Fewer Baptists Being Baptized

Here's a story that I find interesting, and it's also one that I anticipated in many ways.  It does not surprise me that fewer Baptists are being baptized. 

I'm coming at the story from the perspective of a convert--one who was, in fact, baptized at a Baptist congregation years ago.  It's an event that I remember well, having been a 12-year-old at the time, and it's an event that I refer to frequently--at least in a personal interior way--and it's something I find as a source of spiritual wealth.  My baptism was for me an individual choice that I made.  It marked a true milestone in my life in that my parents had entirely left it up to me to decide when and where I chose to be baptized.

It only matters a little to me that my own baptism occurred outside the Catholic Church--the right elements were there.  The Trinitarian formula and water came together with the knowledge that my sins were being forgiven.  Sure, if I had approached the Catholic Church for baptism I know that I certainly would have been catechized better to understand what truly takes place in baptism, and this also is the source of my not being surprised too much that Baptist baptisms are down.

As I was growing up, baptisms and being Baptist went hand in hand--as did baptism and being Pentecostal, perhaps a good topic for a future post, given my move to pentecostalism in my latter teenage years.  However, a trend I've noticed among my evangelical neighbors is to downplay the importance of baptism.  For them baptism is not necessary for salvation, and certainly not a sacrament, in fact sacraments and sacramentality are outright denied by evangelicals.  For years now I have been aware that baptism, for Baptists, like marriage, is considered to be merely an "ordinance" rather than a sacrament.

In recent years I have noticed that large Baptist congregations are dropping the word "Baptist" from their name.  I believe that the practice is intended to attract members who desire non-denominational, bible church, or evangelical Christianity that is not aligned explicitly with an organization or denomination.  I recall seeing a story--unfortunately no longer available--in the local newspaper where a whole congregation had members who were unaware that they were actually Baptists.  Some left upon making the discovery and for others it didn't make a difference.

While the differences are sometimes unclear--I once asked an evangelical minister what the difference was between them and Baptists and I was told "Well, I'm not exactly sure there is a difference"--a difference that I do know of has to do with the importance of new Christians being baptized.  When I was 12 I was told that since I had decided to accept Jesus I needed to be baptized, and not much more of an explanation was given.  What I see on the web pages of many evangelical, non-denominational, or bible churches, is that baptism is not necessary.

What a pity that those who desire salvation are denied the means to it.  I also have to wonder whether evangelicals would take the same position if the Catholic teaching (in an alternate universe of course) was that baptism was not necessary.  Sometimes when discussing issues of doctrine with opponents to Catholicism I feel like I'm trying to get a donkey to move out of the road.  Here, I sense, doctrine is precisely the issue, and perhaps that Baptist identity is giving way to a more general identification with simply being "evangelical."

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention have fallen to a 20-year low, a trend that is setting off alarm bells in America's largest evangelical denomination.

The number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches and ceremonies, an important indicator of conversions and denominational growth, fell in 2007 for the third year in a row by 5 percent to 345,941.

That was the lowest number since 1987, a trend on the minds of many of the 7,000 delegates known as "messengers" attending the SBC's annual meeting in Indianapolis.

This year's theme is called "Fulfilling the Mission" and the logo pointedly depicts a picture of a baptism in progress.

For Southern Baptists, a decline in baptisms is a worry because a major tenet of their faith is to spread it. Many believe the "unchurched" are doomed to an eternity in hell.

"We should always be concerned when baptisms dip. It's about salvation. ... We are commanded to go and preach the gospel to every person," said Tommy French, a 77-year-old pastor from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Several delegates interviewed by Reuters expressed their concern in such terms: fewer baptisms meant fewer saved souls. For Southern Baptists, a public baptism in water is a key rite of the conversion experience.

The trend of falling baptisms also has broader cultural and political implications as the 16-million member SBC is a big part of the Republican Party's conservative Christian base.

 Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults now count themselves as "born-again" or evangelical Christians, making the movement one of the fastest growing and most influential in America. A slowdown in its growth could have a ripple effect on politics and other areas of American life.

Several Southern Baptists interviewed took it as an unhealthy sign of "weakness" or misguided attempts to find accommodation with the broader secular culture that some regard as corrupting and even satanic.

"We are using corporate-style marketing and worship services. It's a performance orientation that lacks authenticity," said J.D. Perry, also from Baton Rouge.

For SBC evangelist Jim McNiel of St. Louis, the drop in baptism numbers was a sign that the biblical "end times" described in the Book of Revelation were drawing near.

"I see two factions. You have one for believers but you also have a faction from Satan and there is a strong battle looming," he said.

Continue

Comments

[Carol]

I'm presuming (I really don't know) that most denominations read the Bible--I just know that all the Protestant kids around me seemed to. I'm always amazed, then, that they could skip over a crucial part clearly stated. Not only Christ's saying we must eat His flesh and drink His blood (Eucharist) if we would have life within us, but like for those who think baptism is optional. What did they make of Jesus Himself being baptized by John the Baptist, and of What came directly to Jesus from that? I don't know how anyone can rationalize away something like that, especially by those who may take the Bible's every line quite literally.

[Deacon DW]

Yes, Carol, I too think that most denominations read the bible. Undoubtedly, evangelical Protestants read it; however, the interpretation of the bible--for all of us--depends on our theological point of reference. For many, if not most, evangelicals interpretation must agree with the principals of Protestantism. In this case it is the erroneous principal sola fide that causes the problem.

The argument goes something like this-
If one is saved entirely by faith, then no human act (work) can be required in order to insure salvation. Thus, in the strict sense of merit, baptism (being a human action or work) cannot be a condition to being saved since nothing aside from faith alone is sufficient to bring about salvation.

Of course the fallacy lies in the faulty premise that the action of the human being is the formal or originating cause of grace in the sacrament. I do not think that the issue is that Protestant theology is incapable so much of granting God the ability to be the formal actor in baptism, but rather that the view sola fide, when taken to its logical limit, necessarily rules out human cooperation of any kind. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, Luther had real problems with the Book of James.

[Carol]

Ah, I see. Well, that confusion makes sense--akin to how Mr. Spock tried to make sense of the universe(s?) with mere logic.

Thank you.

[Deacon DW]

Actually, logic is one of the best tools at the disposal of anyone who attempts to debate. It helps us to formulate our positions in a way that makes sense, and it directs us to the fallacies inherent in the arguments of our opponents. You can't really argue against logic.

Like anything else, logic has to be learned. A good place to start is here.

[Carol]

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by logic, but debate is a human pastime. Christ didn't debate. (Neither did His mom.) And logic never converted anyone, least of all the Orthodox (and Luther). The scribes and Pharisees and lawyers used logic honed to an excruciating degree, and ultimately ended up looking for ways to kill a Saviour they couldn't beat. Guys debate because they honestly believe one or the other succeeds in making more sense, a la political debates. Women, however, discuss, because we (unlike Mr. Spock) have to look at everything from 14 different human vantage points and yet there has to be a clear resolution; if one can work logic into it, then she's ahead of her game, but may soon have to start dyeing her hair.

We know that the Lord's own apostles wanted to go line by line on some things--one can imagine the conversations that went on around the fire while Jesus caught a catnap, what with practical blue collar guys and a tax collector and a contemplative all bunking together for months or years --but Jesus shut down that murmuring among themselves every time. He needed to make them all fishers of men asap.