This week news came out that the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination, is considering a name change. The news comes as a shock to some and an eagerly anticipated discussion by others. What is clear at this point is that this discussion does not lack emotion.
Albert Mohler writing about the potential name change says this:
I have known nothing but the Southern Baptist Convention in terms of my own personal identity for the entirety of my lifetime, now over the half-century mark. For almost twenty years, I have had the privilege of serving as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
To be honest, I am personally traumatized by the very idea of changing the denomination’s name. I feel an almost physical loss at the very prospect. It is a deeply and unavoidably emotional question for any Southern Baptist whose life is intertwined with the Convention, its work, and its churches.
I find those comments very interesting. Having spent most of my time in non-denominational churches I don’t have such an attachment or even a framework to relate to such an emotional attachment to a denomination. But I truly respect it. There is little doubt that this type of personal sentiment by a distinguished leader within the SBC reflects what many people ‘on the ground’ feel.
The impetus behind the consideration is the reported difficulty by missionaries, particularly church planters, in non-Southern US portions of the world in communicating or even overcoming the meaning of “Southern.”
Mohler again says:
…there is a legacy with which we must continue to deal. We were established as an association of churches that would appoint slaveholders as missionaries. There is so much to celebrate in the heritage of our beloved denomination, but there is also a deep stain that is associated with slavery, the nation’s sectional division prior to and during the Civil War, and the legacy of racism. If these issues can be resolved, even to any significant degree, by a name change, a Gospel-minded people would never hesitate to consider such a proposal.
It will no doubt be helpful for the leaders and members of the SBC to come to grips with the positives and the negatives from their history. To think about the blemishes and the positives is healthy in terms of identity and mission. I just hope that it comes from a gospel perspective. From an organization that proclaims that they are sinners in need of Christ it would follow that they are made up of people historically that sin. To speak of these things honestly in light of the gospel is good. This becomes a good gospel floodlight. Further, it is good to speak of the historic commitment to the Great Commission. In one sense it is precisely because the gospel has out-run the original geographic setting that they would even have to consider this. It is a good thing when the gospel out-kicks its coverage.
I think the leaders on this task force in charge of considering this name have a tough road ahead of them. How do you define and name a group of people so varied? Let’s be honest, the SBC is a very large tent. People from Rick Warren to Mark Dever (and their expansive posse’s) are in this convention. Think about your own region; there is no doubt quite a bit of doctrinal diversity among the SBC. What holds them together is the baptistic theology, great commission priority, and frankly a history of the same. To try to rename the SBC in any more generic way would seem to be counterproductive. To do it in a more specific way would seem to be nearly impossible. To remove the geographic description seems more likely and helpful.
This is truly a compelling story that I’ll be watching with great interest.