SBC baptisms are growing!

The North American Mission Board convened a pastors' task force "to assess and respond to stark patterns of decline in Southern Baptist evangelism and baptisms."

One of their findings was that SBC baptisms are GROWING, not declining. There is certainly more to this factoid. The only consistent growth is in baptisms of preschoolers age five and under. Got that? We are dipping more five year olds, four year olds, three year olds and I'd bet a few two year old toddlers still in diapers. I had thought that we stopped collecting data for this age category, preferring to lump them in with older children.

I make no flat conclusion about whether or not a five year old had the mental capacity and the spiritual awareness to comprehend what it means to be a sinner, to understand the vicarious atonement, and to be saved. Don't throw that hymnal that you never use anymore at me but I'd be extremely wary of presuming that children that young are capable of abstract thinking which is required for salvation, unless you believe that parroting certain words does the job.

Other than this age group, baptisms are declining at a greater rate than previously. You can read the report and Baptist Press' story on it in these links:

Pastors' Task Force on Declining Baptisms

Pastors' Task Force on SBC Evangelistic Impact & Declining Baptisms

One of the problems identifiied by the task force, more likely conveyed to the pastors by denominational representatives, is that more and more churches are not reporting baptisms at all. No, not a report of zero baptisms but no Annual Church Profile report at all.

When I wrote on this practice of not filing the ACP two years ago, I used the Florida Baptist Convention as the example and over 15% of FBC churches were not filing. I think I recall a figure of 20% being tossed about as the percentage of non-filers.

I think it fairly settled that SBC churches are less inclined to file the ACP that previously. I suspect the causes are (a) less denominational identification, (b) less associational involvement (yeah, you've been at your associations annual meeting where the year's stats are passed out and no one pays attention to anything until they check and see who did what and who didn't do what), (c) we've had a tendency to beat up churches with no baptisms in a given year and candidates for SBC or state convention offices who baptize few and more churches are choosing to not disclose their baptism figures, (d) filling out the form is a bore and a chore.

Calling attention to the declining baptism statistics is a good thing. It cannot hurt. I just don't see anything on the horizon that will change it. If we really wanted to look closely at baptisms and get to the problem, we might scrutinize RE-baptisms...but that embarrasses everyone, so lets just whistle by that graveyard.

Baptism miasma? Here's a possibility for a cure

The preconvention reporting of SBC statistics usually triggers a spate of old fashioned Baptist hand-wringing.  This year's total baptism figure puts it on steroids.

Baptist Press reports that baptisms for 2012 were at their lowest level since 1948 when the earliest Baby Boomers were toddlers. Total baptisms, 314,956 for 2012, are down over 18k from the previous year. The 5.5% drop is the largest percentage decline in quite some time.

"Woe is us" sayeth any and all SBC leaders and others:

"heartbreaking"  Thom Ranier, head of LifeWay

 "God forgive us and God help us." Frank Page, Executive Committee CEO

While the figure for 2012 is a continuation of the well-established, long term trend of declining baptism, this has been evident for decades, no one wants to say that it is business as usual and to be expected, even though it is.

The SBC is a declining denomination and has been for five years or so. We reluctantly join the other mainline denominations in a slow statistical slog southward. In spite of assurances otherwise, The Conservative Resurgence didn't stave off a decline but merely conserved the status quo a little longer.

Baptists may not be good at baptizing folks these days we we are still pretty good at finger pointing and there is no end to morbid self-introspection about declining baptisms: we're not reaching youth like we used to, we're not evangelistic, pastors are not aggressive enough, were not praying enough, we're not going door-to-door with big, thick, heavy King James Bibles like we used to, we are too culturally irrelevant, we are too culturally relevant, we sing to many hymns, we sing too many peppy contemporary dittys, we don't use vocational evangelists any longer, God just needs to send revival etc. etc., ad nauseum.

Overwhelmed and drowned out, pardon the pun, by the sagging baptism figure was the fact that the SBC showed an increase in the total number of churches. It was slight, 270 or a 0.6% increase from the previous year, but slightly up is better than markedly down.

That's good.


I offer the possibility that Southern Baptists are already doing something that has the potential to improve our baptism statistics. 

To not an inordinate bit of complaining, our North American Mission Board has redirected a considerable part of their budget and retooled much of their emphasis towards the planting of churches. Their flagship church planting initiative is Send North America. My association near Atlanta is part of this and there are already new churches being funded and planned through SNA.

Is it not settled that new churches grow faster than mature churches and that new churches baptize more with fewer members than legacy churches?

Yep.

And while various state conventions have church revitalization programs that are aimed at reinvigorating the thousands of sepulchral congregations around the SBC, most of us would predict failure in that lugubrious task, chiefly because churches are happy where they are and simply do not wish to be revitalized.
        
So, is it reasonable to think that a goal of increasing baptisms will more likely be reached through new congregations than by trying to persuade, cajole, or badger existing churches to make changes?

Yep.

After we're done with our annual pre-convention hand wringing session over declining baptisms and church membership, perhaps we could put some energy into doing the things that might help reverse this trend.

It is too early to measure the success of NAMB's work but it is about the only thing we are doing right now that holds out the possibility for a positive increase.

Doleful talk and tired, boilerplate warnings about the future may make us feel good but will not put more people in the baptistery.

Send North America probably will. Any church, any pastor will find a place to contribute through this, so take a day or two to be disconsolate about the latest baptism statistics and then start doing something positive about it. 

Why not have a RE-baptism service?

OK, OK. Baptisms are down, back to the level of the 1950s. We're all chagrined, embarassed, and upset about it.

How about we stop the hand wringing and finger pointing and do something about it.

The photo is an actual church sign near me.

That's it. Have a rebaptism service. Think of the possibilities.

• You would have a new target audience, everyone in your church who has already been baptized.
• We are already experienced at doing rebaptisms and know some of the ins and outs to it.
• All those who were baptized as 4 year olds will be able to acquire a baptismal experience they will actually remember.
• Plug the increased baptism numbers in the Annual Church Profile. No one will dispute them. A baptism is a baptism is a baptism.
• You could lead your association in baptisms and turbo your SBC trajectory to new heights, larger churches, denominational positions.

Actually, the sign should have said "Reaffirmation of Baptism Service" what I am told is a Methodist liturgy, sort of a recommitment service.

But giving SBCers ideas about boosting baptisms is dangerous. I wouldn't put it past some of the brethren. We already baptize near infants and, to be honest, a good chunk of our baptisms are already of folks who have been baptized previously, some more than once...we just wouldn't dare call it "rebaptism."

What I like about Calvinists

I'm of the opinion that the internet was made for Calvinists, since there seems to be so many of them who love endless discussions. I've been interacting with my Calvinistic brethren/sistren online for almost twenty years, going back to the SBC's old SBCNet Forum in the 1990s. I do like some things about them:

Almost all of the calvinists I know are serious about their beliefs.

An old prof said to our class years ago, "All you have is what you believe. Figure it out and stand behind it." OK, so calivinists think they have figured it all out, but I don't fault them for being studious and serious about Christian doctrine. After all it really doesn't matter what music we use in churches, what the buildings are like, or even what programs we employ if we're not serious Christians preaching and teaching the body of belief once for all delivered to the saints.

While most SBC clergy I have known would quickly subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, am I far from the mark to speculate that practical theology is the only theology they are deeply familiar with.

Calvinists are willing to address egregious church practices.

One example: The SBC's Annual Church Profile collects data on the numbers of baptisms of kids under five years of age and there are hundreds, thousands of little kiddies age 4, perhaps younger, baptized. I've yet to meet the four-year-old who has sufficient comprehension, who can manage abstract thinking to the degree necessary to place their faith in Christ. Calvinists would address this even if it meant incurring the ire or mom, dad, and granny over a refusal to baptize their exceptionally spiritual three year old.

Calvinists recognize a problem with manipulative evangelism and practices whose main purpose is to generate statistics rather than accomplish God's will.

I once examined baptism statistics for a state and learned that in one year, half of the baptisms reported were rebaptisms - folks who had already been immersed or sprinkled. Many pastors would be surprised at the numbers of their members who were immersed at 7, 8, or 11 years of age and then again at 20 or 24.

Something has to be amiss here and calvinists I believe would both recognize and address it. We all know evangelists whose main thrust is to get church members lost, then saved, then baptized all over again. We all know pastors who can generate enough baptisms to lead the association or state convention but who show no church growth as a result. I surmise that my wonderful calvinist pastor colleagues would not participate in such charades.

OK, so I'm having trouble after three. What else might be something good to say about calvinists?

The Gloom and Doom Convention in Phoenix

Half of Arizona is on fire, a fitting backdrop to the SBC's annual meeting in that state, which Plodder deems the "Gloom and Doom" convention.

The SBC reports the previous year's statistics just prior to its annual meeting each year, held in June. I suppose that in the past statistics gave us figure fueled Baptists extra bragging rights. Not last year. Not this year. Possibly not in the forseeable future.

Baptisms down 17k, continuing a general trend decades long. Membership down. Worship attendance down. Giving down. Lottie Moon down.

"Lack of passion" sayeth our Fearless Executive Committee Leader, Frank Page. "I told ya so" sayeth Associated Baptist Press which reminds those who follow our triumphs and travails that the Conservative Resurgence was supposed to increase everything.

Look for extra church-bashing, clergy-bashing, general fume and fuss preaching, lecturing, flogging, flaying, and cajoling in Phoenix this week, all under the guise of extra unction.

Expect a gaggle of the brethren to remind us that it takes a gazillion Baptists to generate one baptism. Anticipate finger pointing at the calvinists who don't believe that anyone is ever saved sufficiently to be baptized, at the traditionalists who are hindering the advance of the kingdom of God by (gasp!) singing old hymns instead of spiffy new dittys. See if the Baptist Identity group gets slammed for being too narrow, the egalitarians for being too broad, the sub-calvinists for doctrinal deficiencies, the megachurches for sucking the life out of thousands of smaller churches, the smaller churches for lacking vision and passion.

Naturally, expect pastors to be blamed for everything.

If you get most of your SBC news from the vast number of bloggers, you have good reason to be depressed. We've got bloggers pronouncing the death of the SBC as we know it, the fracturing of the convention, and about everything else that might get a look.

It's not an excuse but the SBC reflects the general trend among mainline denominations, just later and slower. Baptisms will likely continue to trend downward with spurts where they bump up. Per capita giving will continue to decline, with years of dollar increases when the economy improves. The numbers of churches, up this year by more than 700, will increase.

How about a little optimism here?

We have new leaders at our two chief entities, International and North American Mission Boards. We have a new XComm leader. Everyone in SBC life is being forced to look hard at things, mainly because money is short. I think the eventual outcome will be positive, but that doesn't preach as well as negative stuff.

But I have to be honest. SBCers do gloom and doom well.

Would declining IMB baptisms be a good sign?

If Southern Baptists are obedient to the Great Commission, if our leaders are genuinely concerned about lost souls, if our priorities are such that we feel compelled to put resources in places where Christian witness is unknown or seldom heard, are we prepared to endure some years of decreasing baptisms and church plants reported by our International Mission Board?

I’m not sure we are. I’m not sure that IMB trustees are. I’m not sure that IMB administrators are. But it seems to me that we should be so prepared. Our beloved flagship entity has been criticized in the past for fuzzy (dare I say ‘inflated’) statistics on baptisms and church plants. The official word is that the half-million 2009 baptisms and 200,000 overseas churches is inclusive of those groups with whom we work. Reporting such stats is problematic, IMO, since we don’t have SBC churches overseas nor does it seem proper to merely report those whom our personnel directly baptize. I leave it to the IMB folks to decide how to report to us but wish they would be consistent about it.

By whatever method and policies that the baptism and church figures are derived and compiled it seems to me that if one looks at the unreached, unengaged people groups (check the IMB’s Global Research page), the people and places that have the highest priority for our resources and workers, I think you can conclude that these are difficult places to serve. Many are places where laws prevent Christian churches from meeting openly, where conversions are illegal, and where baptisms are, at least for now, few. I admit to being a neophyte in missiology. If I am wrong, some expert may correct me.

I heard a prediction recently that whomever our new IMB leader is, he will have two eyes, two ears, and a brain (a fairly safe assumption, though there are SBC leaders who have demonstrated a lack of the latter) and will surely lead so as to put personnel where they are most critical, ie, where the “UU” groups are.

Sounds like the proper policy to me. On a recent summer mission trip to Central America I gave a prediction to a layman that we would run into other church mission groups at the airport. Sure enough, we were just one of several arriving in the country to do mission work. It makes little sense to me to pour resources in countries with abundant Christian witness.

So, if our IMB has prioritized their work so that we put less people in such countries and more people in “UU” countries, are we prepared to offer resolute and growing support even if the statistics that we all love trend downward?

I hope so but we Southern Baptists are nothing if not numbers driven. On this matter I hope that we can look past the statistics and recognize reality.