I assume you were not watching very closely while you attended to those in your care. I suppose you missed post #32 in its criticism of several conventions. So which convention is "the" convention.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Southern Baptists Propose Changing Name...
- Thread starter preachinjesus
- Start date
I assume you think of it as "the convention" by your earlier reference.
The Great Commission Baptist Convention (TGCBC). Are they really The_____?
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
I'm very opposed to this move. If they do this, I will keep identifying as a Southern Baptist because that will still be the Convention's legal name.
Interesting conversation going on here...and in plenty of other places.
For what its worth, the name change is a lackadaisical attempt since the legal name will still be the SBC. Honestly, I can't imagine introducing myself and church to someone (who asks) as a "Great Commission Baptist of the Southern Baptist Convention." I can't even imagine using the term "Great Commission Baptist" to describe myself anyways.
The SBC has had an identity issue, but a slight of hand approach to changing that isn't going to work. With the vociferous support this idea is receiving from so many of the "leaders" in the convention its almost fanatical. I'm sure it will pass in the annual convention, but the real test will be anything moving forward. Its like churches that still do Sunday School but call it something else...inevitably you end up describing it as Sunday School to help new people. Probably the same thing here.
The idea of a denominational/convention name like this is odd in this day and age. Notice some of the more sophisticated network names are going: Acts29, Exponential, WillowCreek Network, etc. This "Great Commission Baptist" lacks a certain kind of, I don't know how else to describe it, sophistication and cultural awareness.
While I appreciate that the term Baptist (because we are) remained in the title there is something of "old timey religion" that rings of the first two names. I just can't believe we've waste time and money on this...something that probably could have been decided at a coat check line following an Executive Committee meeting. But these are the things we spend our CP bucks on. I really wish we had seen an outside marketting and branding firm engaged for their feedback.
Keep the good conversations going
For what its worth, the name change is a lackadaisical attempt since the legal name will still be the SBC. Honestly, I can't imagine introducing myself and church to someone (who asks) as a "Great Commission Baptist of the Southern Baptist Convention." I can't even imagine using the term "Great Commission Baptist" to describe myself anyways.
The SBC has had an identity issue, but a slight of hand approach to changing that isn't going to work. With the vociferous support this idea is receiving from so many of the "leaders" in the convention its almost fanatical. I'm sure it will pass in the annual convention, but the real test will be anything moving forward. Its like churches that still do Sunday School but call it something else...inevitably you end up describing it as Sunday School to help new people. Probably the same thing here.
The idea of a denominational/convention name like this is odd in this day and age. Notice some of the more sophisticated network names are going: Acts29, Exponential, WillowCreek Network, etc. This "Great Commission Baptist" lacks a certain kind of, I don't know how else to describe it, sophistication and cultural awareness.
While I appreciate that the term Baptist (because we are) remained in the title there is something of "old timey religion" that rings of the first two names. I just can't believe we've waste time and money on this...something that probably could have been decided at a coat check line following an Executive Committee meeting. But these are the things we spend our CP bucks on. I really wish we had seen an outside marketting and branding firm engaged for their feedback.
Keep the good conversations going
The conceptually similar (and more readily comprehensible) name 'Association of Baptists for World Evangelism' was 'thought of' many decades ago by (Northern) Fundamentalists.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am sure he got it from reading the book The Baptist Heritage/Four Centuries of Baptist Witness written by H. Leon McBeth, renowned Baptist historian and professor at SWBTS.
What is the age range of the leaders and voters. Seems like Jimmy Draper wrote about ten years ago that they needed to consider the younger generation. I wonder how many of the "younger generation" were sought?
Isn't that kind of like spending a dollar to save a dime?
jonathan.borland
Active Member
OK guys, I'm being serious. In my opinion it would be optimal for any new name to be able to retain the acronym SBC. Even better would be a two-syllable S-word to replace the word Southern.
So I propose something like Standard Baptist Convention. Standard has the connotation of orthodox. It would also allude to the Bible as our standard for faith and practice. Let's consider it!
So I propose something like Standard Baptist Convention. Standard has the connotation of orthodox. It would also allude to the Bible as our standard for faith and practice. Let's consider it!
glfredrick
New Member
So, right now you are merely spreading a rumor based on what you "think" will happen... :BangHead:
That was very insightful. :laugh:
glfredrick
New Member
The original split was over missionary activity, with the northern tier congregations refusing to support the missionary activities of the southern tier congregations because they held slaves. Not "slavery" per se.
glfredrick
New Member
That would be completely appropriate, which is why they are not actually changing the name, but only allowing an additional tag line to be used in conjunction with the name.
glfredrick
New Member
Anyone in the Convention was free to submit a potential name.
Huh?!?!? What is "waqtering?"
No, slavery was the issue which belied the whole move. As we look back, historically, we see the foundational divisions between the North and South were over, primarily, slavery and secondarily (and as a result) missions. Truth be told, the South had more than a few problems with northern Baptist churches sending missionaries down into the South to start new churches because they saw the immorality of slavery as disqualifying to the Southern churches.
Then you had the "test case" concerning a man, James Reeves from Georgia, who wanted to be appointed a missionary for the Baptist convention but was a slave-holder. All of this conspired to split the groups and slavery was the hammer that broken the rock apart.
I am not convinced that a name change will do them any good simply because if they do not make other changes it will just be identified by another name.
The Northern Baptists changed their name. Did it do them any good?
My younger years were filled with stories about what the Baptists said about the Catholic Church where my mom lived in Minnesota. True or not I am convinced it served absolutely no purpose to help anyone to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Since I became a believer my mom has but she would never consider joining a Baptist Church because of what she heard growing up. she stills thinks of them in much the same way she thinks of JW's and Mormons even though she knows they are very different doctrinally. The comments I have heard over the years from her were nothing less than demeaning of the people who went to the Catholic Church. People who go to a particular church may not know anything else and have had no other exposure except from what they hear. So often people are quick to criticize another church but do not like it when someone else points out the problems of the past or present in their own church even if it is 100% true.
So if any Baptist group expects to do ministry in a heavily Catholic area they need to rid themselves of the condemnation and attack mode. About 3/4 of the people who go to John MacArthur's church come from a Catholic background.
The Northern Baptists changed their name. Did it do them any good?
My younger years were filled with stories about what the Baptists said about the Catholic Church where my mom lived in Minnesota. True or not I am convinced it served absolutely no purpose to help anyone to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Since I became a believer my mom has but she would never consider joining a Baptist Church because of what she heard growing up. she stills thinks of them in much the same way she thinks of JW's and Mormons even though she knows they are very different doctrinally. The comments I have heard over the years from her were nothing less than demeaning of the people who went to the Catholic Church. People who go to a particular church may not know anything else and have had no other exposure except from what they hear. So often people are quick to criticize another church but do not like it when someone else points out the problems of the past or present in their own church even if it is 100% true.
So if any Baptist group expects to do ministry in a heavily Catholic area they need to rid themselves of the condemnation and attack mode. About 3/4 of the people who go to John MacArthur's church come from a Catholic background.
glfredrick
New Member
Like I said, appointed to be a missionary, but a slave holder. Missions was the driving force in the Trienial Convention, where slaveholders were not seen as fit to be on mission.
glfredrick
New Member
I actually tend to agree, with one caveat... Southern Baptist still does not work in the north, mostly because there are not enough of them so that they are common and because of that, the perceptions are skewed against them.
I'm ministering in the North... I get it. I've also served in the upper-south, where Baptist is a common thing. South of the Ohio River, Baptists are seen as mainstream, okay, doing good things, helping communities, most persons in any given community are probably either aware of them or even members with them. North of the Ohio River, Baptists are seen as some form of cult, snake handlers, places were weird preachers do weirder stuff, and distinctly some place to be avoided at almost all cost. Persons coming into a Baptist congregation in the north do so at the risk of being shunned from their family and community -- much as a Catholic might be treated in Alpharetta, Georgia, where there is but one Parish. In Wisconsin, there is a Lutheran and a Catholic parish in every community of a size (or not) to sustain them. That is certainly not true of Baptist works, especially SBC, where only 1/3 of all the counties (COUNTIES) in the state have been entered so far.
There are about the same number of SBC congregations in the two-state convention of Min/Wi as there are in Jefferson County (Louisville) Kentucky. The other brands of Baptist are not doing that much better, and when they are present (about a total of 2/3 of the counties have at least one) they are small, running below 100 and often below 25 in number.
The NAME makes a huge difference for the MISSION in pioneer territory like Wisconsin where the evangelism percentage is about 3% for some areas!