Dr. Bryant Wright, President of the SBC and Pastor of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia, proposed that the SBC consider a name change tonight at the SBC Executive Committee meeting in Nashville. Wright suggested two reasons for the possible name change: overcoming an inaccurate regional identity, and overcoming barriers the name causes outside the South. However, Wright acknowledged that “only God knows whether such a proposal would pass (in the convention).”
Wright had already appointed a task force to look into the name change possibility. Since the task force was not authorized by the SBC or the Executive Committee, it is unofficial and reports directly to the President. The task force members are volunteers and will provide for their own expenses. Dr. Wright hopes the task force will have a recommendation ready in time for the February 2012 meeting of the Executive Committee, and that they will recommend it to the SBC Convention meeting in New Orleans in June 2012.
The committee appointed by Dr. Wright is to be chaired by Jimmy Draper, former President of LifeWay Christian Resources, and includes the following members:
- Michael Allen, Senior Pastor of Uptown Baptist Church in Chicago, IL
- Marshall Blaylock, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Charleston, SC
- David Dockery, President of Union University
- Tom Elliff, President of the IMB
- Kevin Ezell, President of NAMB
- Ken Fentress, Senior Pastor of Montrose Baptist Church in Rockwell, MD
- Micah Fries, Senior Pastor of Frederick Boulevard Baptist Church in St. Joseph, MO
- Aaron Harvie, Lead Pastor of Riverside Community Church in Philadelphia, PA
- Susie Hawkins, Bible study teacher and entity head spouse from Dallas, TX
- Fred Hewitt, Executive Director of the Montana Southern Baptist Convention
- Cathy Horner, Bible teacher and pastor’s wife from Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC
- Benjamin Jo, pastor of Hana Korean Baptist Church in Las Vegas, NV
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of SBTS
- Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS
- Bob Sena, retired Director of Hispanic resource development for NAMB
- Roger Spradlin, Co-Pastor of Valley Baptist Church in “Bakersfield, CA and Chairman of the SBC Executive Committee
- John Sullivan, Executive Director-Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention
- Jay Wolf, Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL
The announcement did not evoke a warm response from the SBC Executive Committee initially. Objections to the proposed name change included concerns about losing legal and financial advantages from the 1845 SBC charter, concern about forming such a significant committee without convention authorization, concern about the timing of raising this possibly controversial issue on the heels of the sometimes divisive GCR process, and concern that opening a website soliciting possible name suggestions from Baptists is premature before a thorough study of the legal and financial ramifications of such a name change. Two motions were made by EC members – one to ask for a yearlong study of the financial implications of such a change before the EC acted on any recommendation, and another to ask Wright to delay his announcement and seek the approval of the Convention in June 2012 rather than forming an unauthorized committee. However, EC members voted down both of these motions.
Considering a name change for the SBC is not a new notion, nor is it the first time an SBC President has proposed such a study. Motions were made from the floor of the SBC to consider a name change in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990, and 1998, and the motion to conduct a “straw poll” about a possible name change was defeated in 1999. W. A. Criswell proposed the study of a name change in 1974-1975, which led to the appointment of a “Committee of Seven” to conduct the study, and Jack Graham proposed studying a possible name change in 2004, but it was defeated in 2005. The Executive Committee has initiated such studies in 1961, 1965-1967, and 1997-1998. In all these instances, the name change proposals have been defeated by the SBC.
What do you think about the possible name change? Do you have a name suggestion to recommend?
The title of your article is inaccurate. The article itself is accurate. Wright is not proposing a name change. He is simply promoting a consideration of that.
Please give this matter prayerful consideration. I have been serving in NY for 22 years as a Southern Baptist. Imagine starting churches in Mississippi with the Yankee Baptist Convention. Can you see why a change is needed?
My suggestion for such name change presents clearly who we are. PPC should be then next name. P–Potential. We are potentially a convention and certainly a denomination. P–Presbyterian. With this recommendation by President Wright we have moved to an Elder run form of governance. He has removed the will of the people completely from this process. C–Convention. We want to identify our past with a name change so we can affectionately look at the past accomplishments. With the word convention we have looked back and said; “I remember when but it is no more. ”
This name change has three elements. Clearly identifies our polity, states who we want to be, and states who we were.
Blessings,
Tim
PS. Your title is as accurate as your article.
So come next convention, if the majority of duly appointed messengers cast their free-will ballot in favor of a name change, will you still level the accusation of elder rule and a Presbyterian system since this particular recommendation started at the top? Will you discount the expressed will of the convention?
Brother Chris,
Let me explain it this way. When the motion was made to send this to the attorney’s Dr. Wright said something to the effect, you can do what you want I already have the task force in place and I will continue going. So, yea I will still call it Presbyterian. We have moved to a Elder run and denomination.
Blessings,
Tim
The decision to form a task force makes no changes to the denomination. Wright’s actions do not make any changes to the denomination. He has not performed denominational action by fiat.
The comparison to elder rule is flawed anyway; if you believe one person is trying to exercise control, that is more the actions of a bishop or pope.
Perhaps we should call ourselves the Task Force Baptist Convention, since our decisions are now made by Task Forces rather than by traditional democratic congregationalist methods. The TFBC will do whatever the President says since he’s the one who picks the Task Forces. It kind of makes the President of the TFBC a Pope but also has the appearance of Presbyters in the Task Force members. However, since they are appointed by the Pope, they are rather accountable to him, don’t you think?
The task force makes recommendations, not decisions. No task force has decision making authority.
One other note for those taking issue with the title of the post.
How can anyone read the direct quote from Dr. Wright’s reasoning for presenting his recommendation to the EC and not believe he desires a name change? One other thing the SBC is not taking into consideration. Every state convention that affiliates with the SBC will have to change their documents. This has the potential to cost lots of funds that could be used to plant churches. Where are the alarmists that called for more funds to plant churches? The very ones that are calling for more money are the very ones trying to spend more money over what? Making sure we have a “cool” name?
Also, we have a serious issue over inerrancy within the ranks of the SBC. Now we are trying to change the name and overlook the theological matters of inerrancy. God Help Us!!!!
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers:
You said:”Also, we have a serious issue over inerrancy within the ranks of the SBC. Now we are trying to change the name and overlook the theological matters of inerrancy. God Help Us!!!!”
Come on, Tim, that is beyond alarmist. Facts, please.
Who are all these folks in the SBC denying inerrancy?
The SBC has already fought the battle over inerrancy and it does not need to refight it.
“Also, we have a serious issue over inerrancy within the ranks of the SBC. Now we are trying to change the name and overlook the theological matters of inerrancy. ”
I wonder which serious issue you refer to? The matter of Lacona, who is not presently a major force in the SBC and who has been denounced from several sides within the SBC?
Also, this is sort of like people who say to the police, “Why did you pull me over for speeding? Don’t you know there are real criminals out there who need your attention?” The existence of large issues does not mean smaller issues should go ignored.
Brother Chris,
Why not contact SEBTS and see how they are catering to Licona on this issue. All this even when Dr. Mohler has come out against his position.
Blessings,
Tim
I’m not able to find much about SEBTS on Licona. Looks like they were wanting to host a round table discussion with him and Geisler?
For more clarification, I would recommend reading Dr. Albert Mohler’s article on the issue. I found it very insightful, clear, and Gospel-centered.
http://www.conventionalthinking.org/2011/09/20/will-the-southern-baptist-convention-change-its-name/
Blessings
I’m for it, Unfortunatly in the area I live in there are many people who will not come in the doors just because of the name SBC.
I believe the name “Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists” is free now.
I’ve received as many(50-50) for and against the ‘name change’ from those who have served ‘up north’…like Michigan, New York, Oregon, N. Dakota….some say a name change will help…others saying it couldn’t matter in the least.
The truth is this is being driven by a young restless Acts29 type thinking that wants to reject much of what the Conservative Resurgence gained…and they can only gain this in two ways…by you paying to start their churches(because nobody else will have them) and having a ‘name change’ they consider an albatross. These thought processes are not being initiated by the young and restless but fueled by profs in our seminaries who see these ‘types’ as our only hope! God Help us! Our problem is not a ‘name change’ but a Spiritual one of not following Him in everything that we do…
Dave,
If you had had the opportunity of being in the Executive Committee meeting room last night, as I was, I don’t think you would feel the headline for the article was inaccurate. Bryant made a strong appeal in the meeting for why the convention’s name should be changed. As Dr. Mohler said in the first sentence of his article cited above, “Southern Baptist Convention president Bryant Wright has launched an effort to change the name of the Convention, or at least to give the issue serious consideration.” The specific action was to propose a study of a name change, but there is no question but that Bryant favors a name change if it is doable.
swl
Brothers,
I don’t really have an opinion one way or another. And even if I did y’all would probably tell this PCA guy to mind his own business.
But as a FYI, I live in the St. Louis area where there are several Journey churches. I believe they are SBC officially. I’ve been there a few times and I don’t think you’d even know whether they are SBC or not.
In fact, I worshiped in a Journey assisted church in Kansas City last Sunday, Redeemer Fellowship KC. They are an Acts 29 church I believe and SBC. But you’ll have to dig to find that out.
So maybe the name change is irrelevant to a growing number of churches anyway since its not in the name of a more and more congregations? I don’t know.
BTW, my organization is happily partnering with the SBC Redeemer KC church in Haiti.
I oppose the SBC name change for several reasons. Everyone who wants to know, knows who the Southern Baptist Convention is and what we stand for. Changing the name brings in a lot of confusion. I’d rather not spend the rest of my life explaining to people that I’m a part of what used to be the Southern Baptist Convention.
The American Baptist Churches, USA is still known as being the old Northern Baptist Convention. And they are confused with the American Baptist Association, etc. And a name change didn’t seem to bring the ABC much prosperity in the South or much of anywhere else.
Without changing the name, we can be proud of the fact we used to be a regional convention, but now have churches in all states of the Union. Through the years many Northern Baptist Churches have joined the SBC.
Other regional names have survived and prospered. Kentucky Fried Chicken does well in Texas. I can personally testify to this :-).
A church can make SBC as prominent or obscure as they want. Yet when it is brought up, people know what convention you’re talking about.
We have studied this issue in the past, and a name change has been rejected. I hope we stay with a name that has served us well.
David R. Brumbelow
I believe that we should be way more concerned about sharing the gospel and reaching the lost than putting money and effort in to a stupid name change!
Les,
Thanks for the info. I essentially agree with you. Most of the “edgy” churches who do affiliate with the SBC do not feel compelled to identify with us, nor do we compel churches to do so in their written literature. Many of our largest churches do not even have “Baptist” in their name anymore. Hence, I, for one, do not see the logic of suggesting “southern” and “Baptist” are monikers which necessarily inhibit us.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dave,
I think Dr. Lemke has corrected your obvious mistake in dubbing both this post’s title and content inaccurate. Perhaps you it’d be best to tone down the drive-by accusations–incorrect accusations–in the future…
With that, I am…
Peter
Let me get this straight…the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest non-catholic demonination in the world, but to reach out to the world we need to abandon our heritage, risk division and discord, and upset seniors who are among our strongest givers to embrace the pop idea of what’s new and trendy just because new must be better. Sounds like new Coke to me.
Proposals to change the name have been around since at least the 70′s. New and trendy?
I wonder how accurate and trustworthy a piece can be when one can not even get the city in which a pastor serves in correct. FYI, there is no St. Francis, MO. No such city exists (though St. Francis, Arkansas is on the border with Missouri…however this is quite literally on the other side of the state from where Pastor Fries serves. )
I also love how you folks are trying to bring “Calvinism”, “Acts29″ and “Presbyterianism” into this. When one can not win an argument with facts, one resorts to ad hominem and red herring fallacies. And that is what we have here…How sad. Last time I checked, Bryant Wright was not Calvinist, nor was he a “favorite” of Calvinists in his election in 2010. So how is this action in anyway related to anything Calvinism? Are the old guard in the SBC so devoid of reason that they have to bring in the “Calvinist boogie-man” into every argument to try and gain support for their flawed ideas? If you dont like the idea of a name change, or even the formation of a committee to study the posibility, FINE! You have that right. And if you come up with logical thought out reasons why this should not take place, GREAT! I will listen. But if the only way you can attack this is by trying to smear it, by claiming some type of “Calvinist conspiracy”, you dont deserve to be given what authority anyone (churches, conventions, schools) have given you.
Dear SMuschany,
Thanks for the correction about Micah Fries’ church. It is in St. Joseph, MO, not St. Francis.
Regarding your remarks about Calvinism, having done a word search through the article and all the comments, your post (where it appears five times) is the only place that the word “Calvinism” appears anywhere on this post.
Tim Rodgers mentions “Presbyterian” and that this is a move towards “elder ruled” polity in the SBC.
Casey clearly states QUOTE “The truth is this is being driven by a young restless Acts29 type thinking that wants to reject much of what the Conservative Resurgence gained”.
If these two posts are not clear and direct references to “Calvini(sts/ism)” I dont know what possibly could be. I hope no one is going to try and claim that Tim and Casey were not referencing Calvinis(ts/ism) in their respective posts, that would be quite sad indeed. Furthermore, one just has to go over to Peter Lumpkin’s blog post on this topic, and you can see MORE insinuations and out right accusations that this name change is being lead by “Calvinists/Acts29/Young-n’-restless/ect” who are bent on destroying the great holy and sacred cow that is the “Southern” Baptist Convention.
SMuschany
One may also wonder how accurate and trustworthy a piece can be when one can not even get the topic about which a piece addresses correct. Calvinism? Calvinism?? Oh my…
With that, I am…
Peter
Tough words from someone who has to resort to banning people from his blog to win an argument.
As for Calvinism, see my response to Prof. Lemke in regards to the Calvinist connection to the topic of “Convention name change”.
On the whole, I support the name change idea. I think there are some serious reasons not to change the name – particularly with the cost associated with making all necessary legal changes – but it makes sense that the name reflect the contents. The SBC is now global. Not a bad idea to have a name that shows our diversity beyond the south.
That said, one concern I have was similar to a concern with the GCR (which I also supported). It is somewhat surprising to see how many people treat these changes as if they were themselves catalysts for revival. No one will get saved because we changed the name. No revival will break out because we changed the name. No church planting efforts will be made easier because we changed the name. Those who are willing to discount a church because of the word “southern” will continue to find reasons to discount it even if “southern” is missing. Yet the way some people talk, changing the name will in itself spark the next great awakening.
On the other side, some of the accusations thrown at name changers have been shameful. There is nothing underhanded about these efforts, nothing that violates SBC life and polity. There are legitimate reasons for desiring a name change. There is nothing improper about the president appointing an independent task force to study the issue. If the name changes, it will be because the duly appointed messengers vote in favor of a recommendation brought to the floor by another duly appointed messenger. If the name changes, this will not destroy the SBC nor make us less Baptist. This is not a subtle Presbyterian conspiracy or maneuverings of a secretive group trying to manipulate the SBC to put power in the hands of a few.
Both sides could use a wee bit of perspective.
Chris,
By itself, a name change would, as you say, do nothing to change Baptist polity. But when…
1. The messengers of the SBC explicitly vote NOT to have a task force to study a name change (2004), and…
2. The president of the SBC establishes such a task force ANYWAY, and that without even asking the messengers whether they have changed their minds…
…then THAT situation is a contradiction to Southern Baptist polity, whether the subject matter is about the substitutionary atonement or about whether to serve skim milk or whole in the cafeteria at Ridgecrest.
But isn’t there a difference between a convention authorized study committee and an executive committee authorized independent task force? The SBC will not pay for this and the SBC will not be bound by what this committee recommends. At the end of the day, the decision still comes to the floor of the SBC.
Chris,
Don’t you think that’s a question for the messengers?
And the question will go to the messengers, if and when someone raises the issue of changing the name at a future convention.
No, Chris, the question of whether to have a task force will NOT go to the messengers. The question of whether this task force is entirely different from the task force that Southern Baptists explicitly instructed the president NOT to have is NOT a question that will go to the messengers.
The answer that they have already given to that question is being ignored. Their ability to consider that question again is being denied them.
In 2004, the SBC voted not to authorize a task force to study the name change. Today, no SBC authorized task force exist. A privately created, independently funded task force exists. That’s quite a difference.
Whether or not the name changes is the question that the messengers will be able to answer come 2012. The private, independent task force changes nothing and defies no one.
The terms you describe (not binding…comes to convention floor…messengers make final decision) were precisely the terms rejected by the messengers in 2004. Does the convention’s vote not bind the convention’s officers?
I wasn’t paying attention to this in 2004 and I’ve not been able to find much on the proceedings. What little I’ve found satisfies me that what was proposed then and what has been formed now are different things.
Are relevant minutes from the 2004 convention available online somewhere?
So, it’s your impression that, in 2004, the intent of the messengers was along the lines of “Gee, I wish we could have a task force to study the name change, but I just don’t think it can POSSIBLY be an OFFICIAL task force. I’m going to have to vote against this OFFICIAL task force, because what really ought to happen is that the president ought to create an UNOFFICIAL task force without asking us”?
…because I was there in 2004. The action of the messengers was simply to communicate that we did not want to have a task force studying a name change.
Now, perhaps the will of the messengers has changed. If so, what’s the harm in letting them vote on it? If not, then isn’t this, apart from the rationalizations aplenty, simply the case of the president not liking the will of the messengers (not to have a task force) and deciding to sidestep their expressed wishes?
Brother Chris,
Is Dr. Wright acting in his capacity as a Southern Baptist on this, or is he doing this as the President of the SBC? Also, did the Executive Committee vote to form this task force?
Blessings,
Tim
“Also, did the Executive Committee vote to form this task force?”
I’m still trying to figure out what the Executive Committee did. From my understanding (drawn from a FBW article: http://tcnr.me/tk428 ) the Executive Committee did not vote to authorize the task force. Wright informed the committee that he had already formed the task force. Two motions were made at the executive committee which sought to change the approach to studying the name change, but both motions failed. I can’t find anything saying that the executive committee voted to authorize the task force. As the original SBC Today article above states: “Wright had already appointed a task force to look into the name change possibility. Since the task force was not authorized by the SBC or the Executive Committee, it is unofficial and reports directly to the President.”
This is an unofficial task force put together by the president of the convention. It holds no authority, receives no SBC funds, and reports only to the president.
Brother Chris,
You are correct. The Executive Committee did not vote on the task force because Dr. Wright appointed the members. This is a volunteer group of advisers.
You are incorrect as Dr. Wright’s active position here. He did not appoint the task force as President of the SBC, he did so acting as a “Southern Baptist”. That is the reason he told the EC to vote ever how they desired but he was moving forward with the task force. This is not the actions of the President of the Convention but as one of 16 million Southern Baptists. The task force is not an official task force of the convention. As such, the convention can make a motion to refuse to accept their findings as it is one person acting to push forward a personal agenda.
Blessings,
Tim
“This is not the actions of the President of the Convention but as one of 16 million Southern Baptists.”
Doesn’t that only strengthen my point? This is not a denominational committee but an independent task force with no binding authority on the convention. They can make their recommendation to Wright, nothing more.
Chris,
While this may be an “unofficial” task force, it will have the authority of the President of the SBC along with the added weight of some well-known SBC leaders. To think that they will only make their recommendation to Wright and nothing more misses the entire point of the task force. Wright himself (per the BP article) said that he hoped that an interim report would be presented to the EC in their February 2012 meeting with a final report ready prior to the New Orleans. With the obvious majority of the EC behind this move by Wright, there is no doubt that this “unofficial” Task Force, either through Wright or through the EC, will present their Report for a vote in next summer’s annual meeting. And, if anyone thinks that the report will offer anything but a name change, there is prime desert property in NM that I could sell them! New Orleans should be quite interesting.
So what you are saying is, this independent task force will present a recommendation that will be considered for a vote through the executive committee which, if it passes, will be considered for a vote by the floor of the SBC?
How Baptist of us.
Chris,
Which is it? The “independent task force” can make their recommendation to Wright, “nothing more,” or they can make their recommendation to the EC. This is the most official “unofficial” task force that one could imagine. If this process is what you consider “Baptist,” then I’m afraid we have far different concepts of what it means to be Baptist. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Tim Rogers:
I am still waiting for you to help me and others with naming all those folks in the SBC denying inerrancy?
I’m thinking about changing my online name from Volfan007 to Acts 30 Dude. I am appointing a Blue Ribbon Task Force of Peter Lumpkins, Wes Kenney, Robin Foster, Dave Miller, Bart Barber, and John Piper to check on this….
Also, maybe we need to change the name of the SBC to the ITCC, or the Irenic Tolerant Cool Convention….doesnt that sound cool?
David
“a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.”
This has to be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard a SBC President make. God’s ability to change the hearts of men is not inhibited by the name of our convention. This is pragmatism at its worst.
Les
I tend to agree. I think there are good reasons to change the name, but increasing ministry effectiveness is not on my list.
Leslie,
Hey, great name.
I just don’t see why a name change is as bad as you might think. Pragmatic? Maybe somewhat. But if all acknowledge that God’s ability to change hearts is not inhibited by the name of the convention, then it would follow that His ability to save is not enhanced by the name either. The name has no effect on His ability to save.
That being the case, and if it is acknowledged that in our day denominations are far less important to this generation, and in fact can be a deterrent to even get a hearing, then why not remove a potential encumbrance?
The Gospel is not the name of the denomination. It’s not sacred. That doesn’t you have to give up who you are. A church COULD call themselves The Fundamentalist Baptist Church. Hey, we believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. But would that be a wise decision given the baggage that name carries? No.
The fact is that Baptist, and Southern Baptist, and Presbyterian and and…all have some baggage in our culture. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like the end of the world if a name change occurred. And it surely wouldn’t compromise the gospel.
So, here are a few possibilities:
The Baptist Church in America (BCA)
The Congregational Churches in America (CCA)
The North American Baptist Church (NABC) unless that is already taken. I didn’t look it up.
The Baptist Church (TBC)
Blessings,
Les
Three of your name suggestions include America; one reason for the name change is that the SBC has gone quite global. The other name is a bit pompous.
Chris,
What do you mean when you say that the SBC has “gone quite global”?
Chris, I was really going with the thinking of what SBC President said.
“[A] name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century,” he stated.”
That’s why the use of America in my suggestions. And the other name was not meant in any way to be pompous. Just an idea.
Maybe we need to change the name to Acts 29 Convention? Yea, I’ll bet that’s it.
Seriously, I’ll bet the new name willl have Great Commission in it somehow, someway….after all, who could ever be “against” the Great Commission?
We’ll end up spending thousands and thousands of dollars on changing this name… studying it, doing the legal things, changing signs and stationary, etc, etc, etc. And, after that’s all done, then we’ll have to spend hours explaining the name change, and trying to explain to people that the Great Commission (baptist) Convention used to be the SBC.
David
I pray this will not become a devisive factor as we approach a time when we are positioning ourselves to lead more lost to Christ than in any generation in the past.
I have had the privilege of serving our convention in Vermont, Illinois, Washington, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. I have had different feed backs from local people about the SBC term. In vermont, when the church I pastored became SBC i posted it on the sign and a lady stopped and asked me if we were SB. When i said yes she asked if she could bring her children there on Sundays since she had grown up in an SB church.
In working with churches with growth issues, many times, those long time members sit in a circle and decide what they need to do to grow. They usually don’t have the answer since they are inside the box. If they really want to find out why people aren’t coming they need to go door to door and ask those people.
I hope our committee will get a good non-biased survey of people in northern cities as to thier perception and if the name causes them a problem as to affiliation. They may feel good about it as they would “Memphis Ribs” or bad about it as “Grits”.
I wished brother Wright had figured out a way of supporting those who would have valuable input who can’t afford to pay thier own way to these meetings. I beleive some more ‘trench people” would assist. God Bless and lets not let this cause dissension to the degree we are spending more time fighting than soul winning.
My favorite statement is: “Some fights ain’t worth winning. No question a dog can whip a skunk!” Ain’t worth winning!!! AGREED?
Hey, I got this one off of Scott Gordon…Campus Crusade is now CRU so can we change SBC to BaCon?
Yep, looks good to me….
David
PS. Everyone loves bacon; right?
David … you’re a real Ham.
Honestly, I am surprised it has taken this long. We saw the benefit a decade ago of changing “Baptist Sunday School Board” to LifeWay. It opened some doors that had previously been shut– people who would never shop in a Baptist Book Store were now visiting LifeWay stores. NAMB and IMB were changed from– respectively, Home Mission Board and Foreign Mission Board. As a result, we are now less likely to forget about Canada when we think about “home” missions, and we are more likely to embrace the Great Commission when we think about “unreached people groups” instead of “foreigners.” There is power in language.
I will never forget being at a Southern Baptist Conference in Chattanooga about 8 years ago. I got into a conversation with an African American who worked in the hotel where I was staying. He asked me what was going on with all the people in town, and I told him it was a gathering of Southern Baptist youth ministers. He then asked me what the difference was between Northern Baptists, American Baptists, and Southern Baptists. Because he was genuinely interested, I gave him a brief history lesson, taking him back to 1845 when Southern Baptists split from Northern over the issue of whether or not slave owners could be appointed as missionaries. His eyes got wide, and he asked me, sincerely, if there were still issues of racism in the SBC. When I told him that there truly were not (at least not officially—that doesn’t mean there aren’t individual Southern Baptists who are racists), his last comment was, “You guys should think about changing your name if you don’t believe that anymore.” True story.