SBC, GCB: Is It Really About Our Name?

Over the past year, there has been much discussion about the possibility of a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention. This idea is not a new topic of discussion among Southern Baptists. But with the renewed SBC emphasis on church-planting, many of the church planters claimed that identification with the SBC created a hindrance to their planting efforts. Bryant Wright, President of the SBC, appointed a task force to research the implications and impact of a name change. What they found is what most most of us already knew--legally changing the name would be expensive and rebranding would be very difficult.

But the task force did make a recommendation that would allow church planters to identify themselves with the SBC using a non-legal SBC descriptor, GCB or Great Commission Baptists. SBC churches and church plants are autonomous, meaning they are self-governing, self-identifying, and self-theologizing within the framework of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (or like-minded confession.) This means that churches can call themselves whatever they want and include any descriptor they choose in their name. Many SBC churches have already made name changes and have removed "Baptist" from their names because they believe they serve areas where that label is a hindrance to their work. They did not need convention approval to do this. Neither do Church planters need our permission to use this kind of descriptor.

At the convention, there was much debate over affirmation of the addition of this descriptor to the SBC. Those against the descriptor missed the point of what this motion was really about. They rightly said that the motion wasn't necessary. They at times incoherently tried to make a case against rebranding. One even argued that since we were not fulfilling the Great Commission, we would be lying to call ourselves Great Commission Baptists. I was saddened by some of these arguments simply because this motion was not about the name of the SBC. The motion was really an opportunity for our convention to overwhelmingly support our church planters and the evangelistic work that they are doing in difficult areas of our nation. Many of these arguments really affirmed how little the churches in our denomination understand the difficult dynamics of church planting.

This motion was a plea from our church planters, many of them young and just out of seminary, for support from our denomination for their work. It was a chance for us to empathize with them and appreciate them for what they do. It was an opportunity for us to show them that they too have a voice in their convention. Debate over this motion only added to their skepticism about the SBC. It gives them cause to abandon the denomination that they may feel ultimately abandoned them. We will continue to wonder in amazement why our denomination is in decline if we continue to indirectly ignore the voice of our new generation of pastors and leaders.

The resolution passed, 53% to 47%. I am glad that the motion passed. I am saddened that it was such a close vote. At some point, Southern Baptists (at least 47% of us) are going to have to stop looking backwards, longing for the glory days of the way things used to be. We need to be forward thinking and that means affirming our planters who are theologically and doctrinally like-minded and giving them the tools to be successful Southern Baptist church planters, planting Great Commission focused Baptist churches.