c. 2004 Religion News Service
INDIANAPOLIS _ Does the name “Southern Baptist Convention” represent a region, a theology or something else?
Members of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination engaged in a spirited debate that centered on that question Tuesday (June 15) after former Southern Baptist Executive Committee chairman Claude Thomas officially suggested a committee be created to study whether the name should be changed.
The sentiments were split enough to prompt a ballot vote _ rather than a mere show of hands _ and the voters at the evening session rejected the study with 1,731 or 55.4 percent, opposed and 1,391, or 44.6 percent, in favor.
On the convention floor, people lined up at microphones to express their regional and religious perspectives on the matter.
“The word `Southern Baptist’ in New York state is almost evil,” said John Flint, a messenger, or delegate, from Saratoga Springs, N.Y. He called the name “an impediment to sharing the gospel.”
But Ed Taylor, a messenger from Amissville, Va., dismissed the study proposal as “a waste of time” that shouldn’t be pursued.
“No matter what we change our name to, the media will let the secret out that we’re really Southern Baptists,” he said, drawing laughter.
Taylor added that other names would be hard to come by.
“What will we call ourselves? United Baptists? There’s an oxymoron for you.”
George Pennington of Louisville, Ohio, said he recalled this idea surfacing 30 years ago and he didn’t like it any better three decades later.
“There’s no need to change the name so there’s no need for a study,” he declared. “Southern Baptist means you’re a Bible-believing, Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching church. … So, for goodness sake and God’s sake and our sake, let’s keep it that way.”
Some wondered how much it would cost and argued that funds to change church signs and legal documents could be better spent on supporting Southern Baptist seminaries.
One of them, Doug Austin of Cape Girardeau, Mo., said “Southern Baptist is who we are, not where we are.”
But incoming Executive Committee chairman Rob Zinn offered a counterargument to those wondering about the cost of a future study.
“Folks, for all you know, it’s costing us money now because folks won’t join and they’re not joining,” argued Zinn of Highland, Calif.
“It may be just possible that there is something better that can reach more people for Christ.”
Why did this proposal _ merely to study a name change and not even yet a vote on such a change _ prompt such passion?
“A name is more than a name,” said Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., in an interview.
“I think, from my vantage point, the convention should always be willing to change its name if that means more persons will come to know Christ. But the fact is that this denomination has been branded, so to speak, in a way that really affirms biblical integrity and love for the gospel and so we don’t want to lose that either.”
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the emotion that surfaced was appropriate.
“Do you think there would be emotion if the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops asked the Vatican to change the name from the Roman Catholic Church?” he asked in an interview. “I think most Southern Baptists, if they were honest with you, would tell you that they’re torn by this. They understand that they’re torn by the need to remove impediments to evangelization but they also have a deep and abiding loyalty to a cluster of feelings and emotions that are identified by Southern Baptists.”
DEA/JL END BANKS
