Last week, SBC President Dr. Bryant Wright addressed the Executive Committee of the SBC and suggested that a committee be formed to consider changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. In his remarks, Dr. Wright mentioned two reasons for his request. First, some churches in other parts of the country may not want to be associated with a denomination that has a southern, regional nomenclature. Second, a name change may position us for maximum effectiveness in reaching North America in the 21st century.

In what has been described by some as a “contentious” meeting, the EC voted 39-20 to establish the committee. Following approval, Dr. Wright assembled an excellent committee for this task (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36156). He then asked the committee to answer four questions: 1) Is it a good idea, that is, is there value in considering a name change? 2) If so, what would be a good name to suggest? 3) What would be the potential legal ramifications of a name change? 4) What would be the potential financial implications?”

The SBC has been ablaze with conversation and criticism since the news of the new committee was announced. Of course, the typical fringe elements are being heard the loudest, as the pendulum swings widely between those in our convention who hate change of any kind and those who stand ready at all times to throw the baby out with the bath.

For those of us who stand somewhere in-between these two extremes, the issue of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention may elicit a variety of responses. Some see the name of our convention as an extension of their own personal identity. For these, changing the name of the SBC would be a traumatic event. Others, however, who came to the convention for more pragmatic reasons, would scarcely even notice or care if the convention changed its name.

In the paragraphs that follow, I will attempt to unpack some of the stated goals of this process. I want to examine the rhetoric and see if there is a solid philosophical and theological basis for the conversation. I always welcome change, but paradigm shifts in any organization must be based upon sound premises and data, not just personal opinion. As I begin, though, I think it is fair to share my individual thoughts about the process. Personally, while I am interested in the debate, I am not conflicted by it. This may result from the fact that I wasn’t born a Southern Baptist. I chose to become one in my twenties, and I owe all of my ministry training and service opportunities to this wonderful convention of Christ-followers. That doesn’t mean that I don’t care, however. I chose the SBC because I believed then, as I do today, that it is the greatest evangelical denomination on the planet, despite its many imperfections. Consequently, I am strongly committed to its vision and mission. What it does mean is that I’m legitimately indifferent to the ultimate outcome of this debate. What I care about most is making a decision that reflects good philosophy and theology, not simply a convenient pragmatism. Here are my thoughts at present:

1. Recent statistics do not demonstrate that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is a major hindrance to our mission work.

In 2006, Ed Stetzer conducted a study that asked the question, “How do people perceive Southern Baptists?” Here are some of the results to the study:

• Overall, Southern Baptists were viewed favorably (combining very and somewhat favorable) by 57 percent of adults interviewed.
• Southern Baptists were viewed more favorably than either Latter Day Saints (32% favorable, 32% unfavorable) or Muslims (27% favorable, 31% unfavorable) but had higher unfavorable ratings than Catholics or Methodists.
• Two of three respondents in the South expressed a favorable opinion of Southern Baptists, compared to 1 of 2 in the East and West regions. More than 1 of 3 easterners said they were not familiar with Southern Baptists.
• One of five respondents ages 18 to 24 expressed a “very unfavorable” impression of Southern Baptists, while another 4 percent reported a “somewhat unfavorable” opinion.
• Middle-aged adults esteem Southern Baptists most, with 66 percent of 55- to 69-year-olds reporting a favorable impression.
• When asked “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church was Southern Baptist negatively or positively impact your decision?” only 31 percent of respondents said this knowledge would positively impact his or her decision to visit or join the church.
• The Southern Baptist identity simply does not resonate as well with adults age 18 to 24. More than 40 percent of respondents in this group said knowing a church was Southern Baptist would negatively affect their decision to visit or join the church.

The report (http://www.namb.net/namb1cb2col.aspx?id=8590001109) concluded with some of the following statements:

• But it also should give us pause when our denominational label causes some not to hear the gospel in our churches. Too often, the stumbling block of the cross has been replaced with the stumbling block of the church.
• This study does not answer some of the questions, “why?” Are Southern Baptists seen as intolerant because they believe that God’s best for marriage is one man, one woman, and one lifetime? Are they seen as harsh because they see God’s word as inerrant? Or, are there valid reasons why they have negative perceptions of our churches? The answer is probably some of both.
• Regardless, there are major concerns here, particularly for long-term ministry of our Southern Baptist churches. Many churches have now removed Baptist from the name of their church in the “name” of reaching the unchurched. The data would seem to indicate that is not the best choice in all areas but may have validity in some areas and with some segments of the population.

Honestly, we may be able to look at the evidence provided by Stetzer and reach a variety of conclusions based upon our own, unique, interpretation of the data. At the very least, however, we can agree that the statistics do not reveal a massive branding problem with the name of our denomination.

What are we to make of this? For me, this reveals that while some are attempting to make the case that our name is a big problem across the North American landscape, our research to date does not appear to support that claim. Does this mean that we shouldn’t change our name? No, but it cannot be demonstrated from this data that we must.

2. Regional names are not a determiner of the success or failure of businesses or organizations.

Dr. Wright’s first stated purpose for forming this committee is because some churches in other regions of the country may not want to be associated with a denomination that has a southern, regional nomenclature. I’ve already demonstrated that our most recent research does not support the claim that our name makes us ineffective in North America. Here, however, I’m asking whether regional names determine the success or failure of a business or organization.

After much thought, my answer to this question is “No.” One need not look far to discover businesses with regional names that are extremely successful. Chief among them may be Southwest Airlines. Southwest Airlines has been one of the nation’s few consistently profitable airlines. Southwest, in part because of its conservative fiscal management, has remained a large force on the domestic scene. With its no-frills service and absence of bag fees, it has become the airline of choice for people seeking cost-efficient air travel. Sadly, it doesn’t operate in my area of the Southeast. Otherwise, I would use it every chance I had. Are people avoiding this airline because of its regional affiliation? Obviously, not. The evidence suggests that people are not offended by their name, based as it is upon a region. People want to participate with businesses/organizations that add value to their lives. I would say it like this: people make decisions about who they will patronize based upon the product, value, and service the businesses/organizations provide—not based upon the name.

Consider Northern Tool as another example. This company is a leading seller of tools and equipment. Founded in Minnesota in 1980, Northern Tool’s success and growth has been significant. Their catalog, Internet, and retail stores continue to experience success. They now have local stores throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Clearly, people in the South don’t avoid this company because of its name. They patronize them because they have confidence in the value, products, and service that Northern Tool provides.

Finally, consider Texas Road House and the California Pizza Kitchen. Both of these restaurants have regional names. Personally, I love California Pizza Kitchen, but I’m not a fan of Texas Road House. Is this because of their names? Clearly, not. Like other consumers, I decide where to eat based upon the product, value, and service.

As I reflect on the name-change debate, my contention is that people make decisions about churches the way they do about everything else in their lives–does this church add value to my life, provide an excellent product, and demonstrate authentic service through its ministries? In my opinion, the day when churches drew a majority of their members by virtue of their Southern Baptist affiliation is over.

3.  Changing the name of an organization doesn’t eliminate the errors of its past; it simply changes the name.

It is impossible for any business/organization to outrun the painful mistakes of its past. All it can do is take ownership of the issue, correct the problem, and move forward. In recent years, a number of high-profile businesses/brands have experienced major setbacks because of poor decisions. For instance, Toyota experienced a major crisis from 2009-2011 because of braking/accelerator pedal problems that resulted in a number of fatal crashes. The company initiated a massive recall effort to fix those issues in their cars. As you might imagine, the result of those problems had both economic and branding implications. Toyota didn’t panic during that time, however. They didn’t choose to abandon 75 years of branding. Instead, they owned the issue, corrected the problem, and pushed ahead. Today, Toyota remains a leading seller of vehicles in the US.

Consider as well the dilemma of the American International Group, the world’s largest insurer. The demise of AIG would have been catastrophic to numerous financial institutions, which helps explain the Government’s investment of $85 Billion dollars in its survival. Today, as a result of the bailout, AIG continues to provide services in the insurance industry.

Since 2007, many have been calling for AIG to change its name in order to get out from under the stigma of their failings. But some branding experts have a different solution. In her article “Another Post-Scandal Name-Change,” Margot Bushnaq suggests AIG keep its name. She makes the following, insightful comment: “In the end, most people will still know It’s the same exact company, and the reputation will heal over time as business turns positive.” (www.brandbucket.com).

At this junction, some will argue that my illustrations are illegitimate because the errors of these companies do not reach the level of those attached to the SBC. In fairness, there is a big difference between bad braking systems and a legacy that is stained by a connection to slavery. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But numerous other institutions have been touched by the same kind of stigmas, some in our own generation. Consider, for instance, the University of Alabama. On June 11, 1963, then Governor George C Wallace stood on the steps at the University in an attempt to keep two courageous black students from enrolling. Thankfully, his attempts failed, and the long-overdue process of integration began at schools throughout the south. All of us would agree that this was not the finest hour in the University of Alabama’s history. What did the school do in response to this? Did they change their name? No, they owned the issue, corrected the problem, and carried on. Today, the University of Alabama is acknowledged as one of the premier academic institutions in America.

This is what many in the SBC today fail to realize. We can change the name, but we will remain the same exact group of people that we are today. We will continue to operate the same, with the same entities, leadership, and mission. If we do this, everyone will know that “we are the exact same” organization, albeit with a new name. And, we will lose all of the positive branding we have developed as a denomination in recent years, including repenting from the sins of our past, our stellar reputation in the area of Disaster Relief (especially since our remarkable ministry following both 9/11 and hurricane Katrina), and our recent adoption of the GCR report. In my opinion, it is far better for us to own our issues (including our past), correct the problems (which we are doing), and carry on for the glory of God.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a name-change, the larger issue from my perspective is correcting the perception issues that we have in the SBC. This is accomplished over time as we continue to succeed as a denomination.

4.  Nothing limits the saving work of a sovereign God.

Dr. Wright’s second purpose for considering a name-change for the SBC is to position us to maximize effectiveness in reaching North America in the 21st century. To this point in my essay, we have been thinking about some of the philosophical issues surrounding a name change. Here, however, I think it is helpful to pause and consider any theological rationales for advancing the agenda of a name-change.

It has been stated by numerous individuals that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is a hindrance to the gospel and the ministry of the church in certain regions of North America. Again, there are a couple of things to consider at this point.

First, nowhere does the Bible suggest that the saving work of God, accomplished through the scriptures, is limited by human actions (Is. 55:11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).  To the contrary, Christ reassures us that “all that the Father has given me will come to me” (Jn. 6:44). Second, it is an unproven claim that the name “Southern Baptist” is keeping people from accepting Christ. For 166 years God has been using Southern Baptists to take the gospel around the world with amazing results. Does that mean we shouldn’t change the name? Not necessarily. What it means is that tying the success of the gospel to any organizational name is wrong.

After all, a name simply gives a group an identity. It does not, by default, give credibility to the group’s message. No one ever accepted Christ because our church is called Cornerstone. The same can be said about FBC Woodstock, Bellevue Baptist Church, Saddleback Community Church, or any other church. Every person who is converted through the ministries of these churches comes to Christ through the leading of God the Holy Spirit, and His work is not hindered by the names of these churches. Interestingly, the very first name given to believers was “Christian.” This name wasn’t a complement. Instead, it was a term of ridicule spoken in anger against the followers of Christ. Personally, I’m glad the early church didn’t abandon it because it had the potential to place “limitations” upon their effectiveness. Perhaps they knew something we’ve forgotten: God’s word accomplishes the purpose for which it has been sent—it is not limited by man’s actions.

Cornerstone Baptist Church in Florence, SC, where I serve as senior pastor, is a classic example of this. Our church will celebrate its ninth anniversary in October. By God’s grace, we have grown to more than 1800 members during that time. During every Prospective Members Class I take time to explain our affiliation with the SBC and the reasons why we have chosen to be affiliated with it. We regularly have folks join our church from other faith traditions, and many are from the North. In nine years, I’ve never had a single person question our SBC affiliation or refuse to join because of it. Consequently, I remain convinced that most of the time when people have problems with the SBC, it’s not the result of our name: it’s the result of our gospel (1 Cor. 1:23).

At this point let me be very clear. I am not against a name change for the SBC! Clearly, any church can change its name if it feels like it will resonate more clearly with its community. The SBC can choose to do the same thing. However, let’s not try to justify the name change by inferring that the name of our denomination is somehow hindering the effectiveness of the gospel.

5.  Changing the name of the SBC will not correct the systemic problems that plague us.

We are being told that 18-35 year old church planters in the north and west are the driving force behind this conversation. It appears that our SBC leadership continues to grasp for potential solutions to a big problem: the flight of our young pastors and leaders away from the SBC. They want these young pastors and leaders to lead their church plants to partner with the SBC. So, some believe that changing our name will help accomplish this.

This problem resonates strongly with me. At 48, I no longer fit in the young pastor or leader category. However, I still think like a young pastor, and I lead like a young pastor. I planted a church nine years ago, and young families dominate our membership. I minister in a contemporary context, and I’m continually looking for new ways to make us more effective in reaching people with the gospel. This includes co-founding a church-planting network (www.nacpf.org) with my fellow-laborer, Dr. Dwayne Milioni.

Also, I love to hang out with young pastors and church planters. When I talk with them, however, I rarely hear them complaining about the name of the SBC. Instead, I hear them talking about the ongoing systemic problems in the SBC. These are the things that are tempting them to disconnect from us. Here is a summary of the ones I hear most often (perhaps I will unpack these more in the following days):

A. The Builder Generation model no longer works in a Millennial context.

The Builder Generation (people born before 1946) is perhaps the greatest generation in American history. They are characterized by patriotism, hard work, and loyalty. They won wars, survived the depression, and helped build much of the infrastructure of this nation. This generation established the Cooperative Program, and invested heavily in the building of churches, schools, and denominational institutions. They affirmed a democratic approach to managing church and denominational affairs, and they were very comfortable entrusting their money to others to accomplish ministry.

Millennials (born between 1977-1998), on the other hand, view the world through very different lenses. They are described by some as “confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat, and open to change” (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1501/millennials-new-survey-generational-personality-upbeat-open-new-ideas-technology-bound). As you can see, they are very different from previous generations. They are tech-savvy, innovative, and loyal to themselves and their ideas. They are not supporters—they are doers. This is what resonates with the young pastors and leaders with whom I meet. They do not want to send money so that others can do ministry; they want to invest their money and their lives at the level of personal ministry. Consequently, the Builder Strategy that drives much of Southern Baptist Life is becoming obsolete.

B. The SBC has evolved into a bloated bureaucracy at all levels.

We first encountered the phrase “bloated bureaucracy” during the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. In their report, they urged state conventions to “eliminate programs that do not directly assist local churches in fulfilling their biblical mandate to make disciples of all people.” However, the committee did not single out state conventions or local associations as the only ones needing to become better stewards of their resources. They also challenged national SBC entities like NAMB to do the same thing.

This gets to the heart of why many Millennials are fleeing the SBC in record numbers. They recognize the rampant duplication of ministry across all of our denominational structures, and they do not believe that money given through the CP is being used as effectively as possible. Further, they see how a massive bureaucracy is limiting the flow of money to church planting and missions, both in North America and around the globe. Thankfully, NAMB has begun to address its many flaws under the capable leadership of Dr. Kevin Ezell. Yet, NAMB is still hampered by state convention and local association delivery systems that are out of touch with a 21st century, missional approach.

It has long been the opinion of many young pastors and leaders that our problem in the SBC is not a lack of resources. Every year, Southern Baptists give hundreds of millions of dollars through local churches. A percentage of this money flows to local associations, state conventions, and the national convention. The problem isn’t the amount of money we have—it is our choices about how to use that money. I agree with these young leaders at this point. I believe we have all the money we need, if we will make the tough decisions to reduce the duplication of ministries, eliminate unnecessary convention jobs/programs, and focus on the primary purposes for our denomination’s existence—assisting the local church in its biblical mandate to make disciples of all people. Thankfully, the GCR report has taken a step is this direction. But, there is much that remains to be done, and until it is, many young pastors and leaders will simply choose to use their local church resources for their own missions and church-planting work. And, they’ll do it with an effectiveness and efficiency rarely seen in SBC life.

C. The generational conflict over preference issues in ministry is smothering participation by young pastors and leaders.

An attendee at any state convention meeting this year will notice something about the majority of other attendees—primarily, they include builders, boomers, and a smattering busters. You will hardly find a Millennial on the premises  (unless he or she has been required to attend for class credit). For years, people have asked the question: “How can we get more young people to attend?” That question always reveals a lack of clarity about the problem. The meetings are run in a democratic fashion, are driven by institutional programming, and always include a call to give more money to the CP.

At the same time, however, the meetings will often include motions made by well-intentioned but misguided individuals, who rant against Calvinism, contemporary worship, Acts 29, the consumption of alcohol, and a host of other issues that continue to drive young pastors and leaders out the door. Is this because the issues aren’t important to some people? Of course, we would say “No.” But, they’re not important to Millennials. Millennials are just as committed to sharing the gospel as previous generations; they just aren’t using the same methods, and they could care less about receiving approval of their methods from certain voices in the SBC. The more negative the rhetoric becomes, the more young pastors and leaders exit the SBC.

I addressed this very issue in 2007 when I wrote an article entitled “Working Together for the Sake of the Gospel”. In this article, I addressed the ongoing, generational battle in the SBC that seeks to divide people on the basis of ministry preferences. As a convention, we fought and bled over the issue of biblical inerrancy, and then we bled again to craft and pass the BFM 2000. I suffered great harm in a local church because of my commitment to the theology that this document represents. As a convention, we have stated that our mission participation and personal fellowship will occur under the umbrella of this amazing, theological document. Yet, many continue to assault the methodology of young pastors and leaders, despite the fact that the BFM 2000 does not place any limitations upon either Arminianism/Calvinism, Traditional/contemporary worship, suits/golf shirts, alcohol/non-alcohol, etc.

While many young pastors and leaders would applaud a denominational name change for pragmatic reasons, here’s what they know in their hearts: changing the name won’t change the problems. As long as we remain unwilling to address the systemic issues that plague us, it doesn’t really matter what we call ourselves.

6.  We must fix what’s broken, not be distracted by cosmetic changes.

During Sarah Palin’s failed vice-presidential campaign, she made a famous statement. In essence, she said it’s unproductive to put lipstick on a pig. Now, I don’t know if the SBC name change issue rises to that level, but it feels to me like “much ado about nothing.” Of all our problems, are we really going to tackle that one first? After all, we can’t even really determine if there’s a need to go down this road. However, here are some issues that many, including myself, believe we should be addressing first.

A.    Focus more clearly on our primary vision. Thankfully, the GCR report began this process. However, its principles have yet to filter down fully to our state conventions. More work must be done to facilitate role clarity among all of our agencies.

B. Eliminate bureaucracy throughout the convention. Downsizing is hard, but it is essential if we’re to become more effective in this new financial climate. Decentralization, elimination of unnecessary bureaucratic structures, and the appropriate use of technology must be utilized.

C. Become better stewards of the money we already have. The Cooperative Program has been a great vehicle for giving for Southern Baptists. However, it is naive to believe that the continual call for greater percentage giving, without an accompanying restructuring by our institutions, will result in increased funds. It’s time for our conventions and institutions to function like our churches: prioritize what really matters and fund that. Everything else has to be discontinued, no matter how great a program it may be. If it is God’s will for a ministry to continue, He can provide other funding for it. If not, we shouldn’t be doing it anyway. This kind of wise stewardship will motivate people to give.

D. Stop the generational in-fighting about preference, ministry issues. Despite numerous calls for change in this arena, the problem continues unabated in many places. We must look to our national and state leaders to set the example for this before we can expect others to follow. This, as much as anything, will slow the exodus of young pastors and leaders from our convention.

Concluding Thoughts

When all is said and done, however, we are still left to ponder the primary issue: should the SBC seriously consider a name change? Honestly, if we believe as a convention that a name change will make us more effective in our mission, then we should do it, regardless of the potential challenges. However, I affirm Ed Stetzer’s statement from a recent blog: “If they don’t [change the name] I will say God is still sovereign and churches will still be planted, people will be reached, and the gospel will be proclaimed” (http://betweenthetimes.com/2011/09/21/should-the-sbc-change-its-name/).

Finally, let me reaffirm my commitment to the SBC. I remain grateful for all the blessings that God has given me through this great denomination. I affirm the work that has been accomplished nationally, and to some degree at the state convention level, as a result of the adoption of the GCR report. And, I stand ready to support the committee’s recommendation to our convention in regards to a name change. However, it is my heart’s desire that the forming of this committee will not distract us from the primary work that needs to be done to streamline our convention and prioritize our mission. In my opinion, this is the only thing in the long term that will help our young pastors and leaders reconnect with the SBC (or whatever the name may be) and reverse the decline in mission, ministry, and giving that we’re currently experiencing.