As a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary I have watched with interest the reaction to the recent report of the name change study committee. For those who haven't followed the story, last year Bryant Wright (SBC President) appointed a committee to study the wisdom and feasibility of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. It has been suggested by some that the regional connotation of Southern may be some type of hindrance to ministry efforts beyond the southeastern US.
The committee recently reported its recommendation. Importantly, the idea of a name change was rejected because of questionable need and legal costs that would mount into the millions. However, for those churches and missionaries who believe the name may pose a hindrance in their particular venue, they recommended what amounts to an official nickname of Great Commission Baptists. Nobody will be forced to use the nickname, but it will merely exist as an option for those who want to try.
If you are like me, you might think how in the world would this be problematic to anyone. Judging from reading the reaction online and around blogs though you'd be wrong. Here are some of the more common reactions/objections I've seen and my response to them.
1) "I don't care what they do, I'll always be Southern Baptist." I hear this a lot and I sympathize with that. Anybody who has ever heard me say a word knows I'm about as Southern as they come. I've been attending SBC churches my entire life. I attend their "flagship" seminary (not sure what that means but that's what they tell us anyways). I am proud of my affiliation with an organization that does so much to spread the Gospel, but it's not who I am. I'm a Christian. Jesus Christ is the only name for which I'll contend unconditionally and I sincerely believe that most if not all of those I hear saying these things would agree with me on that. But to hear some of these folks it's as if they think the committee is telling them they should apologize for being Southern or that they shouldn't call themselves Southern Baptists. Friends, nobody is asking us to apologize for anything and nobody is saying we can't or shouldn't call ourselves "Southern Bapists", and most importantly nobody is suggesting that we compromise on the core doctrines that define the substance of who we are. There's no reason to act like we are under attack from within.
2) "I've never had any objection to the name Southern Baptist in my ministry". To that I say, "so what?" That is an anecdotal statement and proves nothing at all. Your experience does not cancel out the experiences reported by people in the field who say that it hinders them. Are we to call them liars without having been in their particular situation? Surely we can give these brothers and sisters in the Lord that much benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I don't think the name is a widespread problem but I can see how there might be situations where it is. What's the harm in putting it to the test and finding out? It seems worth a shot to me.
3) "We've got bigger fish to fry". I've heard this a lot and I completely agree. Many people are rightly pointing out that a name is superficial and point to the real substantive problems facing the SBC (and there are many). Though this is true its application in this context represents flawed logic and a foolish management style. It basically says that we can't address small problems until big problems are fixed. You can't run an organization like that. It takes time to build consensus and address big problems. It would be foolish to just ignore smaller problems that might be easily fixable because you are dealing with the big things. Good leaders can and should multi-task. Any time spent criticizing the committee for taking up this small issue is much better spent praying for solutions and consensus in dealing with the big ones.
4) "What we really need is revival". Amen Brother! But here is the thing, do you really believe saying that in a critical spirit is going to do anything to bring it about? Further, do you doubt that the leaders in Nashville and at the State Conventions want the same thing? If I did doubt that, then I'd probably be looking for a new church affiliation. I don't think there is any controversy or dispute that we need revival in America (and in our SBC churches). Yet I see some declaring this as if the matter is hotly contested. Surely we have more important things to do than to get bogged down in a contest to see who can scream about the need for revival the loudest.
Don't misunderstand me, I passionately believe we need revival and think it is healthy to talk about the need constructively. Let's acknowledge the need, roll up our sleeves, and get out in the field and work for the harvest. If somebody is willing to cooperate with me in doing that, I really don't care what he calls himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment