Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jerome, Sep 20, 2011.
maybe a name that allows them to keep acronym... I assume the word they're concerned about is 'southern'.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them go NCC: National Christian Convention.
The Canadians changed 4 or 5 years ago from the
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists to the
Canadian National Baptist Convention
There are currently at least four denominations in the States with that name:
1) National Baptist Convention, USA
2) National Baptist Convention in Americia
3) Progessive National Baptist Convention
4) National Missionary Baptist Convention
What would be the purpose of changing the name? Is a redefinition of the Convention or is it for marketing purposes? Perhaps we have simply outgrown the Southern portion of the name.
USBC United States Baptist Convention
NFBC National Fellowship of Baptist Churches
SBIF Southern Baptist International Fellowship
Reasons for the change that I can think of:
1. It is no longer confined to the south, and so is a bit confusing if you are planting a church in Boston, and calling it "southern Baptist."
2. The history of the convention is somewhat tied to the slavery issue, (Southern Baptists being pro-slavery). So it would be good to get rid of that association that some have when they think of it.
It will be hard, though, all the good names are taken.
To keep SBC, how about...
Symposium of Baptists Convening
To be honest with you-----------I think all of the hoop la in the process of name change is a total WASTE of convention money!!!!!!!!
As I understand it, there will be NO convention money spent on this committee. All are volunteers.
When I was reading Baptist Press on this they said that there are a number of years where the question of whether there should be a task force for name change. It was voted down 6 or 7 years. How then can Wright take it upon himself to set this task force up all on his own?
We southern baptists have had such a success rate for name changes.
The old Home Mission Board became so much more effective when it became the North American Mission Board. Right? oh wait, it's been a disaster.
Yes the people will be volunteers, but there will still be expenses. And when it happens, just wait until we get the bill for all the documents to be changed and branding that will have to be made.
I asked this on another place: Will The Southern Baptist Seminary also change it's name? :tongue3:
I am certain that if we change our name there will immediately be millions of new churches started, the CP funds will shoot thru the sky and our abysmal baptism numbers will once again rise. Because, people are not getting saved because the name Southern is attached to the SBC! not!
I look forward for this to really bring the Convention together much like the GCR is doing. And, I really look forward for the helpful growth it will bring much like all the name changes have done for Sunday nights at churches. (Training Union to Church Training to Discipleship Training and yet Sunday evenings are still declining.)
Let's not forget that the poor SBC race relations track record extends way beyond slavery. They didn't do so hot in 1960s south, either.
What they need to do is distance themselves from many of their figures of past and present. For instance, W.A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, Robert Jeffress for starters. Forget the name thing, just come out and say, "We blew it. We've been blowing it for years and we're sorry."
And they need to stop with all their asinine pronouncements, which can be summed up this way: "graciously submit," "demon-possessed pedophile," etc. The stupid stuff like this out of the leaders' mouths must stop.
oh good grief
Trashing Godly men, who may not be perfect, but, non-the-less, have been used of God, is not very becoming.
I am thankful for men like W.A. Criswell and even Paige Patterson. They may not have been perfect, but have been used of God to help make the convention much better than it was before the conservative resurgence.
A task force can be initiated by either a convention vote or by the president. Task forces are only committees that bring recomendations anyway. Any actual action will have to be voted on by all the representatives from the churches.
If the president thinks an issue needs addressing and can find volunteers to research it for him, I say go for it. It doesn't matter what you call it.
As Bart Barber said "The normal course of affairs is for SBC Presidents who desire the appointment of task forces to ask for the approval of the convention's messengers before doing so, especially on questions of such importance. Why not follow that time-honored process now?"
Unless there is an actual bylaw or rule that states he MUST get convention approval first, then previous "time-honored process" is simply one way of doing things. This president has chosen a different way. Now if he has broken some stated rule, then I would be on your side.
also, sometimes "time-honored processes" are not the best processes.
I am not looking for you to be on my side.