It Takes a Congregation

From David Goldman at First Things:

It Takes a Congregation

Jun 26, 2009
David P. Goldman

Contrary to what we hear incessantly, marriage is not a right; it is an estate, a condition. There are conditions of life that have nothing to do with rights. One doesn’t have a right to go through puberty. One either does or doesn’t. What is the condition of being married, and what makes it possible to attain it? Franz Rosenzweig’s anthropology—in which religion is a response to man’s sentience of death, and the sentience of death is not only an individual but also an communal characteristic—may help answer that question. Humankind fights mortality in two ways. The first is to raise children who will remember us, and the second is to seek eternal life through divine grace. The estate of marriage involves both.

“Why do men chase women?” asks Rose Castorini in Moonstruck. “Because they want to live forever.” The data suggest that we marry and have children for just that reason. When we cease to hope in eternal life, we no longer marry and no longer have children. That is the terrible lesson that the triumph of secularism has taught us. In industrial countries where atheism triumphed in the form of communism, fertility rates have fallen to levels barely half of replacement. . . .

For the rest of the article, see http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/06/it-takes-a-congregation

Oh, and this one too, sent to me by a fellow quiverfiller:

Phony Matrimony

Here is an quote from it:

Christopher Oleson in Jan./Feb. issue of
Touchstone mag,:
”…Our society has preserved the label ’marriage’ while having
lost all living contact with what that word originally and
essentially signified. When a modern American couple, oblivious as
they are to the procreative and indissoluble nature of the marital
covenant, goes to the altar or courthouse and commits to living
together for life, they are not actually getting married in the
original sense of that word. They are entering into a contractually
formalized ’couplehood’.
What passes for marriage in the Western world these days, both in
terms of our cultural sensibilities as well as in law, is what I
described above, namely, two people who are really crazy about each
other and want to be a ’couple’ for life. Typically, this vision is
not repudiated even by more conservative Americans with ’traditional
values’.
The problem with this ’conservative’ acceptance of marriage as
contractual couplehood is that two men or two women can also fit
this description.”
Thus, even the church has vacated most of its argument against gay
marriage.

Meaningful Intercourse

In case readers here missed this article from Touchstone:

Meaningful Intercourse
By Allan Carlson

"God's Purpose for Marriage"

I found the brief article below, "God's Purpose for Marriage", in the current "Focus on the Family" bulletin insert. For some strange reason these non-Lutheran brochures find their way into some LCMS congregations (how does that happen?).

Please read the article below asking yourself this question: Does this author explain "God's Purpose for Marriage" in a way that homosexuals would necessarily disagree with it?

I don't necessarily disagree with the content of the article, per se. In fact, it's an excellent message. But if "God's Purpose for Marriage" can be boiled down to "teaching me how to love", why should we wonder when people argue that homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

If this article had been titled "One of God's Purposes for Marriage," and perhaps even briefly mentioned all the purposes so as not to elevate one above the others, I probably wouldn't have any problem with the content.

It also seems strange that this particular aspect of marriage was singled out on Father's Day. It just doesn't fit. It wasn't Husband's Day we celebrated this Sunday, for Pete's sake. What really made this stick out like a sore thumb was the author's statement that "marriage is about much more than managing... kids ...Those aspects are merely natural outcomes of a much greater purpose..."

Funny, I thought God joined husband and wife as one for the purpose of bringing forth godly offspring. Malachi 2:15 seems to imply that marriage is about much more than "teaching me how to love". In fact, from my experience, I would describe learning how to love as a potential outcome of the greater purpose of begetting children.

How sad that the rich and beautiful biblical understanding of marriage has been so watered down that I could just as well petition the state for a marriage license for my dog and cat to get married. Strange as it seems, they really do show more love for each other than many couples I know. If that's what marriage is about, why can't they get married?

Anyhow, here is the text of the article in question:

GOD'S PURPOSE FOR MARRIAGE
By Mitch Temple
(From the Father's Day bulletin insert from Focus on the Family)

Like a lot of men, I jumped into marriage with the thought that being happy was the ultimate goal. As I look back, many of the struggles my wife, Rhonda, and I encountered in the early years stemmed from my misconceptions about her and about marriage in general. My expectations, tone of voice, requests and responses to her all reflected my selfish heart, which considered my wife as a producer of my happiness.

One day, I listened to a sermon on the high calling of marriage, I became extremely emotional and saw my wife and marriage in a totally different way. I hugged Rhonda and said, "I finally got it about this thing called marriage."

The sermon convicted me with the truth that my marriage is about much more than managing intimacy, conflict, kids and finances. It's about more than simply meeting needs and making one another happy.

Those aspects are merely natural outcomes of a much greater purpose — glorifying God and reflecting His sacred truth to one another and to the world. When we become one in our marriage, we reflect the unity of God to the world. When we are not one, when we do not follow His pattern, it affects our relationship with Him and with each other.

When I began to look at Rhonda through God's eyes, it changed the way I saw her: She was His creation, fearfully and wonderfully made, a precious gift. I no longer looked at her with my own selfish agenda. She was no longer somebody who couldn't meet my expectations; she was an expression of God's love and grace. God had freely forgiven her shortcomings and imperfections, so why couldn't I?

Yes, it's sometimes difficult to maintain this heavenly perspective. Whenever I lose it, I go before the Father. I ask, "Lord, help me to see her again through Your eyes. Help me to treat her the way You treat her."

Then God faithfully reminds me that Rhonda isn't in my life to make me happy, but to teach me how to love.

Natural Law Revisited

Sex, without babies? Behold the origin of our conundrums in reproductive ethics! Our culture developed the technology to separate the sexual act from procreation, classically with the extramarital use of the Pill (in the sexual revolution), and thus was unleashed a host of problems that have plagued us ever since. So the argument goes. We would have no reproductive ethical dilemmas had we kept together the sexual act and procreation.

So writes Hans Madueme, a research analyst for the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity in "Natural Law and a Reformed Bioethics: Another Look." Citing a few recent books that seek to revive a natural law tradition among Reformed theologians, Madueme concludes that "when it comes to reproductive ethics, Protestant ethics has typically dropped the ball." He attributes this ball-dropping primarily to Protestantism's departure from natural law.

I wonder if Lutheranism fits a s similar pattern. Some folks at The Hausvater Project pointed out "that the Lutheran Confessions at times also appeal to natural law, natural rights, and the like, even while still maintaining the sola scriptura principle (e.g. Apol. XVI, 11; Apol. XXIII (XI), 6-12, 60). This is possible because natural law, properly construed, will not contradict Scripture." That's looking back to the sixteenth century. Today, many people (Lutherans included) seem more comfortable appealing to personal preferences than articulating their viewpoint in terms of natural law. From Madueme again: "One benefit of recognizing natural law (or with Lutherans, the 'order of creation') is that it recovers a much more robust, ontological, moral realism." It's not just about what I want sex to be, but what God created sex to be, and both nature and scripture reveal that creation plan. Madueme continues:

Properly defined, natural law and biblical revelation are ontologically connected by divine design and that should inform our moral and ethical lives. Bioethics then is not just an intriguing sideshow, a sometimes curious footnote to our otherwise routine lives. The integrity of God's moral order is fundamentally at stake.

Euthanasia

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/06/youd-think-case-for-choice-at-end-of.html

You'd think the case for 'choice' at the end of life might be stronger... since the life at stake is likely to be able to participate in making that choice....

Writes Mickey Kaus, fretting about the end-of-life decisions the government may very well take over for us under ObamaCare.

Now, as you may know, the Supreme Court denied the existence of a federal constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, but the opinion (by Chief Justice Rehnquist) shows deep concern for the interests of the individual who might suffer from untreated depression or who might be vulnerable to "abuse, neglect, and mistakes." The Court worried that family and medical personnel might subtly pressure someone to choose death to save money, and that, even uncoerced, some people might think it is the decent, honorable choice to spare their families the cost of medical care.

But all of that supports Kaus's point. It's one thing to deny the choice to die, quite another to deny the choice to live. The individual may not have a right to get killed, because the state's interest in protecting people from coercion and abuse is a good one. But Kaus is concerned about a government that wants you dead — perhaps not by actively offing you, but by maintaining full control over the medical treatments you need in order to fend off death.

Indeed. Perfect Storm is brewing: Aging boomers, economic turmoil, moral relativism within a culture of death, rising health care costs, and Those Who Know Best taking over.

Lord, have mercy.

It is Impossible to Both Love Your Child and to Wish Her Dead

Father Baker's post on "Parents sue for pre-natal misdiagnosis of Down syndrome" on his blog site, Bioethike deserves comment. See http://bioethike.com/2009/06/15/parents-sue-for-prenatal-misdiagnosis-of-down-syndrome/. I left a similar comment to the following on the site (with some editing which I should have made before I posted there), but wanted to post it here as well:

The Levys are heartless. As a father of a special needs child, I find preposterous the assertion that parents love their Down Syndrome child as much as their other children, but would have killed her had they known before she was born that she had Down Syndrome. We do not kill those whom we love nor do we sue others for giving us inaccurate information which prevented us from killing someone whom we now claim to love. Put simply, it is a lie.

I can understand that the Levys may find themselves in financial need given the extra expenses often involved in caring for a special needs child. Fortunately, God has given to me a well-paying job with excellent benefits and a wife who is a health care profession who has a good understanding of how to manage the needs of our special needs child. I may not, therefore, face all the problems they face. However, to file what is called a wrongful life suit arising out of their failure to kill their child but for the inaccurate information is not the way to solve those problems. If they are Christians, one hopes that they are part of a community of family and friends who will help where needed. If not, then we can pray that they become part of such a Christian community.

Were I their two older children, I would find frightening the assertion that their younger disabled sibling is just as dear to their parents as they are. What that says, even if they don't intend it, is that none of their children are so dear to them that they wouldn't have killed them had they known before their birth that they would be disabled.

Hopefully, the Levys will learn that God gives us burdens as blessings, not as curses. Special needs children require special effort, effort that changes their parents. Those changes can be for the better, and become a blessing, or for worse, and become a curse. The mother and father, through the grace of God, largely determine which it is. May God melt their hard hearts and give them the grace to be sanctified through the life of this special needs child, the child with which He blessed them.

Hopeful Signs in the SBC

See

A Southern Baptist Turns Catholic on Birth Control

available at http://blogs.theledger.com/default.asp?item=2388560

Contributed by Cary McMullen - Posted: June 11, 2009 1:56:14 PM

See the following excerpt:

Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., has attracted a good bit of attention lately in Southern Baptist circles as the primary author of a proposal called the Great Commission Resurgence, intended to shore up flagging membership and baptism numbers.

One of the points in that document calls for Baptists to have "gospel-saturated homes that see children as a gift from God and as our first mission field." That's a pretty generic statement that most Baptists would go along with, but apparently, Akin has in mind larger families.

Associated Baptist Press reports that Akin said in an April 16 chapel address, "Southern Baptists have been seduced by the sirens of modernity in a very important place. We have been seduced in how we do family and how many we should have in the home." Akin recalled a former missionary who declared that birth control is a sin and said, "You say, 'What are you saying?' I'm saying you need to have a bunch of kids. It has a missiological motivation."

For a more extensive article on this same post, see http://www.churchexecutive.com/newsprint.asp?print=1&mode=4&N_ID=1938

For an earlier related post see http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/2009/04/different-denomination-same-story.html

For a related video about a Southern Baptist seminary professor who delivered a sermon at the seminary chapel which included a message against birth control, see http://www.swbts.edu/dashboard.cfm?dateString=20081007&dateToLoad=October%2007,%202008

On the More Positive Side . . .

Church Growth, Emmaus style

A Matter of Intent

For some excellent commentary President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame, see Anthony Esolen's post over at Mere Comments, available at http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/notre-madame-et-le-president.html

A brief excerpt:

Except in the case of rape, there are no "unintended pregnancies," none. There are plenty of women who do not want to be pregnant, and plenty of men who do not want them to be pregnant, but in all those cases the pregnancies are the results of intentional actions of a sort that have pregnancy as their perfectly natural and perfectly predictable consequence. Contraception does not change the nature of the act itself; indeed, it makes the actors more keenly aware that what they are doing is the sort of thing that makes babies, since otherwise they would not go so far out of their way (donning or inserting into the body uncomfortable devices, or flooding the system with pregnancy-mimicking hormones) to thwart the body's natural functions. The "problem" in the case of Sexual Roulette is not that the body fails, but that it succeeds.

So the pregnancies are the result of intention. The problem is that the children are not wanted, and that is a very different thing. For the question we should immediately ask is not, "How do we dispose of this child we do not want?" but "What is wrong with us that we do not want this child?"

* * *

What we need, of course, is not to reduce "unintended pregnancies," but to grant children what we owe them, which is, at the minimum, a married mother and father. We want, in other words, to reduce unwed motherhood, not by killing the children, but by persuading people to get married before they start acting as if they were married.

CDC urges vigilance for pregnant women with flu symptoms

In its surveillance of the novel influenza outbreak, the CDC has been gathering information on infections in pregnant women. As of May 10, 20 cases have been reported, including 15 confirmed and 5 probable cases. The CDC published its findings on the three cases in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Dispatch.

Anne Schuchat, MD, interim deputy director CDC's science and public health program, said at a media briefing today that the CDC is singling out the cases to remind healthcare providers and the public that pregnant women are at higher risk for flu complications such as pneumonia and dehydration and that the agency is seeing some severe complications in pregnant women who have novel H1N1 infections.

"We want to get the word out about prompt antiviral treatment," she said.

Story from CIDRAP here.

Full CDC report here.

Population, Economy, and God

For an excellent article on the relationship between wealth, belief in God and fertility, see "Population, Economy, and God," by Tom Bethell, published by The American Spectator and available at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/12/population-economy-and-god

A brief excerpt will give you a hint of the author's premise:

A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.

* * *

I could summarize the argument with this overstatement: The intelligentsia stopped believing in God in the 19th century. In the 20th it tried to build a new society, man without God. It failed. Then came a new twist. Man stopped believing in himself. He saw himself as a mere polluter—a blot on the landscape. Theologians tell us that creatures cannot exist without the support of God. A corollary may be that societies cannot long endure without being sustained by a belief in God.

Rev. Larry Beane on the "New Religion"

Read his post here.

On Obama in South Bend

Because it touches upon the concerns of this blog, some of you may be interested in my recent post on reactions to Obama in South Bend, in anticipation of his coming to speak at the University of Notre Dame.

Changing the World One "I do" at a Time

Here are links to two good blog posts on why we are losing the battles in our culture. All the politicking in the world can't make up for our failures to simply be obedient. Indeed, I have come to believe that all the politicking is a desperate attempt to find some solution other than obedience.

Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It - updated, available at http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/let-gays-have-marriage-were-not-using-it/, where we read, in part:

If you put something out with the trash, the police can search it without a warrant. Anyone walking by can take it. Although it’s still on your property, it’s not really yours anymore; you’ve relinquished your claim to it. And that’s exactly what we’ve done with marriage. We might as well let gays have it. We’re not using it.

There are four elements of the marriage crisis:

* Marriage: The marriage rate has plunged 50% since 1970. If the same percentage of couples were marrying now as in 1970, there would be a million more marriages a year – 3.3 million marriages, not 2.2 million. Those who have never-married aged 30-44 have tripled from 6.8% in 1970 to 20.4% in 2005.

* Divorce: Half of all new marriages end in divorce. There have been 42 million divorces since 1970 hurting 40 million children. One quarter of all adults age 18-35 have grown up in divorced families.

* Cohabitation: The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005. There are only 2.2 million marriages a year. Thus, cohabitation has become the dominant way male-female unions are formed. Couples who marry after living together are 50% more likely to divorce than those who did not.

* Unwed births: Out-of wedlock births jumped from 5.3% to 37.4% or from 224,000 to 1.5 million children from 1960-2004. Cohabiting couples are as likely to have a child under 18 as married couples (41% vs. 46%).

And for my fellow Christian conservatives: we haven’t got a moral leg to stand on. Our divorce rate is identical to the national average. We allow our churches to be used as elaborate stage sets for bridezilla productions, often with just pro forma premarital counseling or sometimes none at all. When our fellow church members get divorced, we do not counsel them adequately. We fail to create a culture of marriage in our youth and twenty-somethings. We have shown massive disrespect for marriage. When we demand others respect it, it’s not surprising that we’re not taken seriously.

‘Forbidding to Marry’ (Reply to Laura), available at http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/forbidding-to-marry-reply-to-laura/, where he responds to the first post, in part, with the following observations:

‘TWO AND TIE ‘EM’
Christians believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and every marriage is thus blessed. However, in ordaining marriage, God commanded man to “be fruitful and multiply.” This commandment has never been repealed or amended, no matter what any Malthusian population-control fanatic tries to tell you. One trend that has undermined marriage has been the rise of the Contraceptive Culture, which celebrates sterility as the norm and views fertility as a pathology requiring medical prevention.

How many Christians have embraced this false — dare I say, evil — worldview? How many young Christian married couples use contraception because “we can’t afford children now”? And how many married Christian couples have unwittingly subscribed to the Zero Population Growth ideal of exactly two children per couple? Did you know that surgical sterilization (tubal ligation) is the No. 1 form of birth control for American women? It’s the “two and tie ‘em” mentality: Have exactly two children, then get yourself surgically sterilized.

* * *

In this, many “Christian conservatives” seem entirely comfortable with being “conformed to this world,” slavishly following the secular trend. What one confronts is an attitude I call “middle classism”: The belief that the object of life is to accrue the symbols of middle-class status (college education, office job, new cars, home in the suburbs, vacation travel) and to ensure that one’s children accumulate the same symbols.

A SHOCKING CHOICE
Life without these symbols is deemed unworthy — “underprivileged” — and many parents who consider themselves Christian conservatives strongly caution their children against early marriage and early parenthood, since these are perceived as obstacles to obtaining middle-classness. If a 19-year-old returns from her freshman year at college to announce that she is a lesbian, her Christian conservative parents may not approve, but they will still love and cherish their child. Let the same 19-year-old announce that she’s marrying her boyfriend and dropping out of school to start a family, and this would drive her Christian conservative parents to the verge of suicidal grief: “You’re ruining your life!”

* * *

If young Christian conservatives want to be “pro-family,” then, they need to be getting married and having babies. And what a youth rebellion that would be, huh? “No, mother, I’ve decided against law school. As a matter of fact, Jennifer and I went to the courthouse and got married last Saturday and . . .” Strange to say that the most shocking thing a young person can do in 2009 is to get married. They can change the world one “I do” at a time.

Amen.

Rite of Spring: Russia's Fertility Trends

For a very interesting and insightful analysis of demographic trends in the developed world, see

Rite of Spring: Russia's Fertility Trends

By Anatoly Karlin

available at http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/russias_fertility_future.php

One of the more interesting observations by Mr. Karlin was the following:

A Womanly Demographic History of Russia

An even more meaningful measure is the net female reproduction coefficient (NFRC). It takes into account two things that the TFR doesn’t, at least not explicitly - a) the male-female ratio at birth and b) the female death rate, pre- and during childbearing age. Although the replacement level TFR is usually quoted as being 2.1, as mentioned above it varies in practice. Although that is indeed the case in most modern industrial countries, in underdeveloped and/or traditional societies with high female mortality rates in early years and/or high male to female ratios, the TFR needs to be as high as 2.5, 3.0 or more for generation reproduction. This is because a lot of females die before they can give birth to more girls. Although China has a nominally respectable TFR of 1.7-1.8, it is effectively considerably lower due to societal preference for males and the resulting skewed demographic profile.

The net female reproduction coefficient explicitly takes the two factors above into account - any value greater than 1 ensures long-term population growth, while a value of less than 1 implies impending decline. In the graph below you can see a graph of Russia’s NFRC from 1960 to 2005.

[Graphic omitted]

Today all the world’s major industrial nations are not producing enough girls to maintain their current population levels in the long-term. The US as a whole just about makes an exception, although only thanks to the help of highly fertile Hispanics. In Russia, the NFRC increased since 2005 to 0.67, which puts it above most east-central European countries but still significantly below France, Scandinavia and the Anglosphere.

(Emphasis added.)

So, even were China to raise its TFR to 2.1 (which it apparently has no intention of doing), if it retained its current ratio of boys to girls at 119 to 100, it's NFRC would still be less than 1, roughly 0.96, and it would still be on track for falling natural growth rates (i.e., it would shrink over time absent immigration). Thus, in countries with unnaturally skewed birth rates favoring boys over girls (such as China and India), a TFR of 2.1 is actually below replacement level. For example, in China, to achieve a replacement level NFRC of 1 (let's use 1.05 or exactly 1/2 of the normally cited 2.1), the TFR would have to be about 2.3 if the distribution of boy babies compared to girl babies in that nation remains unchanged and assuming that 2.1 would be the replacement TFR but for the maldistribution of boys and girls in China.

Presbyterians and Birth Control

For some excellent articles on Presbyterians and Birth Control, see the following articles by Presbyterian Andrew Otero:

Presbyterians were a driving force behind global warming and even contraception, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Presbyterians-were-a-driving-force-behind-global-warming-and-even-contraception

Presbyterians and overpopulation - part 2, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d19-Presbyterians-and-overpopulation--part-2

Presbyterians and overpopulation - part 3, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d19-Presbyterians-and-overpopulation--part-3

Presbyterians and birth control, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d20-Presbyterians-and-birth-control

Presbyterians and birth control - part 2, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d26-Presbyterians-and-birth-control--part-2

Demographic Winter

At the Illinois Lutherans for Life conference this past Saturday, one of speakers showed the trailer for the Documentary - Demographic Winter. The film deals with population rates and their decline in the West. I picked up a copy, will watch and post a review. The film has been out for about a year now and if you google it you will see that the pro-abort/anti-life side are not fans. The movie's trailer is worth a watch.

http://www.demographicwinter.com


At the conference the question was asked if contraception aided the demographic winter as well as the culture of death. The only non-Lutheran presenter, who showed the clip, said yes, and referred to Luther's writings on the subject.

St. Nicholas and Marriage

I'm not sure if it is legend, or if it truly is the more factual story of St. Nicholas (we have one CPH book on him), but supposedly he gave money to needy families so that their daughters could be married. A dowry was needed in those days and young women from families of little means would often end up as prostitutes.

Think about this: Because of no dowry young women would end up as prostitutes. Isn't it great that our society is not so barbaric that one needs money to get married and that the choices are much greater? Think again....

This week I heard Dr. Brad Wilcox on The Drew Mariani Show. Dr. Wilcox is a sociologist that studies marriage and he talked about an interesting phenomena - people in lower and middle class groups want to be married, but delay it and cohabitate and have children outside of marriage because they want "the big wedding". They delay to afford an extravaganza, and all the while live in a way that is not chaste.

I wonder if St. Nicholas would throw sacks of coins into their father's windows to avoid continued living in sin?

I think not,,,, but I think it is important to train our Lutheran children that Christ blesses marriage for His own sake and for the increase of His Church both domestic and where Word and Sacrament are administered.

Money and show are not what make for happy homes. Those contemplating marriage and those who are married should be encouraged to study God's Word and learn well of Christ and His bride and worry less about a foolish dream, that is sometimes no better than the foolishness of society in St. Nicholas' time.

Jon

Different Denomination, Same Story

Southern Baptist new baptisms slip again in 2008

Available at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/04/southern_baptist_new_baptisms.html

NASHVILLE -- Southern Baptist churches baptized fewer people in 2008 for the fourth year in a row to reach the lowest level since 1987, and membership in the country's largest Protestant denomination fell slightly as well.

Baptisms dropped just over 1 percent to 342,198 last year, compared with 345,941 in 2007, according to an annual report released by LifeWay Christian Resources, the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing arm.

Total membership of Southern Baptist churches was 16,228,438 last year, down nearly 38,400 from 2007.

The continued decline in the number of followers reflects a trend in other mainline Protestant churches. . . .

"The numbers simply tell us that Southern Baptists are not reaching as many people for Christ as they once did," said Thom S. Rainer, president and CEO of LifeWay.


. . .

In the past 50 years, the number of annual baptisms per church member -- a key indicator of church growth -- has dropped sharply. Southern Baptists baptized one person for every 19 church members in 1950, a ratio that dropped to 1 baptism for every 47 church members in 2008, according to the report.

The denomination's baptisms peaked in 1972 at 445,725, based on statistics Lifeway has collected from Southern Baptist churches since 1922.

Why the decline in baptisms and membership? Maybe this article will help us to understand what has happened:

New Southern Baptist leader faces graying flock
The Rev. Johnny Hunt's Woodstock church goes against trend of shrinking numbers

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/12/08

Available at http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/11/johnny_hunt_baptists.html

The Rev. Johnny Hunt of Woodstock looks over the declining numbers and white hair of those attending the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting and sees a microcosm of his denomination.

"In 1985, with 45,000 messengers [church delegates attending the convention], 36 percent were under 40," Hunt said Wednesday from Indianapolis, the day after Southern Baptists elected him president of the national organization.

"Last year, with 10,000 messengers, only 16 percent were under 40," he said.

I am not picking on the Southern Baptist. What is true for them is true for most Christian denominations. The truth is that there are fewer baptisms because there are fewer children. The older church members were baptized long ago.

If shrinking denominations want to learn the secret of growth, perhaps they should look to the Amish. See Church Growth Amish Style, available at http://www.geneveith.com/church-growth-amish-style/_992/, where we read, in part:

Why the church growth? With their rejection of automobiles, electricity, computers, and other conveniences of modern life, they aren’t winning many converts. But they have, on the average, five children per family. And though the children have a choice of whether or not to stay with the church when they grow up–getting to spend their late teen or early adult years sampling the outside world–a larger number of them, 85%, are staying with the church.