Should the SBC change its name:

I have spoken out against the Carter-Clinton conference. I agree with you on many facets. Probably others do to. You come across rather harshly though. I don't understand the personal animosity here that you seem to have with some of us. That's all I'm trying to point out.

And I'll leave you be as everything I say tends to rub you the wrong way.

 

I have no personal animosity toward you and am sure you're a fine Christian and human being.

There's no doubt that we agree on more than we disagree.

I harbor no hard feelings and agree we should just "let it be" (my words) in this thread.
:tonofbricks:

 

It doesn't matter who "drew first blood."
Commands to "mind your own business" to others only add more fuel to the fire and further violate rules already broken which are:

Please keep these in mind when posting.

 

Wow

Late to the game and missed all the fun!

There were not many "liberals" in the SBC ever - the ones that were there are gone to other conventions. My primary evidence is the most recent SBC convention - only eight thousand or so showed up - and very few from BGCT churches (not that the BGCT is liberal by any strecch of the imagination, but those churches do not follow in lock step with Nashville.

But the more I think of it the more I think that the sBC needs to change its name. The latest buzz word is "Missional" - what ever that actually means. I listened online to Ed Stetzer and the pastor from California - great messages by the way. If we SBCers are going to reach hard to reach places in these United States - ie anywhere above the mason dixon line, the word Southern needs to go. the connotations are bad, and companies change names all the time to reflect more of who they are or want to be

 

That's very true. I only met one professor that I thought would possibly be a "liberal," at least by any sane definition, and he stopped teaching in 1988 and died in December 2005. And the irony of the situation was that Paige Patterson and his local operatives were gunning for two other professors at our university who were not liberals at all... just not fundamentalists!

I agree. It's like trying to build and grow churches in Indiana and calling your organization "The Association of Alabama Baptists."

 

I was under the impression that it was a moderator's job to be impartial.

rbell made the following statement to me, BEFORE I told him to mind his own business:

Where I come from---proclaiming that people's statements don't "hold water", and that they are not "accurate", and that they are engaging in "too much hyperbole" and that their opinions on gay activists in the SBC are "being inflammatory"---rbell would DEFINITELY be considered to be "adding fuel to the fire".

And so I can be a better member in the future, please PM me and show me exactly where I made a "personal attack". Where I come from, a personal attack is calling somebody a name, cursing them, using vulgarity in front of them, threatening them or something else pretty serious.

If merely speaking a little too sternly to somebody is considered a personal attack in the politically correct 21st century, then my pastor and every male in a position of authority in my church are GUILTY.

 

conservative...

I'll bow out of this discussion, so as not to further offend you.

The last word is yours.

:wavey:

 

The Southern Baptist Convention is by far the largest Protestant denomination in the country, and the only significant denomination with "Southern" in its name.

The SBC has major associations in over 40 states.

Last year, the North American Mission Board documented over 415,000 baptisms in SBC churches.

The SBC shows solid overall growth every year, in virtually every region of the country.

Since we outnumber the United Methodists and other major denominations by several million members, maybe they should think about putting "Southern" in their names. :laugh:

 

In my opinion, the job of a moderator is not to just be impartial, but to stand on the side of truth, wisdom and civility.

You claimed that "gay activists" in the SBC are pushing their agenda and several people rightly called you on it.

The only support you've given for your assertion is that there are 16 million (sic) Southern Baptists out there and those who don't accept your assertion must not have met the right ones. Who are these gay activists and where are some examples of their activity within the SBC? And why are they so spectacularly unsuccessful in getting their message out to a wide audience in this day when Baptist Press and Associated Baptist Press would be interested in covering their story?

You made the claim, please back it up.

That might be true. I've been in churches like that.

Thank God for people who can first speak the truth with gentleness and patience instead of taking people's heads off. There is a time to speak sternly, but it hasn't come to that yet.

 

That's irrelevant.

Those are state conventions, not SBC associations. And, just in case you didn't know, the state conventions are independent of the SBC.

That does not tell us anything about how did not hear the gospel because of the regionalistic nature of the name of the SBC.

What power and influence the SBC has is not found in their name...

 

"That's irrelevant."

In your not so humble opinion.

"Those are state conventions, not SBC associations. And, just in case you didn't know, the state conventions are independent of the SBC."

I'm not interested in semantic games. Technically, every church in the SBC is independent, so your point is moot. The fact remains that the state conventions and individual churches are affiliated with the SBC, and send the SBC MILLIONS of dollars every year.

"That does not tell us anything about how did not hear the gospel because of the regionalistic nature of the name of the SBC."

A name change would be irrelevant. Everybody would still know we used to be the SOUTHERN Baptist Convention. Do you think if the Republican party changed their name, people wouldn't know who they used to be? Yeah, right. :laugh:

"What power and influence the SBC has is not found in their name."

The SBC is easily the largest and most influential Protestant denomination in the country, so having "Southern" in their title obviously hasn't hurt them a bit.

 

Ah, I've been branded with the dreaded "l" word!

Get over it. A person can disagree with you without being a "liberal."

I am not a liberal by any means...

^^^^This is what is known as a personal attack^^^^

So allege that I am not on the side of truth, wisdom and civility simply because I ask you to give evidence for your assertion?

No posturing here. And I'm also trying to avoid being self-righteous, but it is difficult when I'm getting assaulted.

Actually, that was your characterization of your previous posts.

Being harsh (I'm sorry, "stern") with someone who has not been harsh to you is not the hallmark of civilized or polite behavior.

civ·i·lized [siv-uh-lahyzd] –adjective
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.

Um... I don't know what you are referring to, but I can say with confidence that you have made a number of "declarations" about me that are completely false.

 

Just my opinion, but if the SBC changes the "Southern" to anything else because someone thinks it's offensive or whatever, the next thing you know people will want us to change the "Baptist" because that offends, or the "Convention" because that's to "conventional."

I'm all for staying SBC!

 

In the context of the assertion you are trying to support, yes, that information was not relevant.

I'm just clarifying Baptist polity for the purposes of this discussion, that's not a semantic game. While every church in the SBC is independent, the they voluntarily choose to be members of the SBC. The state conventions are not members of the SBC at all. While they may work very closely with the SBC (or not), they actually only serve the member churches and are not accountable to the SBC. Lots of people don't know that, so the point is not moot since you were presenting an incorrect relationship in support of your assertion.

That has never been disputed.

Not at all. A name change would represent a re-focusing of efforts to the general public.

You make it sound like you think we believe a name change would somehow be a secretive arrangement! Not at all. A name change would clarify the mission of the SBC to the world.

I was referring to the power of the gospel to change the hearts and lives of those who receive it. That's the only power that the SBC should seek. You keep talking about the size and influence of the SBC, but I (and others) are talking about the benefit of the SBC taking steps to make the gospel more accessible to people through the personalities and agencies currently called the Southern Baptist Convention. When the name doesn't fit the organization anymore (the SBC is no longer restricted to the South), it is not a strange or unusual thing to talk about revising the name.

You have no way to proving that.

 

Well said, Pastor! :thumbs:

I can hear the "pious" ones wailing now---"Oh, but 'Baptist' is just so narrow and limiting! We must appeal to all denominations, being referred to as Baptists is holding us back!"

 

I don't think that the word "Southern" is offensive or necessarily offends others, it is just inaccurate and limiting. It reflected the state of things in 1845 when the national convention split along the lines that would split the nation about 15 years later in a civil war. It has been 162 years since that split, 142 years since the Civil War, and a good 40 years (at least) since the SBC expanded out of the South in a relevant way.

Just in case anyone cares, I like having the name Baptist in a church's name, and certainly in the convention's name.

 

"Ah, I've been branded with the dreaded "l" word! Get over it. A person can disagree with you without being a "liberal." I am not a liberal by any means..."

Thou doth protest too much, methinks! :laugh:


"^^^^This is what is known as a personal attack^^^^"


Thanks for admitting YOU made a personal attack, because YOU used those same words FIRST in this very thread, in reference to me. I only used them in general reference to liberals, not you personally. You have violated forum rules and acted in an "uncivilized" manner, as YOU would say.

"So allege that I am not on the side of truth, wisdom and civility simply because I ask you to give evidence for your assertion?"

No, actually I was just throwing your own words back at you! You have no problem using those words against me FIRST, but then whine when I use them against you.

"No posturing here. And I'm also trying to avoid being self-righteous, but it is difficult when I'm getting assaulted."

You're being "assaulted"?! That's laughable, since YOU clearly cast the first stone in this thread, with your earlier attack post on me. It is not your position to initiate attacks and to take sides on issues not related to the topic, you are not a moderator.

"Um... I don't know what you are referring to, but I can say with confidence that you have made a number of "declarations" about me that are completely false."

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

If you have anything else to say that is off thread topic or about me personally, please do so by personal message. To do otherwise would be impolite to other members, which of course means "uncivilized" behavior in your parlance.

[Moderator's Warning: Cool the rhetoric a bit folks. Debate the issues without resorting to name calling etc. Re-read BB Posting Rules 3 and 4 and abide by them. Otherwise you may find yourself getting that unwanted e-mail from a BB Administrator notifying you that you've received a 10-day suspension or out-right banning for violations of the BB Posting Rules.]

 

I polled yes because someone has yet to tell me WHY are there so many sub-demoninations within the Baptist Chuch period! How expensive can it be to delete one word out of a letter head?

 

Those involved in the heated part of the current debate please see my general warning at the bottom of post number 57.

Yours in Christ,

Bible-boy,
Forum Moderator

 

You are in the distinct minority.

State conventions and many individual churches around the country have spoken on this matter, and the vast majority are in favor of retaining the word "Southern".

I'm a yankee by birth, and I have no problems with "Southern". The word "Southern" is only considered a problem by a small minority of politically correct individuals here in the U.S.

If you go overseas to places like the Philippines, Filipino Southern Baptists are PROUD of the name. There are multiple regional conventions in the Philippines that have the word "Southern" in their name.

You may like having the word "Baptist" in a church's name, but there is a small minority who think it is "too narrow", "too parochial", "too limiting", yada yada yada. We can't keep changing names to suit the whims of every small minority. There are always a few people unhappy with every name.

Just last year, over 415,000 baptisms were documented by the NAMB. Overseas, over 475,000 baptisms were documented by the IMB. The IMB also reports over 23,000 NEW churches overseas just last year.

So it's obvious that the overwhelming majority of people overseas have absolutely no problem with the "Southern" label.

A name change would also incur a large expense, because signs, letterheads, business cards etc. would have to be changed. All in all, a name change isn't worth it.