI've found that when many people use the word Fundamentalist, they simply mean "Anybody to the right of me." So, I suppose that the answer to your question depends upon what you mean by Fundamentalists.
If you mean people to the right of you, then yes.
If you mean people who affirm the five fundamentals, then I say yes.
If you mean Independent, Fundamentalist Baptists, then you're talking about a category of people who would generally drink antifreeze before they would join the SBC, so you've probably not got much to worry about.
As for what I meant, that's plain to see. I wrote the article and I wrote it pretty clearly, I think. I'm talking about inerrantist Baptists, with both of those words actually meaning something.
Don't worry: I have not herein proposed running the non-inerrantist non-Baptists out of the SBC. I'm just talking about inviting more people in.
I realize that such a proposal may be unpalatable to people who are not inclusive and are not very tolerant of diversity in the interpretation of scripture. ;-)
I realize that such a proposal may be unpalatable to people who are not inclusive and are not very tolerant of diversity in the interpretation of scripture. ;-)
ReplyDeleteOh, Debbie is very tolerant of various interpretations of scripture--as long as they're not conservative. :-)
Bart,
ReplyDeleteIf some Baptists would "drink antifreeze" before they joined the SBC, does that mean they would not be among the frozen chosen?
Bart:
ReplyDeleteThis post shows me that we are not really far apart on the name thing.
I support an SBC name change because it would be appropriate. We are not really a Southern Baptist Convention anymore, and I think that the name should reflect who we are and where we want to go rather than our heritage.
Those are the same reasons a merger would be a reason to change the name.
I don't see heritage as being any more legitimate than Madison Avenue really.
We are not "Southern", except in by percentages due to history. "Convention" really doesn't need to be in a name. There's nothing sacred to it.
We are left with "Baptist" which I think is fine to leave in.
My reasoning applies to other groups, too. "Lutherans" "Church of England" are also awful names, but I am not part of those groups.
I would also like to see Christ in our name. He is what it this is about, and that name, above all, would reflect the breath that we have, and want to have, among the peoples of the world.
Louis
Bart:
ReplyDeleteOne other thing on the "Madison Avenue" side of things.
I think that the name change from the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and Baptist Bookstore to LifeWay was brilliant.
One of the reasons I know that is how the secular left sneers at it in my hometown where LifeWay is located. Our non-Christian opponents openly talk about how effectively the "Southern Baptist Convention" gets people to buy stuff from them because they call their stores "LifeWay."
Every time I hear them say that, I want to pat Dr. Draper and others who worked on that name change on the back.
We lost nothing in the change. We just communicate more effectively to more people.
Louis
Louis,
ReplyDeleteI love you in Christ and am so thankful for your readership. I'm delighted to be partnered with you in the SBC.
But your comments make me feel like we are further apart in our perceptions and opinions, not closer together:
1. By every statistical measure we are indeed Southern. The major rationale offered for the name change is our utter inability to spread effectively beyond the South.
2. Although I affirm and support the mission and the people of Lifeway, I do not believe that the name change and the deliberate evangelical un-Baptisting of Lifeway has been a good process in which "we lost nothing in the change." The Shack? The NIV 2011 (mark my words)? The Covered in Prayer Snuggie? This is our paradigm of hope and change?
Would to God that our vision for the future was to have a publishing house that would care strategically about the biblical reliability of the content that it publishes.
Well said Bart. A person could fill up a truck with books at Lifeway, read them all, and never be exposed to the truth. I reckon I'm kinda glad our Baptist name is not on the marque.
ReplyDeleteJeff Moore,
ReplyDeleteI guess if a guy filled a truck up with those personal journals LifeWay sells, what you say would be true.
On the other hand, if guy filled a truck up with the various study Bibles LifeWay sells, he would have all the truth he will ever need.
So I guess it kinda depends on the kind of books a guy fills the truck up with as to "being exposed to the truth" don't you think?
Lifeway's desire to fit in with the world is also seen in this...
ReplyDeletehttp://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36798
But, at least they changed it, unlke the Shack and the Snuggie. Also, they sell Priest shirts. They have a whole shelf dedicated to different colored, Priest shirts. You know, the kind with the little white thing in the front of the collar.
David
"The unbaptisting of Lifeway." Really? As a baptist pastor I loved "The Shack." I must say that some unbaptisting is not always a bad thing. Maybe we should be more concerned with how biblical we are than how baptist we are.
ReplyDeleteCT
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFor anyone to say that the Shack is Biblical just shows how little of the Bible that you really know. I mean, for you to give a call for people to be more Biblical, while shouting the praises of "The Shack" is laughable.
The Shack is so full of heresy that it aint funny.
David
PS. I noticed you said all of this anonymously.....I understand...if I would've made such a statement as this, I'd probably want to stay anonymous too.
Vol,
ReplyDeleteYou are so polite.
Now, if I was going to respond to Anony CT, I would probably say something like:
Did you say you are a Baptist pastor? Did you say you "loved The Shack"?
Is your church in Neverland and are all of your congregants theo-dwarves like you obviously are?
That is How I would have responded Vol if I were going to do so. But I am not going to respond to Anony CT Vol. I am going to remain silent Vol and learn from you.
You have such a soft touch with trolls and nuts. I can learn a thing or two from you of I hang around and keep my mouth shut.
Bart:
ReplyDeleteSorry. Just got around to your response. I realize that this is so long gone, that you may not reply.
I agree that by percentage, the SBC is still Southern.
But it is not nearly as Southern as when that name was selected.
We have 3 seminaries that are not in the South.
We have churches in many states outside of the South.
We had a strategic cities initiative that targeted many great cities outside the South.
So, I wasn't comparing the percentage of churches in the South with those that are not.
I was recognizing the fact that the membership of churches in the SBC includes many states that are not in the South.
I was simply stating that the name of the SBC should portray who we are and who we want to be.
We are not exclusively Southern, as we were when founded, and we do not, by any measure, seek to remain Southern.
So, a name change is appropriate - if one believes that the name should accurately reflect the present and future of an organization.
And I have no doubt in the world that you do not appreciate me as a brother, as I do you.
One of the reasons that I enjoy blogging with you is that I know your heart and your convictions, and that we share so much in Christ together.
That makes any of our disagreements seem trivial, even if we like to discuss them.
Louis
Bart:
ReplyDeleteOne other thing.
The LifeWay name change is completely unrelated to the decision to sell The Shack or any other particular work.
The change of the name to "LifeWay" was to communicate more effectively to the world and the body of Christ.
I believe it has been positive.
We also have expanded stores into new areas.
Decisions regarding what to sell are often difficult and please some, many or no one in many cases.
Louis