Well, first I'm reminded of "Religious Right" types like Rod Dreher who years ago made warnings to the effect of "if you don't like the 'Religious Right', just wait until you see the post-religious Right."
Secondly,
Wikipedia's page on the SBC has a section noting their decline:
Quote:Data from church sources and independent surveys indicate that since 1990 membership of SBC churches has declined as a proportion of the American population. Historically, the convention grew throughout its history until 2007, when membership decreased by a net figure of nearly 40,000 members. The total membership, of about 16.2 million, was flat over the same period, falling by 38,482, or 0.2 percent. An important indicator for the health of the denomination is new baptisms, which have decreased every year for seven of the last eight years. As of 2008, they had reached their lowest levels since 1987. Membership continued to decline from 2008 to 2012. SBC's statistical summary of 2014 recorded a loss of 236,467 members, their biggest one-year decline since 1881.
This decline in membership and baptisms has prompted some SBC researchers to describe the convention as a "denomination in decline". Former SBC president Frank Page suggested that if current conditions continue, half of all SBC churches will close their doors permanently by the year 2030. This assessment is supported by a recent survey of SBC churches which indicated that 70 percent of all SBC churches are declining or are plateaued with regards to their membership.
So this looks to me like an attempt to try to address this — particularly their poor performance at converting non-whites (who are a growing fraction of the population), and their lousy youth retention rates. But, I'm reminded of the historical examples of more "mainstream" Protestant denominations who have similarly signalled "being down" with "Progress" and the cultural mainstream in hopes of dealing with flagging membership numbers. And from what I've read and heard, it didn't work. They increasingly slid into what I've seen referred to as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", then, with further youth losses, into what's known in my circles as "roll hard left and die".
I will point out here that a number of social scientists, such as
David Voas and Mark Chaves have presented evidence that America is showing the same "secularization" trends and decline of (traditional) religiosity as other "modern" societies like Europe, merely lagging behind. And as per above, signalling compliance with the cultural mainstream looks more like a way to be part of this decline than to fight it. Here I point to the likes of Rod Dreher's "Benedict Option" and similar arguments that if more traditional Christians want to maintain the Church against dissolution into the secular mainstream, they will need to be deliberately "counter-cultural". While Dreher, for one, repeatedly insists that "going Amish" is not his model, I'd point out that the Amish do in fact have a massive growth rate, estimated as doubling in population every 18-20 years by one source, and by another using 2010 census data as doubling every 14 years. And the Orthodox Jews (who are perhaps closer to Dreher's vague outlines of what he has in mind), have themselves at least doubled in population in America since 1990 (even while the overal American Jewish population has declined slightly).
So, in short, I don't think this is the right move with regards to their long-term survival as a religious denomination. Better to emulate the Hasidim, the Amish, or perhaps some Islamic communities, emphasizing one's "separateness" from the mainstream American culture. (I'd also point to blogger "
Fifth Political Theory" and his "Western Diaspora" model.)
--The Twisted One
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire
