Does the SBC need a new name

CONFUSION

This is the most common reason given for changing names. For the first 70 years of our convention’s life, Southern Baptists were a mostly regional denomination. We had many missionaries overseas, but our missionaries were more likely novel because of their nationality and Baptist identity than for their regional name. As Southern Baptists worked more extensively in the northern U.S., we began to face stereotypes and puzzlement related to the presence of “Southern” Baptists outside the South. Across the Midwest, it is more common for “First Baptist Church” to be American Baptist or even Free Will Baptist. In some towns up there, we even have a “First Southern” Baptist Church to clarify the matter.

For years this worked because of the huge northward migration of Southern Baptists during the middle of the 20th century. Immigrants from Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee and Oklahoma not only laid the foundation for Midwestern Southern Baptist work but their children still dominate Southern Baptist churches in that region. For them “Southern” is a term that clarifies rather than confuses. This clarity, however, does not extend to churches that are reaching native Hoosiers or Buckeyes or Huskers. Partly, this is where the call for change comes from.

Perhaps a further confusion comes with our “Southern” heritage. Slavery was a major issue in the formation of our denomination. While the racism of that era is not embraced by Southern Baptists and while we are now a highly diverse fellowship of churches, “Southern” is, to some, a reminder of the negative aspects of our heritage that we might rightly leave behind.

OUR MISSION

A second issue Dr. Graham mentioned has to do with the scope of our ministry. We are not regional or even national in our outreach, we are worldwide. Identification with an 18-state region of the U.S. (our focus up until about 1917 included the South, Missouri, New Mexico, and Illinois?a total of 18 states) implies something more limited than our Great Commission work.

A name that leaves behind our distinctively “Southern” identity might free us of the need to explain the meaning of our name to coming generations and to new places and groups. It could shorten the time we are considered outsiders in Iowa or Washington or New York.

On the other hand, this is much bigger than a PR campaign. It will cause a degree of turmoil that must be offset by significant advantages. Here a couple of obstacles we need to consider.

FINANCIAL COSTS

Consider how many times the words “Southern Baptist” appear in church documents, literature, promotional items, and even church signs. Associations and state conventions would also face an expensive facelift as a result of a name change. On the national level, the cost would be high and the process elaborate. Our own state convention could face a name change, a thorough PR redo, and a constitutional revision.

EXPLAINING WHO WE ARE

While we would hope that the net result of any change would be a clearer communication of our ministry, the short-term result could be less positive. All the attention Southern Baptists have received since 1979 have given us opportunities to explain our name, heritage, mission, and polity to a general audience. It’s complicated to us and beyond mysterious to outsiders but we’ve explained ourselves in newspapers, on talk shows, in a score of books, and on the nightly news frequently over the last twenty years. We’ve had some success at it, too. Now we would face explaining that we have a new name, but that we are the same people. Separating ourselves from the mistakes of the past could be undercut by the need to establish the continuity of our identity.

FRICTION

While we should not hesitate to express our convictions to whatever audience is listening, we should not seek controversy impulsively. Some of our churches will not agree that “Southern” is an impediment to either our mission or our good reputation. Their point will also be reasonably arguable. Our high national profile means that any disagreement will become public beyond our little fellowship. Again, we should have some solid reasons in our heads and convictions in our hearts before going down this path.

Some of this is no revelation to anyone with common sense. At the same time, opposition and advocacy will begin building before any research or careful deliberations begin. Our consideration of this matter must begin with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs.

And a final thought that might mitigate some of the costs we would face as a result of such an extensive change. What if we change more than just our face? Part of the artificiality of a PR facelift comes when the change is only skin deep. If we try to explain to people that we are the same denomination with a new label, we should expect some level of righteous cynicism. We could change our identification in ways that clarify our mission and justify the facelift, though.

What I have in mind is that we become a confessional body (although I like the idea, it’s not original with me). More than 10 years ago we changed the qualifications for participation in the SBC by adding the stipulation that churches should not endorse homosexual behavior in any way. It disenfranchised a small handful of churches, and we consider it worth it because of our biblical convictions. If we expand our constitutional requirements for participation to include crucial elements of our confession of faith, we could enhance the strength of our cooperative work as well as our reputation.

Face it, the loose fellowship formed in 1845 has become far looser than we ever intended. Many have noted that the SBC sometimes finds itself more in agreement with non Baptists than with moderate Baptists. If we define kinship in terms of faith and practice, this is often the case. It wasn’t the case 100 years ago. Things have changed a lot since we first described the nature of our partnership as Southern Baptist churches. A more confessional identity for the SBC could better represent the reality.