Editor’s note: Blalock, pastor of First Baptist Church, Charleston, served on a task force named by Southern Baptist Convention president Bryant Wright to study the possibility of a name change for the SBC.
BlalockThe Southern Baptist Convention Name Change Task Force has completed its work and officially gave its recommendation to convention president Bryant Wright and to the Executive Committee of the SBC on Feb. 20. In brief, the recommendation is that the legal name of the SBC not be changed, but that the convention adopt a descriptor, a type of trade name, that can be used by all of the entities, agencies, and churches. The suggested name is “Great Commission Baptists.” Task force members were asked not to speak about the work of the group until the report went to the Executive Committee. Although we received hundreds of emails, numerous letters to the editors of Baptist state papers, and listened to many voices about this topic, we were honor-bound not to comment about our work beyond the two press releases. My purpose in writing now is to give a meaningful report of the issues and the rationale behind the task force recommendation.
The task force was asked to study the advisability of a name change and to recommend a new identity if change was called for. The 19-member group represented all walks of life across the landscape of Southern Baptist leadership, from the local church to state and national denominational bodies. Although there were a variety of opinions expressed at the outset, the commitment of the whole body was to pray and honestly seek to be listening for the Spirit’s guidance. The meetings were filled with a sense of expectation of God’s leadership and a heart to do what best serves God’s kingdom. In the end, every task force member was unanimous and enthusiastic in our recommendation.
The History
One of the surprises in the first meeting was learning that the name change had been discussed off and on for over a hundred years. One little known fact is that the SBC voted in 1903 to change the name to “Baptist Convention of the United States,” but the name was rescinded the next year for reasons that are not altogether clear. Shortly after World War II, there was a move to change the name to the “American Baptist Convention” and adopt a nationwide mission focus rather than just the South. The issue had widespread support, but did not come to a vote on the convention floor. In the meantime, in 1950 the Northern Baptists adopted the name American Baptist Convention (later changed to “Churches”). Several name-change studies have been commissioned since then; the idea seems to keep coming back each decade. This task force was asked to settle the question of whether such a change is feasible and whether it serves the mission of the convention as a whole.
The Case for Change
As part of our study, chairman Jimmy Draper contacted all of our state convention executives and sought insight from every corner of Baptist life. We heard from hundreds of people by email and through a message board set up for input. Letters to state Baptist papers were reproduced and all communications were shared by task force members. A published study by LifeWay’s research group gave us more feedback.
(1) Change for the sake of mission:
A significant portion of Baptists outside of the South made a compelling case that a non-regional name would benefit the cause of missions. Those who preferred to keep the name generally took the position that it was an honorable name that no one should find objectionable. While we sympathize with those who like the name, we had already decided that our purpose was to advance the cause of the kingdom of God. Those most closely associated with our work in areas outside of our region convinced us that a name change would make a positive difference in church planting in new areas.
(2) Change to break down barriers:
One of the most transformative moments in the meetings came when Dr. Ken Fentress, an outstanding scholar and leader from Baltimore, spoke on behalf of the name change. Ken is an African-American pastor of a large multiracial church. He eloquently described how many people in the minority community see the name “Southern Baptist” as a barrier. Our history is clear and undeniable: Southern Baptists separated from Northern Baptists in 1845 over slavery. Southern Baptists were on the wrong side of the gospel and of history at that time. By God’s grace, that is no longer true. Dr. Fentress, a Christ honoring pastor with a humble spirit, asked us to take a step toward millions of people by removing a barrier to the black community. As a white person, I never considered that the name “Southern Baptist” carried overtones of the injustice of the past. We had unconsciously been saying “Get over it” for decades, but those words conflict with our gospel of grace. The task force was convinced that a name change would be another step to breaking down barriers of racial division.
(3) Change on purpose:
As we considered a name change, one of the first questions to answer was, “What name should we suggest?” All sorts of geographical names were submitted to the task force, many of which were good names. After going through hundreds of options, the group became convinced that our name should not describe our location; rather, the name should describe our purpose. The Great Commission has been our main purpose since 1845, something Baptists have been right about from day one. The name “Great Commission Baptists” speaks to those within our fellowship to call us forward for Christ.
The Legal Question
The task force resolved at the outset to make a recommendation only if it would advance, rather than harm, the cause of missions. Members learned that a name change had the potential of creating legal exposure that could negatively affect the mission. The SBC charter was authorized by the Georgia legislature in 1845. The original charter is very favorable to the organization in terms of legal protection. Should Baptists adopt a new name, our legal advisors informed us that it had the potential of vacating our charter, forcing a reorganization under current non-profit law. Such a change would lead to the restructuring of our convention at considerable expense. In addition, if the original charter were vacated, the potential of legal exposure to the convention would increase significantly, something that would ultimately harm the mission. The task force discussed this at length, sought various legal opinions, and looked at a variety of options. The conclusion was that a legal name change would not be in the best interest of the mission and purpose of the convention.
An Informal, Non-Legal Name Change
The task force was faced with two competing conclusions: a name change would create legal problems that could potentially harm our mission; and the name change would eliminate barriers and stimulate greater focus on the gospel and the mission to reach lost people. The idea of an informal name that could be adopted by the convention became an intriguing concept. After our legal counsel discouraged the official change, this seemed to be the only reasonable option. Many organizations have an official name and do business under a separate name. Some businesses have a legal name and a trade name under which most public business is conducted. What the task force is recommending is that the SBC use “Great Commission Baptists” as a descriptor that identifies us and becomes our public representation of who we are. The beauty of this plan is that none of the legal documents of any of our institutions or agencies will be affected or changed. The task force members are recommending that we adopt the name “Great Commission Baptists” in all of our work as we identify ourselves. The individual agencies and institutions would have to make the decision, just as individual churches would do as well. Our hope, however, is that the convention would vote in favor of this recommendation in June of 2012, and that the use of the new name would begin at that point and become over time the most common way we identify ourselves.
Timid or Wise?
Certainly some will take a glance at the fact that there is no recommendation to change the legal name and say this is too timid. I would have thought so myself until I understood all of the ramifications of the change with the unique legal standing that our 1845 charter gives us. I hope those who believe the motion is too timid will look carefully at the whole picture and see that wisdom involves being prudent in all of our responsibilities.
Politically Correct or Missional?
There are some who have communicated to us that the name change is only a matter of political correctness. Well, it is not politically correct to say the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or that Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior, or that we are called to share the gospel with all people everywhere. The suggested name affirms all of these truths, considered by some to be offensive. Our goal obviously had nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with extending God’s Kingdom into a world which is in desperate need of the Savior we serve.
Southern Baptists or Great Commission Baptists?
One of the dynamics of Baptist life is that we are autonomous. No one can be forced to use either name. Do we think, if the motion passes in New Orleans, that the name will be commonly used? We hope so, and we believe it will occur over time, but there is no guarantee. We have voted for a Great Commission resurgence at the state and national level. Now, we are suggesting that we describe ourselves in all of our publications and communications as Great Commission Baptists. The real key to our future, however, is not in the programs we vote for or the names we choose. The real key is whether indeed we are Great Commission Baptists. For the sake of our Savior, I hope so.