There are some phrases, once distant, now joined in the collective consciousness.
Peanut Butter met Jelly. They got together.
Postal employees? Disgruntled.
The religious world in Texas had its own issues.
The BGCT split into two factions with twenty faces. Then, there came the official split, creating the SBTC. According to who you believe, the BGCT lost either 1,000 or 2,000 churches. Depending on who you trust, the BGCT now has 5,600 churches and missions and the SBTC now has more than 2,000 units, which would collectively be more than the two groups as one started with before the schism.
According to who you invest with the growing portions of this split atom mutate outward to start new units.
Along the way, each faction tried to join itself with some descriptive words.
BGCT? Distinctive, institutional, traditional
SBTC? Exciting, energizing, inerrant.
I am underwhelmed by the "branding" effort of both groups.
Along the way, the BGCT picked up some descriptive words.
BGCT: Top-heavy, out of touch, outdated.
To these, the Wade administration added other descriptive words.
BGCT: Unsettled, incompetent, scandal ridden.
The Future Focus Committee of the BGCT was created from the floor of the convention a year ago. Good people were appointed to the FFC. (Yes, more initials.) The FFC has had to come to grips with some really tough realities, to wit:
- This committee was created from the floor of the convention, which thing one of our historic presidents had read out of existence in his unseemly haste to protect the outgoing administration. Ergo, the FFC had to do something, if for no other reason than to show the convention does exist on the floor of the convention meeting, parliamentary gymnastics notwithstanding. Incidentally, if you ever get to vote again with the choice of guilt/history vs. competence, control your guilt a little longer.
- The cupboard is largely bare. There is not much money left, there is less money coming and any sea change requires energy. In denominational life, money is energy and it is a non-renewable resource, if you fritter it away.
- There is a new administration just now seated. Can we trust them? I already said no, we can't yet, but we have to give them a chance. You do not hire an executive and tell him he cannot execute, or tie his hands with fifty new regulatory agents to thwart his every move. Historically, President Nixon overstepped everything from good will to criminal law. The brakes put on the Presidency after him were so onerous they almost unbalanced the balance of power set out in the constitution. The new administration of the BGCT was in danger of being eviscerated for the mistakes of its (now) untouchable predecessor.
Question: What is the one thing you do when you cannot stay where you are the way you are? What do you do with the mitigating factors of (relative) poverty and a new (hopeful) administration?
You change the name.
This will protect the innocent, if you can find any.
The name change is a good faith attempt to apologize across the board for the chicanery of the last decade. The FFC intends to extirpate the past, at the same time refusing to burden the future. At the very least, the FFC is admitting the past is too heavy to carry with us into the next decade by making some hurried reflexive reactions now.
Oh, get a dictionary. I didn't take you to raise.
Someone will note the Biblical penchant for name changes and this worthy commentator will be both right and wrong. Abram and Abraham. Sarai and Sarah. Jacob and Israel. Saul and Paul.
The early patriarchal family name changes come about because of a change of nature and mission. Is the TTBC, nee-BGCT, changing its nature and mission? If so, do we get to vote on that or do we become irrelevant to the process right after we vote on the historical name change?
I am sick to death with hollow gestures deemed historic. We will not survive much more of this nonsense.
Saul becomes Paul. Why? Luke thinks it is so he can reach the gentiles, since the Jews have put his new faith out of the building.
Ok, we can start to legitimate a name change for this purpose. If you intend to divorce from past associations to emphasize a new flexibility for the purpose of reaching people who will in no way combine with anything BGCT and, if, by your typological manumission you focus on the mission just ahead in light of the realities at hand, we can buy into that rationale.
Oh, is that what you meant?
OK. Why didn't you just say so?