SBC Name Change Study

1975 “Daley” Committee of Seven Report Concerning
Possible Name Change for the Southern Baptist Convention

ITEM 100, PAGE 65, CONVENTION ANNUAL FOR 1975:

100. Daley then reported for the committee on the assignment to consider a possible name change for the Convention. He reported that a number of surveys had been made with the assistance of the Research Services Department of the Baptist Sunday School Board, a survey through Baptist state papers, and other surveys of special groups all of which indicated an overwhelming sentiment of opposition to a change of name. He concluded the report with the following statement: "The Committee of Seven understood its assignment by the Convention was to study the existing sentiment on a name change and report its findings to the Convention without specific instructions to make a recommendation. However, in light of its findings it is the committee's considered judgment that the name of the Southern Baptist Convention should not be changed at this time." Daley then moved adoption of the report. Discussion followed by Donald J. Brown (Md.), who moved a substitute motion as follows: "That we do not vote this year on whether or not to change the name of our denomination, but that for one year we consider the name 'Cooperative Baptist Churches' alongside our present name and that at our Convention next year the messengers will vote their choice." Further discussion "followed by J, D. Grey (La.) and Brown. The substitute motion lost. The motion to adopt the report passed.

COMPLETE REPORT ON CONVENTION NAME CHANGE STUDY

During the June, 1974, meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas, "...W. A. Criswell (Texas) moved that the president of the Convention appoint a committee of seven members to study the possibility of changing the name of the Convention with instructions that the committee report to the Convention next year the results of the study, The motion was referred for later consideration." Subsequently, Porter Routh offered a substitute motion that the study suggested be approved and that the study be made by a seven-member committee already approved to study and evaluate the Executive Committee. After some discussion, the substitute motion passed.
The study committee has sought to learn Convention name change opinion from all levels and areas of Southern Baptist life. Some of the committee’s efforts included: (1) An invitation through Baptist Press to all Southern Baptists to express their views. (2) Participation 'with the September, 1974, Public Relation Advisory Conference in a name change study. (3) Study of past name change studies, especially the 1966 opinion survey conducted by the Research Services Department of the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board. (4) A mass opinion poll through ballots placed in all state Baptist papers. (5) A professional opinion survey conducted by the Research Services Department of the Baptist Sunday School Board.

The response to these efforts was quite heavy and decisive. The committee feels it succeeded in obtaining widespread Baptist opinion on the name change possibility for the Southern Baptist Convention. Responses received by committee members from individuals and from churches in 30 states showed 16 percent in favor of a name change and 84 percent against. The surveys made by state Baptist papers also resulted, in an overwhelming rejection of a name change for Southern Baptists. The overall average percentages from 32 state Baptist paper surveys were 35 percent favoring and 65 percent opposing a name change. The state paper surveys revealed that sentiment for a name change was dominant only in some newer areas of Southern Baptist work. In other newer areas for Southern Baptists a majority opposed a name change. State groups with a majority favoring a name change were D. C., Hawaii, Kansas, New England, Michigan, New York-New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania-South Jersey, and West Virginia. All the older state groups in the traditional area of Southern Baptists, along with the Southern Baptist groups in Alaska, Arizona-Nevada, California, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, and Ohio rejected the name change idea. Percentages against a name change in the older and larger state groups ran from two to one to nine to one.
The professional survey conducted by the Research Services Department of the Baptist Sunday School Board also revealed that a decisive majority of Southern Baptists opposed any change in the Convention name. The combined percentages of responses to the professional survey were approximately one-fourth for and three-fourths against a name change. Among those included in this survey were pastors, deacon chairmen, Sunday School directors, and church clerks. Of these groups, pastors were the most favorable and church clerks were least favorable to a name change.
The Committee of Seven reached its decision on the name change issue after careful study of all known reasons for and against a name change. Some valid reasons exist for a name change, especially in pioneer areas for Southern Baptists. However, overwhelming reasons for retaining the name were convincing to the committee. Some of these reasons are: (1) All the opinion polls revealed that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are strongly against any name change. (2) The name, Southern Baptists, has become identified and associated with certain doctrinal positions, traditions, and other emphases. A name change would be interpreted by some as abandoning this heritage and these invaluable traits. (3) The danger and tragedy of other groups claiming the name, "Southern Baptists," and capitalizing upon it once we dropped it for another name. Such a development, in the opinion of the committee, would be very confusing to many who identify themselves now as "Southern Baptists." (4) The long and arduous task of communicating a name change and reasons for its adoption to our own 'constituents, to other religious groups, and to the news media. However, neither this nor other reasons listed would have prevented a recommendation for a change in name if the committee members had strong convictions the name should be changed. (5) The difficulties and problems of inserting a. new name into the charters and all the other documents of the Southern Baptist Convention and its agencies and eventually into the documents of state conventions and their agencies, of district associations, and local churches. Also the legal ramifications and implications of a Convention name change in respect to wills, trusts, and deeds in which the Southern Baptist Convention is the beneficiary. (6) The absence of a consensus on a suitable new name. In letters to the committee from Baptists .in thirty states fifty-two different names were suggested with no name appearing as a popular choice.

In the state Baptist paper polls the most popular names were: (1) Cooperative Baptist Convention. This name was in the top five names submitted by twenty states; (2) Continental Baptist Convention-in the top five names submitted by 19 states; (3) United Baptist Convention-in the top five names submitted by 18 states; (4) World Baptist Convention-in the top five names submitted by 17 states; (5) Baptist Convention of America-in the top five names submitted by 15 states.

The Committee of Seven understood its assignment by the Convention was to study the existing sentiment on a name change and report its findings to the Convention without specific instructions to make a recommendation. However, in light of its findings, it is the committee's considered judgment that the name of the Southern Baptist Convention should not be changed at this time.