No one should be surprised at the recommendation for a new name for the Southern Baptist Convention. It seems like the next logical step in the restructure of our national denomination.
Four years ago, no one had heard of LifeWay Christian Resources. International Mission Board and North American Mission Board were only suggestions. This June, it is widely anticipated that messengers to the SBC annual meeting will approve changing the name of the convention’s Annuity Board to GuideStone Financial Resources. When that is done, all four major SBC boards will have new names.
A name change for the SBC itself is not a new idea. As recently as 1999, the SBC Executive Committee studied the idea before recommending against it. The Executive Committee said the name Southern Baptist Convention had lost its geographical identity and had become a “brand name.”
Too much blood, sweat and tears had gone into transforming the name Southern Baptist into a brand just to throw it away, the report implied.
In calling for a new name this year, SBC President Jack Graham recalled the support of former SBC president and longtime pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, W.A. Criswell, for a name change. In 1974, Criswell offered a motion during the SBC annual meeting that a special committee be appointed to study the need for a new name for the convention.
In the two years before Criswell’s motion, the SBC annual meeting had gathered in Philadelphia, Pa., and Portland, Ore. It was obvious to all that the Southern Baptist Convention was not just “southern” anymore.
Messengers to the 1974 convention approved the study, and a seven-member committee was appointed. C.R. Daley of Kentucky was named chairman, and Criswell was a member. A year later, the committee reported to the convention in Miami that “the name of the Southern Baptist Convention should not be changed at this time.”
That conclusion was the result of a detailed study that involved national surveys and focus group meetings with those favoring a name change as well as groups opposing a change. At the end of the day, the committee unanimously agreed not to change the name “at this time.”
One of the reasons for deciding against the name change was the lack of a viable alternative. The committee concluded that most of the names they found attractive had already been taken by other Baptist bodies in the United States.
To some extent, the committee was constrained by the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention. The constitution declares in Article II, Purpose: “It is the purpose of the Convention to provide a general organization for Baptists in the United States and its territories.” Therefore, the committee focused on a name that would describe the work within the boundaries set forth in the constitution.
Today, it is recognized that the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention can be changed just like any other document. Thus, when Jack Graham said, “The new name will reflect that Southern Baptists are a nationwide and worldwide body of believers,” he may have been describing more than a name change for Southern Baptists.
Up till now, Southern Baptists have worked with other Baptists groups around the world to lead people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and to start churches. But these churches have not been Southern Baptist churches. They have been Canadian Baptist churches, Spanish Baptist churches, Russian Baptist churches, Korean Baptist churches and so on.
Southern Baptists have deliberately avoided trying to become a worldwide denomination. Our missions efforts have been worldwide but our convention has been limited to “the United States and its territories.” That may be about to change.
What is to prevent Southern Baptists from becoming a worldwide denomination? Already our missionaries are helping start churches around the world. Why should these churches not be Southern Baptist churches, some ask. Already LifeWay Christian Resources sells Christian literature in many countries. Already SBC resources, in addition to those of the International Mission Board, are targeted toward leadership development in many parts of the globe.
Asking why Southern Baptists should change their name, Jack Graham responded, “Only one reason, and that is to strengthen and lengthen our witness here in America and around the world.”
He added, “We are determined to do whatever it takes to connect with our culture and our country and the continents of the earth.”
The decision to pull out of the Baptist World Alliance may be the final piece necessary for Southern Baptists to become a worldwide denomination. Southern Baptist leaders have announced they want to begin associating with like-minded, conservative Baptists around the world.
As a worldwide body, the SBC, or whatever the new name may be, would not feel limited by relationships with other national Baptist bodies. As a worldwide denomination, churches in every part of the globe could relate directly to the SBC. In turn, resources of the convention could be made available directly to those cooperating Baptist churches.
SBC leaders have said they would not start a competitive organization to BWA. A worldwide Baptist denomination would not be competitive. The SBC is a denomination. The BWA is a fellowship of Baptist bodies. That distinction would remain.
Jack Graham is confident of his direction. He plans to appoint the committee using his presidential powers. He is confident of the outcome. He promised the new name will reflect Southern Baptists as a nationwide and worldwide body of believers.
It will be interesting to see if the final result is more than a new name for the Southern Baptist Convention. It will be interesting to see if it involves a constitutional change than begins the process of transforming the Southern Baptist Convention into a worldwide denomination.
Share with others: