I cannot help but wonder if the reason it was referred to the Executive Board is that those who are pushing it felt it would not pass on the floor. If the executive board (more easily controlled than the convention) approves it, then they will get their way.
Again, makes little difference. Give me a tool by ANY NAME that actually operates each time I turn it on AND is what I paid for (the BGCT only is a tool–a huge religious nonprofit organization, like “an association of associations”–the existence of which makes no sense apart from individual Texas Baptists churches strategically/effectively on-mission with God in their communities and the world AND whose sole responsibility it is to support those congregations’ mission; the same with Baptist associations across the state). I think tens of thousands of Texas Baptists can agree with that viewpoint. The rest is politics amounting to the unnecessary kind (for ones with great concern for something as relatively insignificant as the proposed name change, contact all the members of the trustee board to ask each of them not to do so without much prayerful consideration AND careful input from Baptists across the state; the tool-thing still will be true after all of that input).
Texas Baptists can share a theology and an ideology WITHOUT sharing millions of dollars with each other–unless, as strategic/effective on-mission local churches we seek to make a positive difference greater than our own resources; then we need an association and/or convention, but not otherwise. My church doesn’t need the church of any other blogger here to know what it believes from the Bible–just ask our members!
David M., as I understand it, a convention name change would require approval by messengers at two consecutive annual meetings. If the executive board approves the name change, the messengers still would have to approve it before it happens.
I do not understand how this committee could justify a name change for the convention without there being a calling of God to change something deep within us and begin a completely new ministry. A new name will only make things more confusing for many who are actively involved in the convention, and I am positive that the people we minister to have no care in the world whether or not we change the name of our convention.
Apart from that, why in the world would they suggest such an expensive change, one that will place a financial burden upon all participating congregations, in such a difficult financial climate?
The expense to change the name, in my opinion, will waste precious resources that could be used in ministry to futher the Kingdom!
On the other hand, BAP-TIST-GEN-ER-AL-CON-VEN-TION-OF-TEX-AS always has been sort of a mouthful!
Actually, “Texas Baptist Convention” would have been a better name originally–and one more accurate considering the groups which formed the BGCT. From http://www.wikipedia.org on the forming of the BGCT–I’m sure it was more spiritual than it sounds: “. . . As the local associations increased, missionary Baptists became interested in cooperation together on the broader state level. In 1848 representatives from four associations met at Anderson, Texas, and started the Baptist State Convention of Texas. In 1853, the Baptist General Association of Texas was organized at Larissa, Texas. Other bodies were formed to serve their regions (and often due to dissatisfaction with the other bodies), such as the East Texas Baptist Convention (org. 1877 at Overton, Texas) and the North Texas Baptist Missionary Convention (org. 1879 at Allen, Texas). B. H. Carroll, pastor of First Baptist in Waco, Texas, was instrumental in getting the General Association, during its 1883 meeting, to propose that five conventions in Texas consider the expediency of uniting as one body. The North Texas Convention dissolved, and recommended its churches affiliate with the Baptist State Convention. The East Texas Convention also joined the state convention. In 1886, the Baptist General Association of Texas and the Baptist State Convention of Texas ratified the terms of merger and consolidated into one body called The Baptist General Convention of Texas. In addition to Carroll, other leaders in the merger included S. A. Hayden, J. B. Cranfill, J. B. Link, J. M. Carroll, R. T. Hanks, and G. W. Smith. The harmony and cooperation brought about by the new Baptist General Convention led to progress at the end of the 19th century—at Baylor University in Waco, at Baylor Female College in Belton, Texas, as well as in Sunday School and women’s auxiliaries . . .”
I agree that unsaved/unchurched folks probably don’t care much what the convention is called–at least, until they become saved/churched; then, they’ll care as much as we all do. So, the potential of a name change is valid–just not a show-stopper if it doesn’t happen. Again, whatever the BGCT is called, it MUST WORK.