I have given an lot of thought these past few days to the issue of Christian institutions changing their names in order to present a more generic face to the world. I am now speaking broadly without having any particular institution in mind. However, I do admit that the Houston Baptist University name change proposal is the seed from which my thinking has grown and use it for illustrative purposes.
First I want to answer the question,"Should a Christian institution ever change it's name?" This may surprise some but the answer is "Yes!" There are times and circumstances under which an institutional name change is in order. However, there are far more circumstances that do not justify a name change.
Keep in mind that Proverbs 22:1 tells us that "A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold." The goal in naming our religious institutions is to have a good name. The question then becomes, what is a good name?
First a good name is one that is descriptive of the institution. You would not name a child care center "Green Acres Nursing Home" if it is located in America. It might work in Australia however. Why, clearly in is non-descriptive of your institution. While Oldies and children may have a lot in common you're opening a place to put old people not a place for children. To do so would be disastrous for everyone not to mention misleading and perhaps downright deceptive depending on motives. This is the reason the name change from Houston Baptist College to Houston Baptist University was a good and acceptable name change. The institution had ceased to be just a college and was not a full blown University. Hence HBC became HBU.
Second the name should convey something of its core values. Now when forming an institution careful consideration should be given to the name as to how that name relates to the core values. That name can be a denominational designator, a distinguished person's whose life embodies those core values, or just about anything else one chooses. The institution's given name, just as in the case of individuals, is chosen by those who give birth to the institution. It is an expression of their hopes, dreams and more fundamentally values. As to whether that name proves to be noble or not over time is up to the leadership of the institution (trustee), Administration, Faculty and Alumni. All of these are called upon to insure that the core values are lived out in the life of the institution.
When a denominational designation is included as a part of the institution's name it identifies for the world that the institution is anchored in that particular denomination doctrinal position. That is, it will express the Christian Faith as taught and believed by that particular denomination. Abilene Christian University is not expected to have core values that would be completely acceptable by other denomination. The same is true for East Texas Baptist College; Southern Methodist University: Trevecca Nazarene University; and hundreds more like them.
The birth name is a given . . . it is given by those giving the institution birth. In the case of Houston Baptist University those founding fathers clearly believed that the name they chose adequately reflected the new schools core values and mission statement. Above everything else they wanted it understood that the school was located in the City of Houston and that is was Baptist at its core. This meant that the programs, faculty, and other actions of the University should be consistent with and not detracting to core Baptist doctrine.
Since Houston Baptist University was birthed more than 50 years ago thousands of lives and millions of dollars have been invested building a legacy that gives significance to the name it was given. Once a name has obtained that kind of status there are very few justifiable reasons for changing it.
Marketers and Public Relations experts tell me that name changes means re-branding and are generally the result of having a name that has been tarnished in some way or the particularly entity has changed its core values and/or mission statement so that the name no longer fits. In any case it is virtually always to make a new start by distancing itself from his heritage (past). In the case of non-profits, they add, an institution might change a name to honor someone whose life has made significant contributions to the institution. This is almost universally done posthumously and is rare. I can't think of a single case of such renaming. More often than not they would name a facility of some kind after them and not change the schools name.
In my world, changing a name of and institution that has become inextricably linked to the Core Values of an institution through several generations of use because the name is offensive to potential donors whose theological core differs from that of the institution is on its face wrong. (See previous blog entry). Just because there is a dumbing down of virtually everything in our lives does not justify taking an institution that was Baptist born and Baptist bred and try and pass it off as something other than Baptist. To do so and claim that changing the name does not change the core values is absolutely true. No argument here on that. However, changing the name is the result of changing core values. Why would an Episcopalian give money to a Baptist institution simply because changed its name and not its core values.
It takes money and lots of it to run a University and even takes more money when you cast a vision that is well beyond the resources of the institution financially. It is incumbent upon he who has the vision to share that vision in a way that those of us in the trenches of life can not just share it but embrace it and make it our own. Convince me that where you want the University to go is the place it needs to be. I want to know and trust you. But you have made it difficult since I have never seen the vision nor a plan to obtain it. Don't ask me to pay for something on blind faith. I am neither blind or stupid.
Now I do have an understanding how these things work because over my nearly 50 years of active professional ministry I have sat on all kinds of boards for all kinds of institutions. Far too often these boards while bringing all sorts of experiences, expertise, personalities, and backgrounds together in a single room become myopic while in the room. Trustees hold an institution in trust. It is a trust bestowed upon them by the people who gave birth to the institution. They do not own it no matter how much money they donate, time they invest or service they render. Their job is to see that the institution remain healthy enough in every area of University life so as to perpetuate the Core values and mission of the institution they govern. It is an honor to be so trusted by the owners. (That's the problem with a self-perpetuating board. In their minds they often forget they are holders of a trust and become owners of the institution and beholden only to one another.)
Ever wanted to know what goes on behind the Board Room's closed doors? The short answer, "mostly nothing." Most of what Board members do involves routine oversight of budgets, personal issues, property assessments and policy recommendations all of which comes from the paid staff through the institution's President. It is because their focus is, as it should be, growing the institution in keeping with its core values.
As far as board member interaction I have seen a powerful voice in the public arena mysteriously becomes weak in the presence of people who have not only an air authority but the power of the purse. These Boards are usually dominated by the most driven, forceful, determined daring and competitive member of the board. They do not hesitate to manipulate other members and/or staff to achieve their goals They very often are the people we refer to as having a tendency to "going of half-cocked." They rarely weight the unintended consequences of an action. Just solve the problem at hand now and deal with consequences later. Sort of like "its easier to apologize than to ask permission" idea. The rest will be more reflective but less confrontation and tend to go along with the "real" leader of the Board (may or may not be the chairman) just to avoid conflict.
On a board made up of 20 people your likely to have no more than two or three people like this. These people have neither time nor disposition for details. Great qualities for a leader you say. I agree if they possess a high level of maturity. They keep pushing for action even if the action might prove to be incorrect.
I said this to say that it is my view based on my own experience that this name change business at HBU has been viewed in the vacuum of a board meeting and a decision has already been made to change the name and what that name will be. I am guessing that a strong voice has pushed the idea as the best, easiest and maybe the only way to increase donations to the school from non-member individuals. I doubt any detailed research has gone into the matter. I'm also betting it might even revolve around a few non-Baptist on the board who in my judgement should not have been there in the first place. They were allowed on the board either to get into their pockets or the pockets of their non-baptist associates. Now it not just as seat on the board but the name on the sign and who knows what comes after that.
The "public" town hall meetings are not efforts to solicit opinions but to satisfy the needs to be able to say, "We had them and people got to express their opinions." In reality, they will prove to be information dissemination meetings that serve the purpose of letting you know a decision has been made and will be officially announced shortly. It serves a secondary purpose of allowing the Board to measure the amount, source and intensity of opposition they can expect.
I hear about a fellow (non-Baptist) talking about the present trend to make religious institution generic by removing anything that is offense to people outside the institution, in this case churches, that might keep them from attending church. He started talking about how churches have dropped their denominational identities and replaced them with descriptive phrases. We actually have a church near where we live that advertises that their church does not "feel" like church. I plan on attending one day to see what it does "feel" like. I hope it doesn't feel like a Rotary Club meeting. Anyway, I digress. Then, in the middle of his string of examples he said, "I just had a thought. What is the the one word at the heart of our Christian experience that is most offensive to those non-Christian world?" (dramatic pause)"The most offensive word we Christians have is our Lord's name, 'Jesus.'" Maybe we should change his name because the same argument can be made for making him more acceptable to a world to which we are to stand in stark contrast.
No comments:
Post a Comment