The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Auteur: Cody C. Lorance
Date: 17.02.2012
Category: Réconciliation, Intégrité et humilité, Médias et technologie
Shakespeare has, on the lips of his Juliet, famously declared, “That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” This, of course, is true enough. However, if we called them “vomit blossoms” or “poisonous red buds of death” I doubt too many of us would venture to get a whiff. The ancient pundits of India were going for something similar when they said, “God is one but theologians call him by different names” (Rg-Veda 1/164/46). Again, there is an element of truth here as Christians certainly employ a variety of names in their worship of the Triune God. He is Creator, Lord, Almighty, El Shaddai, YHWH, and more. However He isn’t Krishna or Buddha or Oprah or you. The tenor of Scripture suggests actually that Bill Shakespeare and company are fundamentally wrong if they are trying to claim that names and naming are irrelevant and insignificant. Rather we read of God naming things from the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:5) and of the first man quickly following suit (Gen. 2:20), we see the Lord changing the names of key figures in salvation history to mark life-altering moments or to signal divine promises (e.g. Gen. 17:5, Jn. 1:42), we hear of God’s command that we should revere His name and not take it in vain (Ex. 20:7), and we cherish the promise that our own names have been written down in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 20:15). Clearly, from a Biblical and Christian perspective, the substance of a thing and what you call it are linked – names indeed matter. And so we come to the matter at hand. Should the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in North America and my own denominational family, change its name? With apologies to my many non-SBC readers who perhaps don’t really care, allow me to dig in.[READ MORE]
Mots-clés: Southern Baptist Convention, Baptists, Denominations
Vues: 4737
Commentaires: 40
Recommandations: 0
Conditions d'utilisation | Charte de confidentialité | Le Forum mondial de Lausanne est soutenu par World Wide Open | Qu'est-ce que World Wide Open?
Conversation Poster un commentaire
États-Unis
I know in an American context what usually comes to mind when the word "southern" is used. It refers to a specific region of the country. I wonder, since this is a global conversation, just what the term "southern" has as an impact or an understanding in other countries? I wonder, if we were in North Korea and said we were Southern Baptists, would they think we were from South Korea? Or if in Sudan, would they think we were from Southern Sudan? I can understand the reason why the term "southern" is problematic when it comes to doing missions around the world. But so is the term "baptist." Since there are over 1500 kinds of baptists, is there also a misconception outside of America as to what being a baptist is? Possibly so. And then there is the term "convention." What does that mean in other cultural contexts? Do we even understand what it means in our own context? Maybe there needs to be a name change simply because ALL of the terms in the name of the SBC are problematic. How about Secure Believers of Christ?
19.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
modelk66,
You brought up a good point. I wonder also what "southern" means in other countries when they hear that word tied with baptist. Do they think it has to do with the location or do they even wander what’s behind the name? I dare say that many of our youth today barely know what it means to be southern baptists. At times I think it’s almost a political name to affiliate ourselves with a particular way of thinking.
21.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Graeper, it IS a political title. I hate politics but I know that there are times when you have to "play nice" to get anywhere. I think if you look at the post I made to a previous post of yours in this thread you will see how it is a political title now. Youth have no clue what it is to be a Southern Baptist, but then a good number of congregants don’t know either. I know I have been one most all of my life and I am not sure now if I understand what it really means to be one. It feels a lot like Landmarkism, which basically means we are right and everyone else is wrong. People are chided - both in and out of the convention - for not holding to a particular stance or belief, such as the position on women pastors. And yet, those who disagree or try to present a different argument or understanding are said to be using "intemperate language." I think many in the SBC are using ’intemperate language" but since they consider themselves to have the full knowledge, truth, or correct interpretation, they see it as defending the faith, not being intemperate. Yes, there are lines that are to be drawn and not crossed, but I think we are drawing lines over things that are not as concrete as we might think.
Since we love to throw around the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 as if we know all there is to know about it, what does it really say? It gives four instructions. GO, TEACH(Make Disciples), BAPTIZE, MENTOR(Teach Them To Observe All Things). That is all. It says nothing about who is to go, so everyone is to go. It says nothing about who is to teach(make disciples), so everyone is to teach. It says nothing about who is to baptize, so everyone is to baptize. It says nothing about who is to mentor(teach them to observe all things), so everyone is to mentor. Yet, we put qualifiers on who can do what, when, where, why, and how. We use other Scripture that is dealing with specific issues in a specific setting at a specific time for a specific people in a specific place, and generalize it so that we can promote our own preferences as to how things should operate, and then proclaim that as the one absolute truth. By not designating anyone specific, JESUS’ commission means ANYONE can go, teach, baptize, and mentor. Race means nothing, creed means nothing, gender means nothing. The only possible qualifier we can put on it is since Jesus was talking to His disciples, would be that this is only for disciples of Christ. This would indeed make sense, for a non-follower of Christ cannot "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" for a non-follower is not observing the things of Christ. Other than that, it is for any and all to participate in. Now, if I choose to align myself with a certain denomination based upon an understanding and interpretation of Scripture, that is fine. But when any denomination spouts that there particular stance is the only correct one, then "Houston, we have a problem." And what ends up happening is we fail to make disciples of Christ and strart making disciples of the SBC. Christ rebuked one of His disciples for telling someone else to stop doing works in the name of Jesus, simply because what they were doing did not look like what they were doing. Jesus simple said "Leave them be. For whoever is not against us is for us." Hmmm...where is THAT in the SBC or anywhere for that matter?
24.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Names do matter. In the Old Testament, knowing someone’s name represents having a relationship or even some sort of power over the individual whose name is known. I, admittedly, do not know much about this subject, but I understand knowing someone’s name was important. In telling one’s name, people would usually use a word like “called”; such as saying I am called so and so, rather than declaring it was his/her name. When God gave Moses, his name “YHWH”, it was important moment! Names often had meaning and it described the person. Jacob was a deceiver, and we all know the stuff he pulled with his brother Esau and his father; then when he changed after his struggle, he name was changed to Israel. Needless to say names were very important, and they are important now (even if it is not as much as it once was). When it comes to changing the name of the Southern Baptists, it is a fairly big decision. I agree with Graeper’s point about some not knowing what it means to be a Southern Baptist. What does being a Southern Baptist mean? Does anyone really know? What unites them other than the fact that they are in association with others in the convention? I agree that the term ‘southern’ can be confusing since it is a geographical term. Southern Baptists are not confined to the south anymore (as far as I know, please someone correct me if I am wrong). If, in order, to better describe and express the essence of being a Southern Baptist is needed and a way (not the only one) to do that is a name change. I am not sure if the name “Great Commission Baptists” is the right one, which implies that they are the only ones fulfilling it, which is certainly not true. In my opinion, that particular name would do more harm than good.
24.04.2012
États-Unis
@ harek:
Exactly Harek!!! There is a whole lot of stuff that is wrong with the SBC. And those things certainly take precedence over just a name change. I am an odd sort of person, I know, because I am both cynical and optimistic. I know things can be done and changed without changing the name, but I am too cynical to believe it would be truly genuine change. Instead, it would appear to be just making changes to appease some and APPEAR that real change is occurring when it really isn’t. That’s the cynical part.
The optimistic part is this: that changing the name would be the catalyst to change everything else. Coming again from the interview that was recorded in SBC Life with Wright and Draper, the reasons for not changing the name is purely financial and selfish. They stated clearly that there is some sort of "grandfather" clause that keeps us from operating in the same way as any other non-profit organization. To change the name would mean we would have to change the entire structure of who and what we are. And I feel that that scares the behoobies out of the powers that be, because then, someone else might get to have a say so that now is being kept quiet or under wraps. It means we would have to be more accountable for our actions as a convention than we currently are. For example, supposedly - according to SBC documentation - the "convention" only exists for 2 days out of an entire year. If that be true, then why do we need such a huge building for headquarters when there is nothing to headquarter for 364 days a year? That’s the point. There ARE things going on the rest of the time, but since the "convention" doesn’t exist outside of those 2 days, the goings on can be done by those who are voted in without any supervision or check systems. It is a good ole boys club, and the entire world is getting sick of it, because in this technological age, nothing gets to be hidden anymore. Change the name, and you HAVE to change the structure. Change the structure, and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we truly can be Great Commission Christians who just happen to be Baptists. And no, Great Commission Baptist is NOT the name we need.
24.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
Computer glitch deleted the rest of my comment Harek, so here is the optimist part - I hope. I am aware that there are many things the SBC does that need changing, and the name is the least of those things. However, being an optimist, I guess I am hoping that changing the name would be the catalyst for making the other changes to occur. To go back to the interview from SBC Life with Wright and Draper, the main arguments for not changing the name are financial and selfish. Financial in changing names, logos, stationery, legal fees, etc. and selfish in not wanting to change our structure and how we operate. Remember, one reason for not changing the name is because that in doing so the "convention" would lose its "grandfather" status and start having to conduct affairs just like every other non-profit organization. For example, it is in the documentation of the "convention" that it only actually exists for just 2 days out of the year. If that is true, then why do we need such large headquarters when there is nothing to headquarter for 363 days a year? Thats just it...there ARE things going on and being done the rest of the year, its just that there is no one to keep them in check or hold anyone accountable except for 2 days out of the year. Not a good practice. It means that the "convention" can continue to operate as a "good ole boys club" instead of a genuine denominational entity. And with the current age of technology when everything is being put front and center, much of the world is catching on and is getting fed up, so any changes with the current name will not be taken as genuine or seriously. Great Commission Baptist Convention is NOT the name we need either. But, since hope springs eternal, I guess I hope and believe that if we change our NAME, we will be FORCED to change our STRUCTURE. And if we change our structure, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, we can become a convention of Great Commission Christians who just happen to be Baptist. Maybe I am hoping for too much. Maybe I am too optimistic in what a name change could do. But I do not like what I see as the alternatives by keeping the current name and the current structure.
24.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
I have had my share of computer glitches-so no worries. Your comments are very informative because I did not realize that the SBC could basically do what they want most of the year since they are grandfathered in. There is no telling what is happening outside those few days of the year. I am slightly suspicious of hierarchy because power is tempting and it can bring the worse out of people. When leadership have the power and the freedom to do what it deems best without any accountability, it tends to serve themselves rather than the people they are leading. I do not personally know anyone in the SBC leadership nor did I grow up Southern Baptist. From what I have heard of their “takeover” I do not automatically trust them. Even if they are the best models of servant leadership available in the Christian world today, the fact that there is no one to check them or hold them accountable is not good practice. I think a structure change
needs to be put in place because if enough people get tired of not knowing what is going on behind closed doors and trust is longer there, divisions and break down is sure to follow. There is no easy
answer, but something does need to change. Leaders must be servants. In the SBC, they need to show that they are serving the people in their denomination. That is their job. If they are trying to
avoid accountability, then there are questions about the motives of the
leadership in place.
25.04.2012
États-Unis
@ harek: Modelk66, the blogger expresses views that are steeped in exaggeration. A change in the name of the convention will not alter the extreme perceptions of individuals whose ideas are entrenched in hyperbole. His reference to the "masses" underscores the ignorance that haunts the SBC, and heightens irrelevance. I pray that God will raise up strong leaders in the convention, whose deeds will target the heart of God and mirror the will of God.
24.05.2012
États-Unis
@ tgraham:
I know Tgraham. I guess all of this for me is grasping at a straw. I know those who oppose the name change would oppose the structure change it would bring. I don’t know how else to get certain people to change the way we do business without changing the name and ruffling their feathers and forcing them to do something different. That is - I agree - a wrong approach, but it’s the only thing I can come up with besides prayer, and all of this has had me on my proverbial knees for our convention than ever before. Not that that’s a bad thing, but its just frustrating to know how much more we could be doing as an entity and yet see that squelched by keeping us burdened down with a structure and system that is dis-eased. Maybe hope does not spring eternal after all.
24.05.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
We have so many terms that we use in Chrsitianity and sometimes I think personally that "terms" take our focus off of Christ. I think the main component is having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. I have learned that my way is not the only way. But Yahweh is the way and the only way. I understand that terms are important because people are different and people have different beliefs. But I do not want to loose focus on the most important source which is Christ.
Donnie Thurman Sr.
04.07.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
I really enjoyed this comment. It really made things more simplistic to me. I agree that everyone has different views and I have always been very open and respectful to the views of others. When I sit down with others and hear their views I feel like I can be more open to the individual rather or not I think that they are right or wrong. Often times I ask myself what is right and what is wrong, who knows. One think I do know is that God is God and it is important that I let God be God in my life.
Donnie Thurman
04.07.2012
États-Unis
@ harek:
You are absoloutely correct names are very imporatnt. Often times we define who we are and who’s we are by our names. I think it is awesome that southern baptist are not just confined to the south or any central location. To me that means that the gospel can be preached in the uttermost parts of the world and it is not restricted. It is a blessing to know that we serve a global God and the word is world wide.
Donnie Thurman
04.07.2012
États-Unis
@ DonnieLewisThurman:
I completely agree. We need not to lose focus on God.
08.07.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
This is interesting I’ve never thought of it like that. It was always just a name to me.
08.07.2012
États-Unis
@ harek:
You made a good point talking about when Moses found out God’s name, this was a very important passage. It showed great relationship.
08.07.2012
États-Unis
I found this article to be very helpful. As one who has grown up in the South and has been in SBC and CBF churches, I also find that churches that are considered SBC are looked down upon. As the article pointed out so clearly, the "Southern" in SBC has a negative connotation to it. I also understand that many churches that make up the SBC today are not located in the South. Why keep "Southern" in the name if it does not truly represent the body of the convention? I can understand folk’ wanting to hold on to history but to hold on for history’s sake and not for the salvation of others is the wrong reason. I agree that the SBC does need to make a name change in order to embrace who and what they really are today in hopes of reaching their arms wide in reaching non-believers.
11.03.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Graeper, I concur with you. A name change might have been the catalyst to change some other things about who we are and what we do. Sadly, even an oficial name change will not be recommended. Supposedly, there too many legal issues associated with a name change, and as I hinted at, we are more concerned with sustaining ourselves than reaching the world for Christ. I would almost consider it an insult to God if I were to call myself a Great Commission Baptist without changing the name and the order of business. What was it the professor said in class the other day...something about dying of self and to Christ so that I may serve and fulfill the mission of God. I know that isn’t exactly how it was presented and phrased by him, but it was to that extent.
Maybe the SBC needs to die. Maybe it needs to be totally abolished and abandoned. After all..is the only way I can be a Great Commission Baptist is to be a Southern Baptist? I think not. I would argue that many Cooperative Baptist Fellowship members are Great Commission Baptists. As well as many General Baptists, American Baptists, Baptist Bible Fellowship baptists, etc. Once again, even in the recommendation, it sounds as if Southern Baptists have the market cornered on being Great Commission baptists. And that certainly is NOT true. As an old cliche’...I think "we have gotten too big for our breeches." We seem more concerned with institution rather than impact.
So what if? What if the SBC totally disbanned and disintegrated? Each church that is a member of it would then truly have to be as autonomous as they claim. They would have to do more for missions than just yard sales, bake sales, and car washes to raise funds for Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings. They might have to personally select some missionaries to support both financially and otherwise. In other words, get our hands dirty in actually working out the Great Commission bot in our community and around the world. And if we really were Great Commission Baptists now, we already would be doing that. For the first time in my life as an SBC’er, I think the world - and Christianity - might just be better off without an SBC. Regardless of the name. Wow. Can’t believe I really just said that.
12.03.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Concerning the "holding on for history’s sake," unfortunately that is where most of the SBC is. We talked in another class I am in this semester about how it is easier for new church plants to make a greater impact in a community than for an older congregation. There were two stories in our NC baptist paper called the Biblical Recorder this week about two historic congregations that were basically dying. One congregation was down to 15 attendees on Sunday mornings. While numbers do not matter, a congregation cannot do much and have much impact with that few of people and support. Most of their resources were being spent on just facility upkeep and electricity. Oddly enough, it was another congregation’s pastor who grew up as a child in that community that got the burden for the congregation and the community. He and his congregation took on this dying congregation and through various phases have brought them back to a point of being relevant and making an impact on the community. You see, the community changed. In the congregation’s heyday, the community was nearly all white with mainly white collar people. Over the last 20 years, that has changed and now their community is more Hispanic and African American than it is white. They did church the same way they had always done, but the impact was not there at all.
That’s the issue with the SBC. It seems to aim more at reproducing itself than to reaching a lost and dying world. Yes, there is also in that paper an article about folks going to Moldova for missions. There is also the article about 61 new missionaries being commissioned. There is also an article about using a 3-D program to get churches to focus on discipleship. But that isn’t doing anything. That is just information and instruction and congregations have the option to disregard the entire paper. Some congregations do not even know there is a paper for them to see, much less gain inspiration or instruction from.
Sadly, recent news events concerning the SBC name change concur with you statement about "holding on for history’s sake." There was an interview published in SBC Life that you can access here http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2012/03/SLA4.asp but here is what Jimmy Draper said in that interview that got my attention concerning "history’s sake." "
What "costs" did the task force identify—financial, relational, other—and how "incredible" were they?
Draper: The "costs" came in several ways. First, the financial costs, which no one could even dare predict. They include changing legal papers by the thousands that refer to the Southern Baptist Convention. Then, the uncertainty about whether or not we would be able to retain our "grandfather" position gained from the Act of the Georgia Legislature in 1845, which exempts us from some of the requirements of modern non-profit legislation and their requirements. Then, there would be the cost to "rebrand" our name, to recapture all the equity we have in the name Southern Baptists. Additionally there would be the expenses to every church, association, state convention that would have signage expenses, legal changes to change the name of Southern Baptist where it appeared, etc. The value of the name change just is not worth the risks!"
In other words, we might have to do things differently than we do now. It might cause us to have to reconsider everything we do from the top down.
And it looks like we are not interested in anything that changes how we already do business. For history’s sake, not because we are actually accomplishing the Great Commission.
12.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
Maybe that is why the CBF has seemed to have had more impact in a lot of areas than the SBC. It didn’t have a history to be in contention over. Wonder what would happen if instead of just a new church plant to make a community impact, there were a new convention plant to make a global impact? Business of all types will make name changes, logo changes, other structural changes, to be successful and relevant in their area of expertise. The SBC is dying. Numbers are decreasing and have for years. I suspect we expend more resources on trying contuinue our historical agendas than we do in actually fulfilling the Great Commission. We write articles, design plans, conjure up retreats, all to teach discipleship making. What about forgoing all of that and just making disciples? What about seeing a dying congregation and community and going in and doing something about it? Isn’t that doing more in discipleship than writing an article? Yes, I am challenging myself to do more than just post comments for a class assignment. I am challenging myself to be a Great Commission Christian. And that means to "Go...make disciples...baptize...teach." And no convention is needed for me or anyone else to do that.
12.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Modelk66, I am an African-American pastor with mixed perspective on the proposed name change of the Southern Baptist Convention. While I know very little about Southern Baptist churches, I am keenly aware of the growing stigma attached to the name. The very radically conservative reputation of the convention creates a bitter taste in the mouths of many. But, the change must begin in the hearts of those who perpetuate the negativity.
17.04.2012
États-Unis
@ tgraham:
Tgraham, I absolutely agree that change needs to begin in the hearts of those perpetuating the negativity in the SBC. That is why I think the name change is so necessary. It lets everyone know that we are committed to not doing business as usual. It is an outward expression of an inward conviction. It is the fruit or evidence that change has occurred. Without a name change, there may be real change in some hearts, but it will be harder to see and harder to convince that it has actually happened.
17.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
Modelk66, thank you for your insightful response. I agree that the name change is significant in demonstrating the shift from the "old" to the "new" in the Southern Baptist tradition. However, the stigma that is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention is a product of the deeds of the convention rather than the name. If the SBC will focus on "redemptive deeds" and "redemptive methods," then the results will generate positive responses that incite gradual change in perception. "For every tree is known for its own fruit (Luke 6:44)."
18.04.2012
États-Unis
@ tgraham:
I agree with you Tgraham, the SBC needs to focus on redemptive deeds and actions. Looking at the struggles of some older congregations to reach their communities, I am beginning to see why new church plants are so successful. The old established congregation may be doing redemptive deeds, but they have a history of not doing them so it is harder for the community to believe they are genuine in their efforts. I guess I am hoping that a name change for the SBC would be equivalent to a new convention or fellowship or whatever term and that our redemptive deeds would not carry such negative connotations and skepticism. Maybe a name change is not what is needed. Maybe the SBC is not what is needed. Maybe an entirely new entity is what is needed so that the redemptive deeds can be done from the start and be received as genuine. I don’t know. I just know the SBC is in trouble and is not working as it should and is not doing as many redemptive deeds as it likes to claim. And maybe a name change would not make any difference, but it seems like a good place to start.
18.04.2012
États-Unis
@ tgraham:
tgraham,
I agree with you that it will take more than a name change to get the bitter taste of SBC out of people’s mouths. It really needs to be a heart change. I hope that in discussions about the SBC name change that some people are beginning to see and talk about the real changes that need to occur within the convention. Like you said, it’s not just a name change but a heart change.
21.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
modelk66,
I enjoyed reading your post. I don’t think we need a new entity as an alternative to SBC because we already have CBF and Alliance, who knows what else is out there, that formed as a separate entity away from SBC. Many churches in our areas are splitting between SBC and CBF. While some are choosing to go completely with CBF or Alliance and leaving SBC all together. It makes me sad that our churches have to choose who to support or side with. If we were truly focused on God and growing disciples as we have been commanded then we would not have to choose what convention to support. We would realize that God created us all equal and His "equal" is not determined by gender, race, sexual orientation, or financial support.
21.04.2012
États-Unis
@ tgraham:
Tgraham,
As a response to the "acts of redemption" and why I see a need for a name change, let me post a quote from a very baptist blogger. The link can be found here: http://allthingsbaptist.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-sbc-andor-the-gcb/ Basically, besides making some off comment of associating GCB with a deleted ABC program, he says, "Some of you who come here are probably more in the know than I on the proposed “name change” or whatever you want to call it of the Southern Baptist Convention. I, myself, have no problems with the Southern Baptist Convention name. Why change it?" And then he goes on to add, "It seems to me we are proposing the change for those who hate God and Jesus Christ to call attention to the idea that we are willing to change to get them come and see what we are about. Now, that could just be a gross misstatement, or mis-understatement; if anything to me it is understated. It says to me that we are willing to change our name that we might just be willing to change some other things in order to accommodate the masses. Now I probably will be unable to attend the convention in New Orleans in June, but I know some of you, at least, will do the right thing and vote against the “change”." Herein lies the problem: the majority of those against changing the name of the SBC see nothing wrong with how the SBC moves and operates, which some of us, at least, realize the SBC is NOT doing all it can. It goes back to wanting to do what we have always done, which is not working. BTW, the blogger closed comments to his blog, so no one can respond or reply to him. If I could, I would say that those of us who support the name change are not trying to do so to accomodate those who "hate God and Jesus Christ." In fact, we do not suggest the name change to accomodate anyone except Jesus Christ Himself. The SBC has issues, the name has stigma, and the Great Commission is NOT being carried out by the SBC under its current structure. And the only way we can change the structure is to change the name. Individual congregations can do things on their own as being autonomous bodies, but as a single collective entity, the SBC is dwindling in its collective efforts to fulfill the Great Commission, and a large part of that is because of its structure, and its structure is based on a design from 1845, which cannot be changed unless the name is changed. Hence, to be AGAINST the name change is to be FOR doing business as usual, which is not making a change in our hearts, not doing as many redemptive acts as we could, and perpetuating just another religious club. Because, if we are not willing to change our name, what else are we not willing to change? Hearts? Attitudes? Redemptive acts?
23.05.2012
États-Unis
Yes, I agree that the SBC needs a name change and that names do matter. However, trying to use Juliet’s rose as a point of proof falls well short. It was a play on words by Shakespeare, for there is no real flower named a rose. It is called a rose, but that is not the real name of it. So for Juliet, calling a rose by any other name would actually be calling a rose by its real name, not the imposter name. Calling a "Southern Baptist" by the name "Southern Baptist" really does indicate who we really are. I would venture to say that the majority of our southern baptist churches are still hung up in the muck and mire of our beginnings. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best when he said "Sunday mornings are the most segregated hours of the week." Test it out in southern baptist churches. We still predominantly hold to that old notion that races aren’t to be mixed...a notion I highly detest. But as one of the largest protestant denominational groups, we do little to change that. Change our name...most definitely. But if we do not change some fundamental attitudes...we still smell just as horrible as the "Vomit Blossom." Changing our name doesn’t change who we are...changing who we are changes everything.
23.02.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
Thanks for your comment. Not sure I’d say I was using Juliet’s line as a "proof of point". It was more of a catchy opener. Peace!
24.02.2012
États-Unis
@ Cody_Lorance:
I realize that now. But after the recent publication of the expected reccomendations of the task force, I am afraid it may be more truthful than I first anticipated. The expected reccommendation is to not change the legal name of the SBC, but to allow and reccommend to churches and other SBC related entities that want to use a different name to use the name "Great Commission Baptists." In other words, the Great Commission Baptist Church of Anywhere City is still a Southern Baptist Church. If you asked what denomination I belonged to, I could say I am a Great Commission Baptist, but I would still be a Southern Baptist.
Point is, all I would be doing is trying to use a different name to entice and/or manipulate others to become a part of my church. Here is my beef...not a literal cow...I think the SBC needs to change its name...but also needs to change the way it does "business." I was in attendance the day Dr. Akin, president of SEBTS, gave his "sermon" entitled "12 Axioms for a Great Commission Resurgence." Basically, all I have seen as results of that was a GCR Task Force and a few reccommended changes but nothing drastic. We still do "business" as usual. It is still a "members only" club with nominating and voting and installing the "good ole boys" who are always scratching each others backs. I have been a southern baptist all of my life. I have seen the changes/takeovers/conflicts, etc. and been disgusted by plenty of it. We do many good things, but we don’t do many more necessary things. We spend more time arguing amongst ourselves than anything else - or so it appears. I love the SBC, but we are in a time and place where what we are doing is less about the Great Commission and more about self reproduction - or self sustaining. The CBF (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) is not a perfect organization either. But from where I sit and what I see, they are doing more to further the Great Commission than the SBC. As SBCers, we throw the words "Great Commission" around a lot. But are we really doing anything to further the Great Commission? Just because we gain numbers and increase our membership does not mean we have fulfilled the Great Commission.
Look at the diversity of conversationalists on this website...not just ethnic or nationality, but denominational as well. This is more Great Commission in looks and speech than most anything the SBC does. And the goal of these conversations - or my perception of the goal - is not to make all of us look like we were cut from a cookie cutter mold. It is to enable all of us around the globe to work together to "Go...Baptize..and Teach" wherever, whenever, and to whomever we can. It means that we understand cultural differences, ethnic differences, societal differences, but find the common ground in Jesus Christ. The SBC - for the most part - seems to be more interested in reproducing itself than reproducing disciples of Christ. All church plants - domestic and foreign - have a similar set-up and strategy. All look alike in structure and organization. There are a few "radical" ones here and there, but not many. Go anywhere in the world, find the SBC church, and it looks just like the ones in Hometown, USA. Little to no consideration for culture, society, or anything else.
We talk about "doing church" as Jesus did or as Paul did. Well, neither imposed a system nor mandated a certain type of structure or organization. They met people where they were and dealt with the issues at hand, presenting the Gospel to them so they could understand it. The Gospel was the same, but Jesus had to have a different message with Nicodemus than he did with Zacchaeus, and Paul had to have a different message with the Galatians than he did with the Romans. They did not seek to build buildings and set up organizational structures and systems. They sought to bring the Gospel to everyone they came in contact with, using different means, methods, and messages to do so.
So as far as Juliet’s line, the concern seems to be more with content than with the name. And as far as the SBC...we need a new name along with new content. Because even calling myself a "Great Commission Bapptist" stills means I am a Southern Baptist...good, bad, or indifferent.
08.03.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
I agree with your statement about some of our Southern churches are still caught up in the muck of our history. Yes, we are very much still segrated at the 11 o’clock hour in our churches and how sad is that? We claim to be people of God and not judgmental until it comes to Sunday at 11 o’clock and we are sitting in our pews. How do we expect to reach people to the ends of the earth if we won’t even allow them to sit with us in our pews? We do need to change more than just our name but maybe starting with the name change will help the wheels to turn inside the church also.
11.03.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Looks like we will have to get the wheels turning on our own. There will be no name change, just the option to use "Great Commission Baptist" should a congregation choose to do so. We act as if we have the market cornered on the Great Commission. Not so. Thing is, I am not sure we really understand what the Great Commission is. Most SBC’ers know where it is (Matthew 28:19-20) but I am not so sure we know what it is. When I read it, I see four elements that I have shared in other posts on the topic "Regions Beyond." What I see is Go, Teach (make disciples), Baptize, and Mentor (teach them to observe all things). This seems to be more of a personal command rather than an organizational strategy. And there certainly is no denominational ties to it at all. Instead of just throwing money at missionary boards, the SBC needs to make sure every congregant is a disciple, which will take more work and initiative than the current SBC structure affords.
16.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
model66, as you have I have discussed before, I’m not sure that a name change in the south would have really helped SBC churches, who are trying to get away from the negative connotation. For churches that are not in the south but are affiliated with SBC, I would think that some of them would change to "The Great Commission." However, that name can apply to any denomination if we are all truly doing what Jesus called us to do and that is to GO and make disciples of all the nations. That means that we do not choose who we minister to or who God leads us to. We simply follow his command to GO!
17.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Exactly Graeper, the Great Commission belongs to ALL followers of Christ, not just one denomination. And also, we are to GO to everyone, not just certain areas or regions or people. The main reason I believe the SBC needs a name change is because it would force us out of our historic habits and cause us to reconsider how we do EVERYTHING. The basic reasons for not changing the name are financial costs and not being able to continue doing business as we do. And I believe that is where we are missing the mark. Is what we are currently doing really working? Is our current structure - which is basically the same as 1865 - really working? I don’t think so. It seems too much like a social club with the same "you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours" mentality. If I may get off on a tangent and hopefully not offend anyone, I am concerned over the selection of the next SBC President. All of the articles and indicators point to Fred Luter as being the next elected president of the SBC. I have heard Dr. Luter preach, I know of his character. I know he is more than capable of being one of he finest presidents the SBC has ever had. I just wonder about the motives of some of those in SBC life. I don’t think they are promoting him because of his qualifications - which will put most of them to shame - but rather because of his skin color. I think he is being used as an instrument by many to make a statement that the SBC has truly made amends for the mistreatment of African-Americans throughout the SBC’s history. I fear the shouts will become "Look at us! We elected an African-American as our president! We have arrived! Come join us!" And that will be as hypocritical as anything else the SBC does. Again, I know Dr. Luter’s qualifications and he is a better man than virtually 95% of the entire SBC. I just think some are trying to ride other coattails to appear sensitive and relevant, when all they want is to hopefully get larger membership numbers and this is how they have decided to do that. Call me cynical, but I am becoming very dissatisfied and disruntled with the SBC. For which, if we don’t change our name and the way we conduct ourselves, will grow ever larger.
17.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
modelk66, Interesting information and thoughts you shared. If the SBC really wants to be radical and make ammends then why not elect a woman for President? I think it will take more than electing an African-American man for President of the SBC to show that they have changed. To me, that is just a drop in a big ole bucket of things that need to be changed.
21.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Graeper. a woman president of the SBC is going to be a LOOOONNNNGG way off. The one seminary of the SBC that I attended for 3 semesters is what tells me that. In that whols seminary structure, though it was not a written policy, there was no woman in any position of authority such as a department head or anything else. While I was there, there were only 3 women who were even professors. One was a professor of history but could only teach in the undergraduate program, no master’s or doctorate classes. One was in the music department as a voice instructor and music theory, and the third was a piano/organ instructor and also the organist for the seminary. Now, you must understand, the total of professors including adjuncts was around 60 to 75, and these were the only 3 women professors, and they were all white. I can also only remember one African American male who was a professor, and one or two professors with a foreign country origin, but they were probably considered white males as well. Things may have changed in the last 3 semesters since I have been gone, but I doubt it has changed much. This is why I am cynical about the things the SBC is doing on the public forefront. And this is why I had to laugh with a sickening feeling in my gut at your response. I don’t know how the other five SBC seminaries are configured, but when a woman cannot even be a department chair, cannot even be the head librarian, cannot even be a professor of theological content at one of the six seminaries, there is no way a woman will be elected as SBC president for a long time to come.
22.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
modelk66, I did not realize that about the SBC and women in their seminaries. How sad that they do not even allow women to teach potential divinity school students. I just have to shake my head and ask, "where is God’s love in the SBC being shown?"
22.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
Graeper, let me respond by saying a couple of things. First, I only know of the one seminary for sure, so I cannot speak for the other five, but I suspect they are similar in structure. Second, when you ask "where is the love" I would say they would argue they are showing love by promoting or proclaiming the biblical truth. I found on the internet at http://www.sbts.edu/documents/bfmexposition.pdf the copy from 2001 that the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Kentucky did as an exposition of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) 2000. In it, it declares "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." That is the direct statement from the BFM itself. The faculty member assigned the exposition of this section simply said "The Bible uses three synonyms to refer to the pastoral office: pastor, elder and bishop. Qualified men alone may serve in this office." This is found under the section concerning the church. The only other reference I could find regarding the role of women is found in the family section where it says "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." This gives the impression that women are to be in submission to men in all areas of life, including the church and the workplace, though that is never stated anywhere. In other words, "not usurp authority over a man." Which is puzzling, because the entire document leaves the door open for women deacons, just not for women pastors. Do not deacons have authority over other men in the church? Would not a woman deacon be usurping authority? Gets muddled. Like I said, there is nothing in print that states this is a policy or a procedure, but a woman in leadership is just not found on the entire campus other than the three I mentioned. And they would claim that by following the guidelines of the BFM, they ARE "showing the love" to women by keeping them from overstepping their bounds, by promoting sound biblical principles in their structure. And the reason I suspect it is similar at all of the seminaries, is that at least two of the current seminary presidents wrote expositions for this document in 2001, so odds are things are similar across the board. Also, look at the photos of the faculty members who wrote the exposition. They are ALL middle to older aged white males. I know this is not the entire faculty of that institution since it is the largest SBC seminary, but it shows where the emphasis is when promoting a confession of faith or creed. As the president of the seminary said in his portion of the document "Those who opposed the revisions adopted this year by the Convention are out of touch with Southern Baptists, out of step with the great tradition of faithful Christians through the centuries and out of line in their intemperate language." He was speaking specifically about the revisions to the amendment of Scripture, but it still speaks volumes about the stance of the SBC on many things.
I come from a history of fundamental Independent Baptist and conservative Southern Baptist. I would have whole heartedly stood firm with this stance years ago...wait...I DID wholeheartedly stand firm with this stance in 2001. That was just 11 years ago. Now, some events have changed a lot of things concerning "church" for me. The role women have played in these last 11 years has been huge. I was introduced to systematic theology and apologetics not by a male professor who had been teaching at my undergrad alma mater for 50 years, but instead by an ordained Presbyterian white female minister who got her M.Div. from Princeton and her Ph.D. from Scotland. She taught me - for the first time in my life at 42 years of age - to know what I believe, why I believe it, and how to defend it. Then, there was a visit by a Washington, D.C. Baptist pastor who is a white female who just completed her doctorate recently. She preached in chapel one semester and was perhaps one of the most challenging messages I could remember. Then, I came to my current institution and met another white female co-pastor as professor who has mentored me and whom I consider my "non-church pastor." Then, there have been the chapel services with both white and African-American women as the preachers and they have literally preached some of the best sermons I have ever heard. Not just cutesy stories, but true and faithful exposition of The Word. So, I guess now I am at least considered to be a moderate when it comes to the SBC. I just know, I am absolutely, positively, teetotally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a born again child of God and have had women in the pulpit minister to me in ways I did not dream possible. And I cannot disavow or discredit any of them or their calling from God to be a minister or pastor or missionary or theological professor or anything else concerning Christian vocation.
23.04.2012
États-Unis
@ modelk66:
Your comment about the Great Commission being a “personal command rather than an organizational strategy” really struck me. I think that is just what it is! I do not want to discount organizations and the work they have accomplished-God is able to work through them. However, having organizations implies hierarchy and not everyone has be directly involved in an organization for a strategy to work. If the Great Commission is a personal command, which I think it is, it can only truly work when we are directly involved and take responsibility. It is not up to those “super spiritual Christians over there” but it is for everyone who is a disciple of Jesus. The Great Commission is the basic outline of what our lives should consist of: going, teaching, baptizing, and discipling (or to use your term: mentoring). As Christians who are intentional about obeying the Great Commission, our lives should have a missional outlook on life. The best organizational strategy we as Christians can implement is on the corporate level but is shared to the personal individual level to incorporate the Great Commission in our daily lives on a daily basis where ever we are.
29.04.2012
États-Unis
@ Graeper:
I too do not know much about SBC Theological Seminaries, however, I have heard personally how they offer “special” classes for women. Some include a hosting class, and basically other class of how to help your husband who will be leading a church (since apparently “you as a woman cannot lead”). I was shocked and I will admit I was angry when I heard this (I like to think of it as righteous anger). I do not want to get into a long discussion about women in ministry because I feel that I would be preaching to the choir so to speak. I will say that it is God through the Holy Spirit who equips us with certain gifts. We cannot decide which gifts will be given to whom. If God has gifted a woman to preach the Good News, then who are we to say no? I believe God can bless a woman with gifts to pastor a church and another woman to be a homemaker who dedicates her life to her children. Both gifts are beautiful, but it is wrong for people to impose a certain set on all women. God is a creator!!! There is no way we can put God in a box when it comes to how He works through us! Why does the SBC or any other denomination, tries to dictate what God can and cannot do through a woman (or anyone else that we discriminate against)? I second your question about where is the love, but I would also add where is the faith? For whatever reason, there are people who cannot believe that God would work through a woman in a leadership position. This lack of faith does not only apply to women, there are several other examples that are unrelated to the issue of the SBC, such as dream encounters of Jesus among Muslims.
29.04.2012
États-Unis
@ harek:
Very true Harek. And I am not trying to discredit any organization’s mission efforts. It’s just that we seemingly have removed the personal responsibility from the Great Commission. And then, when organizations toss the term around like it is nothing, people get the idea it is a descriptor and not a mandate. It becomes who we are instead of what we do. And that is where the SBC and all of this recent mess has gotten us. We can call ourselves "Great Commission Baptists" and never do one single thing to promote or participate in the Great Commission. It has become a descriptor that sounds more appealing - not really, its just something to make us feel better about ourselves when we try to tell what denomination we belong to - than it is a personal, individual, command for every person who claims to be a follower of Christ. Ever since the "takeover" of the conservatives in the SBC, the entire denomination has been in decline. Yes, most of that happened when many left to join the CBF when it started up, but every year since the early 1980’s the SBC has dropped in membership numbers. We tried to redo the Baptist Faith and Message (our statement of faith) to generate increase in numbers. Didn’t work. Then we tried to spark a fire with a Great Commission Resurgence. Didn’t work. Now, we were going to change our name, but decided instead to use the descriptor "Great Commission Baptists" to communicate who we are. Not going to work. I am no Greek scholar and do not claim to be one. But I have enough Greek tools to know that in the Great Commission there are 4 verbs, and I also know that verbs in ANY language mean action. Adjectives are the descriptors. Jesus did not command for us to describe ourselves...He commanded us to do some things. Each and every one of us.
29.04.2012
Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire. Si vous n'avez pas de compte, vous pouvez vous inscrire dès maintenant (c'est facile et gratuit !).