The SBC: Changing Names Is Good, Changing Actions Is Better

From a purely branding standpoint, the "informal name" idea is a bad one that will generate confusion like "So are you a SBC church or GBC church?"

Also, imagine down the road when there are a significant number of churches founded as "GBC" and they decide they don't like the "SBC" name anymore...could lead to a denominational split (which is the last thing needed).

Why not go ahead and completely change the name? The SBC isn't a company that has any brand equity or profits that would suffer if the name was changed. So why not rebrand it all at once instead of a confusing "rebrand-as-you-go" strategy?

No, No, No
The idea that the Southern Baptist Convention is only for the Great Commission is a truncated view of what Scripture commands of us.
Twin Mandates.
Cultural mandate and Missionary mandate.
See Chuck Colson.

This name only reflects one mandate...Its like the Costa Concordia trying to sail into Giglio with a hole in its side.

Jesus said "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God"....lets obey him.

I appreciate the effort to rename the convention and think it can do a lot for us and for the Kingdom. But this name is not a good one. Do nothing before using this. Yes, we should be Great Commission Baptists, but the Convention is and organization. It is not the church. I think the name should reflect the nature of our associations. "convention" achieved this as part of SBC.

This name lacks imagination, creativity, and identity. It is warm vanilla.

I will consider my own suggestions, just so as not to be a nay-sayer.

YES! What Steve Said! right after posting my other comment, I thought about the fact that the Great Commission communicates overseas missions and that's it. Far too narrow.

Still working on ideas, but I vote no change if not a home run change.

Ed, make sure the higher ups read this!!!! (jk)

Good word bro. Important insights. I agree that the further disunity and territorialism that potentially could come from some local churches calling themselves GCB and others SBC is detrimental to the cooperation that we promotional declare as a value. The indecision of this nickname decision is unfortunate during a year when Fred Luter will likely lead us into a first and the media will have something of cooperation and reconciliation to report. Hopefully bickering over a nickname will not diminish this historic event.

What worries me most is that our vision for being Great Commission baptists will not include disciple-making that begins with the lost nor an actual value on the kind of difficult, selfless, cultivated-for unity that precedes the work of God happening in our cities. I am hopeful otherwise, but I worry that these will not be at the forefront of our strategy.

Making disciples among the lost would indicate a more Christ-centered approach to what is normally called "discipleship." Indicative in this understanding of the Great Commission are three crucial elements of mission: (1) that Jesus spent the bulk of His time living out the rhythms of the Kingdom among the lost, (2) that discipling happened for Jesus in 100-plus week relationships, not just 10-week studies, and (3) that the church must move beyond being LEARNED in a classroom to being LEARNERS in the daily.

Prioritizing unity would be evidenced by ministry strategies that included a vision for "on earth as it is in heaven" in a city rather than success for one local church, an effort that included all Christ-centered leaders and ministries of a city rather than Baptists only, and a result that decentralized strategy-making beyond clergy into the daily rhythms of followers of Jesus together in homes, schools, offices, and communities.

May our action prove our new nick-name. But if we are honest, we have been talking about being Great Commission Baptists since those founding days in that southern city of Augusta. We shall see.

But we shall not see if leaders like you and me spend all of our time in blog dialogue and not enough time cultivating the Gospel with all its implications among neighbors and nations. So I'll stop here...

Much love.
-Dukes

It's not really a "nickname" because nicknames are just used by someone and everyone sees if they stick or not. No one ever officially votes on a nickname.

No, if adopted this will become an "officially approved optional replacement name" for the Southern Baptist Convention, which certain of our churches may choose to use instead of, not in addition to, the name Southern Baptist Convention, except on legal documents.

I understand some people hope that it will eventually replace the name Southern Baptist Convention over time. The possibility of this is strong enough that those who would wish to oppose GCB as an official new name would do well to oppose it as an "officially approved optional replacement name" as well.

Exactly how does the Great Commission only refer to overseas missions? It's as much about your coworker as it is an orphan in Africa. The problem that the SBC has in my area is its unwillingness to work alongside any other denominations. Lots of great things could have been done together.

Steve and Jonathan,

The Great Commission applies to local missions/discipleship just as much as it does overseas missions. Your hometown and mine are a part of the "all nations" just as much as London, England or Paris, France. So a correct understanding of the name "Great Commission Baptists" doesn't imply just overseas missions, but life on a mission as we move about all of the nations.

The real issue with the name is that it's an "alternate" name that leads to branding issues (see my previous comment) as well as questions about unity (as Jason points out).

Ed, I completely agree with your post ( a rose by any other name...).

And now for my complaint:
"Great Commission Baptist" just doesn't sound right.
My vote: Global Baptist.

dang. I was hoping for "Intergalactic Baptist Convention"

Lawson,
Cultural is different then missions/discipleship and is broader then the Gospel community.

Like Dr Kennedy would say we can win a soul or two too Christ but if we lose the cultural then that gain will be wiped out in one generation.

He knew a thing or two about winning souls with EE being in every country on earth(the Great Commission) but he also knew about the Cultural mandate with his Center for Reclaiming America.Many Southern Baptist were with him

As a student of marketing, I will say, yes your name is important, but you live and die based upon your reputation.
(Full disclosure, I am an SBC outsider)
The SBC seems to be headed to a good place of missional engagement. It also is doing well in dealing with a past that has included racism. I am proud that the Faith and Message includes the statement "every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love." Those words leave no question where the bar is set.

This name change removes a geographic designation. It will allow more churches to associate across the Mason-Dixon Line as well as internationally.

The name change alone will not change reputation, but it can and does allow for a reset. I pray that clarity and unity around Christ & His mission will be the result.

This denomination by any other name still has more than its share of thorns! It was so important for the SBC to consider the name change, but I'm not convinced that this new suggestion is any more relevant or understandable by the world we were commissioned to reach. The name SBC at least told the outside world who we were. This new name reminds US who we are but serves only to confuse a watching world. As you point out, it is very important to remember who we are. I agree. But I fear the outside world will read "Great Commission Baptists," then shake their heads and walk away.

I believe and embrace the great commission. I'm just not sure that this name change actually helps us fulfill it.

Running from history gives permission for others to write that history for you. As a young Southern Baptist I am taken back by the suggestion that our past is so offensive that we must mask ourselves by changing our name in an attempt to hide who we are. If the decisions and actions of past leadership within the SBC, has placed the current status in that dire of straights, then it is not time to change a name but rather disband as a convention.

The decision to rename the SBC does not need to be passed for there to be adverse consequences. Negative reactions from those who oppose conservative Christian values will begin the moment the recommendation is brought to the floor for a discussion much less a vote. From that moment our SBC seminaries and our churches will be in defense mode, having to defend our message and beliefs against self induced scrutiny. This only gives ammunition to the liberal CBF and other like organizations who are adamantly opposed to the authority of scripture.

Southern Baptists have been at the forefront of the evangelical thrust to share Christ across the globe. We have been on the front lines of human rights, even in the years leading up to the Civil War and beyond. In fact it was Southern Baptists who were pushing for equal rights before it became a position of economics for northerners and Northern Baptist.

What happened to the SBC that would stand for what was right even when it was not politically popular? To change the name from SBC based on isolated events through out the history of the convention is to give back the influence of this convention and to delegitimize the correct but not politically correct stands that have been made.

Changing a name doesn’t help, it hurts! What is needed is a redefined mission, that is properly communicated to the churches of the convention. This does not occur with the “business as usual leaders” that are currently running the SBC. If the best ideas that we have is to change a name, then it is time for an overhaul. It is time to stop selecting leaders from the inner circle of older established mega churches and start looking to the fresh wind of a new generation. A generation of conservative Southern Baptist Leaders that are willing to take the stands needed to not only propel the SBC forward to win the world for Christ, but that is not willing to compromise the roots and values of those leaders of old. What we need is to stop looking for those that are sitting within the elite inner circle of SBC Pastors and start searching for a David. One who is willing to charge the giants without hesitation and without fear of the results.

As the pastor of a 4 year young contemporary Southern Baptist Church, we have had no draw backs from boldly claiming the label of Southern Baptist. In fact, we have gained momentum because of our bold doctrinal stand and our relational approach to ministry, all under the banner of being Southern Baptist.

I have no intention of changing our affiliation name to “Great Commission Baptist.” Nor do I have any intention of giving up the ground that our church has gained because of our proud affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention. As Judge Paul Pressler would say “This is a hill on which to die.” Because if the masking is allowed to carry forward it compromises all that the SBC has stood for over the years.

Really?

I wrote some thoughts on this earlier today...

"As long as we reduce Christianity to a cheap and tawdry show teaching people to learn how to sit through an hour long class together we will continue to find that we have gathered the most faithless people on the planet. O, we'll brag about our progressive ways, but look around, how 'progressive' are we, really?When will the church in the west stop itching their own bellies and go to where Christ is? (Hebrews 13)

We will continue in this rut until we realize we are on the wrong road. C.S. Lewis argues that when you discover you are on the wrong road, progress means "doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." So long as we continue making disciples like us we will continue to find our churches filled with the unconverted who abandon the 'faith' with little thought. We will continue to find the endless revolving door of the unconverted churched people shopping for a social encounter that suits their fancy. They'll abandon a house of worship at the first sound of suffering. They'll leave that fellow soldier in the line of fire at the first sight of conflict. They'll gossip, belittle and malign the faithful in such a manner that the unrighteous will seem to be the faithful."

Donald-
The idea that the SBC was fighting for human rights in the years leading up to the Civil War is mystifying since part of the impetus leading to formation was a desire to have slaves. In case you haven't heard there were some human rights issues involved with that.

@Lawson Hembree. I am well aware of what the Great Commission is and what embraces. Nonetheless, in general SBC vernacular within our churches, Great Commission talk generally brings overseas missions to mind. That's just the truth. That mindset is not so set in stone in a small portion of our churches, but for the great majority, this association is very much a reality. I appreciate the Great Commission focus convention leadership is trying to communicate, but the name change needs to come after the fact, not before.

I am personally in favor of a change if it is the right change. I am a lifelong SBC member and a beleiver for many years. I understand those who do not desire a name change, although i would not say this is a "hill to die on." And just because someone would like to see a name change, or because one speaks in opposition to any recommendation brought to the floor of a convention during business, does not make them liberal.....as seems to have been suggested by Brother Donald Smith above. Self-induced scrutinty can be a very helpful discipline, even if it is mispelled.

Approximately 95% of offerings that come to SBC churches stay within the USA, and about 99% of the SBC seminary grads base in the USA. I like the "Great Commission Baptists" name but I am not so sure it reflects who we really are, but what some hope we will be.

Donald, some of your comments mystify me:

"From that moment our SBC seminaries and our churches will be in defense mode, having to defend our message and beliefs against self induced scrutiny. This only gives ammunition to the liberal CBF and other like organizations who are adamantly opposed to the authority of scripture."

I do not know what this means. I believe the very point of all this name change business, of which I am still very undecided and even apathetic in opinion, is so we can identify more clearly what it is we believe and what we are about. SBCers already do plenty of gospel defending, I don't know what this will change, nor do I understand how "liberal organizations" now have ammunition? (by the way, most churches and institutions of the CBF retain nominal membership in the SBC, not sure where you're going with that example)

"What we need is to stop looking for those that are sitting within the elite inner circle of SBC Pastors and start searching for a David. One who is willing to charge the giants without hesitation and without fear of the results."

I agree with the spirit of your post and I do not disagree that the convention would do well with a renewed young generation of pastors, but I think this is a little misguided. Most of the people opposed to the name change seem also to be opposed to the subtle "take-over" of the SBC by the younger crowd (e.g., always many cries when it's felt there are too many young pastors speaking at the Pastor's Conference), especially if they are perceived to be a part of the 'nefarious' YRR movement which surely is out to kill all the good in the world!

I jest, but in looking for leadership in the convention, Scripture does not call us to discriminate based on age but instead on character and integrity. In fact, I would argue that there is not an epidemic problem with our leadership as a whole, but we all need to be constantly reminded of our true Pastor and Lord. We need men (and women!) of all ages and backgrounds committed to boldly proclaiming the Gospel in all its fullness, and we all have a part in discipling those around us to further this Gospel. In short, the last thing we need is a king who adulterates and murders his own people, lording over them; instead, we need a body of priests working together to teach all that our great King commanded, in full accord with the Scriptures. We need Great Commission Baptists!

@ Fred: The misrepresentation of events is exactly what occurs when opposing views are allowed to write all of history. The truth of the matter is this, leading up to the formation of the SBC in Atlanta the issue surrounding slavery and slaveholders was economic not human rights. As a matter of fact before 1800 there were more anti-slave societies in the south than the north. When the economic shift occurred during the industrial revolution there was also a shift in the position of north and south in slavery.

"Before 1800 slavery had not become a sectional issue. One might find anti-slavery viewpoints in both North and South; indeed, the evidence confirms more anti-slave societies in the South before 1800. The immense profit in importing slaves accrued more to the North than the South. That importation was outlawed in 1807. The invention of the cotton gin in 1792 made slave labor more profitable in the South, whereas northern industry profited less from slave labor. Thus, around the turn of the century, the slave system lost its profitability in the North just as it gained new profitability in the South. These related realities must be assessed in any evaluation of evolving attitudes towards slavery in the two regions."(Jerry Sutton. A Matter of Conviction: A History of Southern Baptist Engagement with the Culture (Kindle Locations 760-763). Kindle Edition. )

The misunderstanding of what the history is is exactly what will happen if a name change occurs. It won’t happen overnight but over the years it will happen. Along with the misunderstandings of the SBC will come the diminished position that the SBC has fought so hard to hold.

@Jonathan: Scrutiny (spelled correctly) that comes outside of the convention by outsiders opposed to conservative Christian doctrine takes the focus and energy of we as Southern Baptist are to be centered on, and that is the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost world as it communicated in a fully inspired and authoritative Scripture. We are to be on mission not on defense and making a name change derails us from what we have been called to do.

Inasmuch as I would like to throw my support behind the 'name issue,' I just don't see this ending well. Nickname or not, a line is being drawn in the sand; one can only imagine the 'nicknames' to follow...
Cooperative Program Baptists
Non-Cooperative Program Baptists
Tee-totaling Baptists
Red wine (for health!) Baptists
I'll stop...but when we become 'issue' believers we add grease to the slippery slope.
Can we not just affirm what we believe? And if your church cannot affirm the standard, then simply don't call yourself Southern Baptist. But we really don't need more factions, thank you very much.
I understand the intent of the GCB moniker, but I cringe to think what might be next...

@Steve: A name change for the sake of changing the perception of an organization (which is what is being proposed) only legitimizes the arguments of those that oppose the SBC (The CBF as an organization for example). While the idea of changing names sounds like an easy fix to a perception problem it is actually a trap. What will occur is that our training fields (seminaries) will have to contend with on some levels negative press and will have to spend significant time explaining and defending not only the name change but also why the SBC was not wrong in its doctrinal stands through the years. I know this looks well beyond a simply convention vote, but if we do not examine the potential results of our decisions then we are setting our selves up for failures far larger than a perception issue.

I am not in favor of half-way measures. Either change the legal name or don't do anything at all.

I think most grassroots pastors are shaking their heads. I guess the assumption is by those that think this is a great idea, is that in time GBC will overtake the name SBC. I just don't see that happening. Maybe I'm wrong. I pastor in the South and the truth is the people we reach don't know what it means to be SBC. They probably come more because of the Baptist part. They mainly come because someone loved them and invited them. I don't think the name SBC helps or hurts us. In fact I know very few churches that have SBC on their sign, in their bulletin or on anything else. My opinion is that the average church member will see little use in adopting the name GBC because the title of the denomination had little or nothing to do with them coming to Christ. In our Understanding Church Membership class I give a brief history of SBC. I am honest about us being on the wrong side of the slavery issue, and I include a copy of the resolution in which we apologize for our stance on slavery. I think it speaks volumes that SBC is willing to own its past sins. It also gives me an opportunity to deal with the issue of racism and to be clear that it has no place in our church.

Agree, a change of name and heart are desperately needed for us as baptist and as believers. We've grown stale while embracing who we are as a people. But we know that for many 'change' is a 'dirty' word. The SBC has laid a great foundation from which we can now spring forward. 'Great Commission Baptists' may not be all that creative of a name but it does propose a refreshing change of pace from what has become 'the same old same old' among baptists. We live in an age unlike any other and yet the rejection of the gospel and the apathy towards the church is still the same but magnified to the seventh power. A new name and concept of ourselves may power boost us to the same ideal as before of reaching people for Christ but with a new fire and fervor. And who knows, a new name may even give birth to new ideas for reaching people of this generation. Let's embrace change. 'Great Commission Baptists', I like the sound of that.

Come now! Do you really believe the name "southern" is the only thing standing between millions of people and the Kingdom of God?

Ken-
"Come now! Do you really believe the name "southern" is the only thing standing between millions of people and the Kingdom of God?"

Perfectly said.

@Kyle Giddens: My sentiments exactly! We have openly apologized for being on the wrong side of slavery and segregation. We have taken steps to rectify those misdeeds. This summer, in all likelihood, we will elect our first African-American president. If these actions don't convince people we've put our past racism behind us, then I fail to see what good it will do to change the name of the SBC.

By the way, I truly resent the idea that the word "southern" somehow suggests racism. Does the word "Jew" suggest avarice and greed? Does the word "Irish" suggest drunkenness? Who are the real bigots here anyway?

Thank you, and God Bless

I don't agree with the above posters that a denomination has a "cultural mandate." In fact, I don't believe the local church has a "cultural mandate." Our mandate is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. If we focus on that, the culture will change as a result.

I agree with what Donald Smith said, and I want to ask a few questions to those who blame the South for slavery and racism. Which President signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law? Millard Fillmore of New York. Which senator sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which allowed slavery to expand into the West? Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois (he also defended the controversial Dred Scott decision). Which President signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law? Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. Which President did nothing when the first southern states seceded? James Buchannan of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Smith is right. When it comes to the issue of slavery, there was plenty of blame to go around.

I'm not a SBC member, but here are my $0.02. Isn't the call to baptize included in "The Great Commission"? Great Commission Baptist seems redundant.

Also, to focus on the Great Commission is to miss the mark. The basis for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 is the "Great Indicative" of Jesus' authority in Matthew 28:18. Before the SBC has a Matthew 28:19 problem, it has a Matthew 28:18 problem.

Stetzer says: "For some, there is still deep sociological and racial tension, and the name Southern Baptist does nothing to dispel this."

But how will changing the name dispel it? I submit that racial tension will always be with us as long as there is someone to exploit it.

How does Great Commission Baptist translate into Spanish and Mandrin? We would be wiser to consider a global identity ....not a theology lesson ... The next generation would thank us.

Mandarin...sorry, iPad fingers

To those of you who dismiss the word Southern as a barrier, think about this. How well would the First Yankee Baptist Church go over in Birmingham? It DOES create a cultural barrier to lost people in the north. For me, it not about creating a new identity and it certainly is not about clarifying theology. It is about removing an unnecessary barrier to the gospel.

Good comments about actions speaking louder than names, so to speak. The main point where I differ is that I'm convinced "the most profound instruction..." is not the Great Commission but the Great Commandment.

The "bickering and infighting" are a result of us not being obedient to the Great Commandment. Jesus noted in John's Gospel that the world would know we are his disciples by the love we have for one another. Jesus says in Matthew 28 "to go and make disciples." He adds that we are also to teach them all that he commanded, which to love God and love others...the Great Commandment.

The Apostle Paul encourages us to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us so that we bear fruit...first and formost is love. I pray that we follow His lead. If so, I'm convinced that everything else will fall into place.

There is no question that actions speak louder than names, so to speak. Where I differ is with the comment that "the most profound instruction...is the Great Commission." Instead, I believe it to be the Great Commandment.

The "bickering and infighting" is the result of not being obedient to the Great Commandment. Jesus says in John's Gospel that we should obey a new comandment and thus be known for the love we have for one another. In Matthew 28 we are told to make disciples and teach them all Jesus commands, which is love God and love others, namely, the Great Commandment.

The Apostle Paul encourages us to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us in bearing fruit, which first and foremost is love. I am convinced that if we follow His lead to love others, everything else will fall into place, including the Great Commission.

Honestly, Ed -

This is a ridiculous argument. The suggestion that it is necessary to change your name because someone who represents that name has done something bad is something we hardly ever practice.

When our family does something wrong, we shouldn't change our last name. We condemn the wrong and correct it.

When someone does something wrong in our church, we don't change the name of the church. We condemn the wrong and correct it.

When someone does something wrong who is a Christian, we don't stop calling ourselves Christians. We condemn the wrong and correct it.

Honestly - I was a bad person before I became a Christian, and I had a reputation for hurting people. But by obeying what Jesus taught - I developed a reputation for loving people. Now my name has been restored to something good - in spite of what it used to represent to so many.

If the actions of the convention were truly the problem in how the name has been perceived in the past, it should also be the actions of the convention that provide the solution for how their name will be perceived in the future.

Changing the name doesn't change that supposed problem. It would actually cover it up. If you are really concerned for the future of the SBC's name, then keep it and let God change our actions so that people will know we do love all people - regardless of the color.