The Southern Baptist Convention changed to… what?

There has not been a move officially as yet to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, the Convention’s President, Bryant Wright has suggested such an option. As I have thought about this idea, I am not exactly sure what to think. Baptist Press wrote an article outlining his idea.

This idea is not a new one. 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990,1998,  1999 (attempt at a straw poll), and 2004. Will this be the time? Unknown. However if precedence is any indicator, then probably not. However, is it a bad idea?

The term “Southern” definitely gives a regional aspect (specifically to the United States) to an otherwise international organization. S0 perhaps, changing the name is a good idea. After all, the Convention has seen a resurgence in church planting across all of our nation, and a big push to see the Great Commission fulfilled to the outer most reaches of our earth. While a large part of our Convention still stays rooted in Baptist churches of the South, there is nonetheless a growing element reaching far beyond.

Also, Jimmy Draper has agreed to serve as chairman of the task force, whose job it will be to consider the possibility of a name change.  Draper could probably be considered the patriarch of the Southern Baptist Convention having served as the Convention’s President, as a pastor, and as President of Lifeway Christian Resources. So, having him at the helm of such a task force could help ease the sting of could very well be a very divisive issue. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville has also agreed to serve on the task force (who, by the way has an insightful article of his own on the issue). So again with men such as these overseeing the prospect, I think we are at least in the most capable hands.

Wright is quoted in the Baptist Press article as saying,  ”I am going to ask this task force to consider four questions: 1) Is it a good idea, that is, is there value in considering a name change? 2) If so, what would be a good name to suggest? 3) What would be the potential legal ramifications of a name change? 4) What would be the potential financial implications?”

At 31 years of age, I have spent 31 years in the Southern Baptist Convention. It is, inevitably, part of my Christian heritage. At least to some degree. But, if I were serving on the task force and answering these questions, what would my thoughts be? Well we have already basically looked at #1.

Then on to number 2. As I have mentioned, the SBC is focusing more efforts on church planting across the United States, and fulfilling the Great Commission internationally. So, what would a new name suggest? Would the new name take “Baptist” out of it, or just the term “Southern”? Perhaps, the Great Commission Convention?  What about United Baptist Convention? Baptist Union Convention? United Baptist Association? These names, while being on my own accord, should suggest the association of Baptist churches that it represents. Then again, for the very reason of taking “Southern” out of its name, we should not call it the American Baptist Convention or anything really similar; again, for the reason of its global outreach.

What about numbers 3 & 4? Well, I am not exactly sure what the legal ramifications could be. Although, considering its 170 year old name, there very well could be legal ramifications if the SBC was to change its name. The financial ramifications would be, at least at first, astronomical. The name change itself on ALL publications (i.e. books, magazines, brochures, websites, sermon audio, etc.) associated with it. Then of course the name change would trend down to the individual churches and changing their association with the SBC to whatever it would be on all of their publications.

So is it a good idea? I am not sure. Is it a bad idea? I am not sure. I guess I am fairly neutral on the idea at this point. There are some good reasons. For example, in the Baptist Press article, Wright said, ”First, the convention’s name is so regional,” he said. “With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name. Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.” Granted, these considerations are well thought out. However, is it necessary? All I can say at this point is, it will be interesting to wait and see.