
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-04/27/2009

DISCLAIMER: Baptist Press should be credited for any reprinted stories that originate with BP.
Suggested credit line: Reprinted from Baptist Press (www.baptistpress.com), news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Please note that Baptist Press periodically carries stories from other sources by permission. Individuals interested in reprinting non-BP stories should contact the entity where the story originated to seek reprint permission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Study: Many of non-religious adults are still searching
by Michael Foust
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Evangelical leaders concerned about possible growth in the number of Americans unaffiliated with any religion may have found some good news Monday: A new study shows that many adults who were raised in an unaffiliated home later became Christian, mainly because they found themselves searching.

The finding is part of a study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life that examined why Americans change their religious affiliation. It is a follow-up study to Pew's 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which found that unaffiliated adults make up 16 percent of the population. That same '07 survey also found that, among those who were raised unaffiliated -- a category that includes agnostics, atheists and those who don't identify with any religion -- only 46 percent remain unaffiliated. That retention rate is far lower than Protestants (80 percent of whom remain Protestants) and Catholics (68 percent of whom remain Catholic).

"It does suggest that many people who are unaffiliated and who are raised unaffiliated are open to religion," Gregory A. Smith, research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said during a conference call with reporters. 

The 2007 survey found that the category of unaffiliateds had grown, so evangelical leaders shouldn't be celebrating too much. But the new survey -- which included follow-up questions to 2,800 people from the original survey and was conducted Oct. 3-Nov. 7 -- does provide some good news. Pew asked the 54 percent of adults who were raised unaffiliated but later joined a religion why they left their childhood beliefs; they could give as many answers as they felt necessary. Their leading answers were: 

-- 51 percent said their spiritual needs were not being met.

-- 46 percent found a religion they liked more.

-- 23 percent got married to someone from a different faith.

-- 15 percent moved to a new community.

-- 10 percent said someone they were close to passed away.  

"If I was a religious leader ... part of the good news is in the low number of people who are raised unaffiliated who stay that way," Smith said.

But will the number of unaffiliated adults continue to grow?

"Certainly if recent trends continue, they might," Smith said. "But, at the same time, remember: Most people who are raised unaffiliated later wind up affiliated." 

Among the 54 percent who are no long unaffiliated, 22 percent are now members of evangelical churches, 13 percent mainline churches, 6 percent Catholic churches and 4 percent historically black churches. Nine percent are members of another religion. 

For the complete report visit PewForum.org.
--30--
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. For related LifeWay Research studies click here, here and here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

HHS nominee vetoes late-term abortion bill
by Staff
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

WASHINGTON (BP)--Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed legislation late last week to require increased accountability by late-term abortion doctors as the U.S. Senate prepared for a confirmation vote on her nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on Sebelius' nomination Tuesday. President Obama nominated the fellow Democrat March 2 to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is expected to be confirmed by the Senate, in spite of the controversy over her latest veto.

Sebelius rejected a bill Thursday that would have required doctors to report additional information to the state about late-term abortions they perform, according to The Topeka (Kan.) Capital-Journal. Under the legislation, physicians would have to provide the medical diagnoses they used as the basis for performing late-term abortions. Kansas permits abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy in cases of endangerment to the mother's life or "substantial and irreversible" harm to a significant bodily function, The Capital-Journal reported.

The measure also would have permitted a civil lawsuit against a doctor if a woman or a family member believes an abortion he performed was illegal. In addition, the legislation would have strengthened the state's ban on partial-birth abortion by limiting the exceptions to a threat to the life of the mother.

Supporters of the legislation appear to lack the votes needed to override the veto. In passing the bill, the Kansas Senate and House of Representatives both fell two votes short of the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.

"If there was any doubt about how a pro-life &#91;U.S.&#93; Senator ought to vote on the Sebelius nomination, there should be no doubt now," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. "Sebelius should be opposed for many reasons, but primarily because her concern for abortion providers trumps her duty to protect women."

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, called the veto a "cowardly and dastardly death warrant."

"It is sickening in the truest sense," Culp said in a written statement. "Kathleen Sebelius is an extremist on before-birth issues, end-of-life issues and cloning issues."

The veto came two days after the U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted 15-8 to forward Sebelius' nomination to the full chamber. The senators did so despite her acknowledgment she had underreported to the committee campaign contributions from the country's most notorious abortion doctor, George Tiller.

Tiller's Wichita clinic, Women's Health Care Services, is a major reason Kansas has been described as "the late-term abortion capital of America." It advertises on its website it has "more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia." Women travel to his clinic from throughout the United States and various foreign countries in order to have late-term abortions.

After Sebelius originally reported $12,450 in contributions from Tiller and others affiliated with the doctor, it was disclosed total donations actually were $39,600, according to The Capital-Journal. Almost two-thirds went to her political action committee, the newspaper reported. After the disclosure, Sebelius told the Finance Committee it was "an inadvertent omission," according to the report.

Two pro-life organizations, Family Research Council and Operation Rescue, later reported they had obtained a letter from Tiller showing he had contributed an additional $200,000 to a political action committee seeking defeat of Sebelius' pro-life opponent in her first race for governor in 2002. She also hosted a reception at the governor's mansion that included Tiller and his staff.

After her nomination, Sebelius acknowledged mistakes on past income tax returns and paid nearly $8,000 in taxes and penalties.

Most pro-life leaders oppose Obama's selection of Sebelius, citing concerns about her potential impact as HHS secretary on abortion and other life issues, as well as on the conscience rights of health-care workers. National organizations opposed to Sebelius' nomination include the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association and Americans United for Life.

Americans United for Life, a leading pro-life legal organization, said after Sebelius' nomination she is "unfit to serve" as HHS secretary. Its reasons included:

-- She vetoed in both 2003 and 2005 legislation that would have regulated abortion clinics and thereby provided safety and health protections for women.

-- She vetoed in 2008 a bill that would have bolstered Kansas' parental notification law.

As a state representative from 1987 to 1995, Sebelius "voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods and informed consent," according to Americans United for Life.

In both 2007 and 2008, Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, was urged by her archbishop, Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., not to present herself for communion because of her support for abortion rights.
--30—
Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual charge filed against Ark. minister
by Staff
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

BENTON, Ark. (BP)--Allegations of sexual indecency with a child prompted Arkansas authorities to arrest David Kent Pierce, minister of music at First Baptist Church in Benton, Ark., on April 24. Pierce, 56, was immediately terminated by the church, where he had served on staff 29 years.

Earlier in the week, a teenage boy's family contacted the church about the alleged misconduct, Dennis Byrd, chairman of the church's personnel committee, told Baptist Press. The church immediately contacted a state police hotline to report the allegation. Saline County Sheriff Bruce Pennington, who is a member of First Baptist Church, arrested Pierce at home.

Pennington told reporters he felt obligated to arrest Pierce himself. "I felt it would be more comfortable for me doing it &#91;arresting him&#93; rather than one of my deputies, and I want people to be aware &#91;that&#93; regardless of your stature in this community we're not going to condone these actions," Pennington said.

The congregation's senior pastor, Rick Grant, released a statement to the media that read: "First Baptist Church has terminated the employment of David Pierce, our longtime music minister, as a result of serious moral failures on his part. The events for which he was terminated occurred several years ago, but left the church no alternative other than to dismiss him.

"This is a very sad day for me, for First Baptist Church, its staff and the congregation," Grant added. "I'm heartsick over all of this. During my 20-plus years in the ministry here, this is the most difficult thing I've had to deal with, by far. This is a good church. We love the Lord. I can't tell you how many people -- church members here and others -- have told us they are praying for us, both individually and as a church. We are praying for the church, for all families who may have been affected by this -- and on some level that's all of us -- and we pray for David Pierce and his family."

Sheriff Pennington said several adults also have come forward with allegations of misconduct by Pierce toward them when they were teenagers, and those complaints are being investigated as well.

Pierce had no prior arrests. The child involved is a minor, so police are not releasing any details of the case. Pierce remained in custody in the Saline County Jail. In an April 27 hearing, bond was set at $25,000. If convicted, Pierce could face up to six years in prison.

The issue of sexual predators in the church was forcefully addressed by Morris H. Chapman, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee, at the 2008 SBC annual meeting in Indianapolis.

"The Southern Baptist Convention is on record for having stood strongly against sexual abuse," Chapman said at the time. "We have long condemned those who would use our churches as a hunting ground for their sick and selfish pleasure.

"At the same time, sexual abuse is a growing crisis in this nation and we must continue to do everything within our power to stop this horrendous crime. Even though the number of Southern Baptist ministers who are sexual predators may seem to be relatively small, we must be on watch and take immediate action against those who prey on the most innocent among us. One sexual predator in our midst is one too many."

Chapman encouraged churches to make use of the national sex offender database (www.nsopr.gov) for screening prospective staff members and volunteers who work with children. Chapman also pointed out that resources for preventing child sexual abuse had been posted on the SBC website at www.sbc.net/localchurches/ministryhelp.asp.

While the national Southern Baptist Convention "has no hierarchy and no ecclesiastical authority over local churches," it does want to "encourage, empower and educate local churches as to how to best do their local work to protect our precious children," Chapman said. He called on Southern Baptist congregations to adopt policies and be vigilant in protecting their children from sexual predators.

Southern Baptists also must take steps to ensure that sexual predators who have victimized children in one congregation do not get another opportunity by moving on to another church, Chapman declared.

"Sexual predators are opportunistic and frequently migrate from one victim field to another," Chapman said. "We must never rid ourselves of the problem by pawning a sexual offender off on an unsuspecting church where he will once again violate our children."

Churches must be responsive to allegations about ministerial misconduct, especially when the misconduct is perpetrated against a child, Chapman added.

"Those who would overpower our children and violate their trust must come to know that they will not be coddled, they will not be protected, they will not find refuge in our churches," Chapman said. "They must understand that they will be reported to the proper law enforcement agencies and charged with their heinous crimes."

In 1978, messengers to the Southern Baptist annual meeting adopted a resolution on child abuse that requested their moral concerns entity to provide resources for dealing with child abuse and called on legislators to "end the horrors of child pornography and protect children from child abuse." In 1999, they adopted a resolution denouncing the idea that "adult-child sex" is beneficial or even acceptable to children. In 2007, a resolution expressed their "deep level of moral outrage and concern at any instance of child victimization" and called on churches to respond to "any suspicions or allegations of child abuse in a timely and forthright manner."
--30--
Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Mark Kelly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Church crisis communications plans 'vital'
by Rob Phillips
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--When Illinois pastor Fred Winters was gunned down while preaching to his congregation March 8, church leaders across the country rightly began asking tough questions about security. What they may have overlooked, however, were questions about how to communicate in a crisis: Who should speak? What should they say? Why should they talk to the news media? How soon, how often and with whom should they communicate? Basically, how can a church be prepared to handle communications when the unthinkable occurs?

Most large organizations, from multinational corporations to universities, have crisis communications plans, and so should churches, no matter their size. Whether yours is a mega-church with scores of staff members or a small congregation with a bivocational pastor, it's vital to have a plan. And it begins by addressing some simple questions.

What is a crisis?

According to the Institute for Crisis Management (ICM), every crisis begins as a problem. A problem becomes a crisis when it escapes the organization before its people can control it. Based on this premise, a church may define a crisis as a significant disruption in normal activities that stimulates media coverage and public scrutiny.

What types of crises should we expect?

Crises generally fall into two categories, according to ICM. First is the sudden crisis that occurs with little warning. Examples include natural disasters such as floods or tornadoes; accidents such as food poisoning at potluck suppers; sabotage or vandalism of church property; the sudden death of a church leader; bomb threats; and injury or death on church property.

The second type is the smoldering crisis, a potentially damaging condition that is known to one or more persons. According to ICM research, 77 percent of crises are of the "smoldering" type. Examples include scandals such as embezzlement of church funds; immorality or ethical breaches; picketing of church facilities; blogging campaigns against the church or church members; even theological issues that divide congregations and expose the church to public ridicule.

How do we plan for a crisis?

First, keep in mind that a crisis communications plan is distinct from an operational plan designed to deal with church security, evacuation procedures and other emergencies, yet it should complement any church's operational plan. Here are tips for getting started:

-- Define your crisis. State clearly and in writing the types of sudden and smoldering crises most likely to disrupt your church's activities and stimulate media coverage and public scrutiny.

-- Recruit a crisis communications team. Identify members who can serve in key roles during a crisis. Consider appointing a director of communications who manages the team (a trusted leader in the church who is a good organizer); a spokesperson (someone comfortable addressing the news media and other external audiences); a congregational liaison who ensures church members are communicated with early and often; an administrator who handles calls to the church and manages office support; and a writer who works with the team to draft clear and consistent messages.

Other team members may be necessary such as logistics specialists to set up a news conference, secure office supplies and arrange for meals and other necessities; graphic designers; photographers; telephone operators; etc. Keep the team fairly small and identify backups for each position. Publish cell phone numbers for each team member and backup.

-- Know your audiences. List the key people with whom you must communicate in a crisis. This list might include church members, neighbors, the general public, the associational and/or state convention office, etc. Once you've identified who you need to reach, determine how you'll reach them. Consider using your church website, e-mail lists, e-newsletters, telephone calls, a public address system, written or spoken statements to the news media, news conferences, etc. Assign the best delivery system for each audience; for example, church members may be reached most quickly via e-mail, website or telephone, depending on church size and organization.

-- Know your mission. What's the mission of your church? Make sure it comes through clearly in your communications. Think about how a crisis impacts your mission, what you must do to address the crisis and how you must stay focused on your mission in a crisis.

-- Involve your congregation. Put together a simple step-by-step response plan that your crisis communications team will carry out. Make sure each member of that team, as well as your church staff, has a copy. Be sure your congregation knows you have a plan and how to alert church leaders in the event of a potential crisis. Also, make sure everyone has access to public statements during a crisis. This will enable and empower them to talk to their families, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Your members are perhaps the most effective spokespersons for the church -- if they are informed, equipped and empowered. Finally, make sure they know that only designated spokespersons should speak with the news media.

-- Be specific. Here is a simple step-by-step plan:

Step 1 –- Any church member should notify the crisis communications director immediately upon hearing of a situation or problem that may become a crisis. The director will seek to verify the information and evaluate the situation to determine whether it truly is a crisis or potential crisis.

Step 2 –- The director activates the crisis communications team, calling or texting each member immediately.

Step 3 –- The team meets within 30 minutes, in person or via phone, to assess the situation, prepare a short statement, develop key messages and put the right people in place.

Step 4 -- The congregational liaison (internal) and spokesperson (external) deliver an initial statement within one hour of being notified of the crisis. Church members should have access to all information being made public and, if possible, receive that information before or at the same time it is being released to the public. Use the most appropriate delivery systems – news conference, Web posting, e-mail, etc.

Step 5 –- The team develops and delivers additional statements as more information becomes available. These are provided to church members as they are released to the public.

Step 6 –- If the crisis is a sustained one, the team calls upon additional resources to organize shifts, arrange for catering of food, etc.

Step 7 -– The team shuts down when it is determined the situation is no longer of media interest or public scrutiny. Other arrangements related to the church's operational plan may still be needed -- an alternative worship site if the church building has been destroyed, for example, and the crisis communications team may need to help transition to normal communications channels.

Step 8 -– Debrief. What worked well and what didn't? How should the crisis communications plan be improved for future preparations?

-- Practice. No plan is perfect, but practice will help improve your church's plan. Assemble your crisis communications team once or twice a year for drills. Role play. Involve church members. Hold mock news conferences. Work the plan and adjust it.

Finally, consider media training for your crisis communications team from consultants recommended to you from reliable sources in your city or within your state Baptist convention.
--30--
Rob Phillips is director of communications for LifeWay Christian Resources. Previously, he served on crisis communications teams for multinational corporations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q&A: Working with the news media
by Staff
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Even under normal circumstances, a call from the news media to your church can be nerve-wracking. But it doesn't have to be that way. Consider the answers Rob Phillips, communications director at LifeWay Christian Resources, provides to these commonly asked questions about working with the news media.

Why talk to reporters?

Phillips: It's our responsibility. Whether working for an SBC entity such as LifeWay or serving in a local church, our ministries impact the public and we have a duty to speak openly and honestly with people. Besides, the news media are conduits for reaching our audiences with important messages, especially in times of crisis. In this day of 24/7 news, blogs, Twitter and cell phone videos, someone is going to tell our story. Shouldn't it be us?

Who decides what news is?

Phillips: The news media. We can influence the news -- suggest angles, pitch stories and help shape the reporting of events, but ultimately news directors and editors decide what gets played. However, the emergence of social media is diminishing the control of news and information once held by newspapers, radio and TV stations. In many ways, this is a positive development, but not without its risks since the social media are largely unedited.

What if we think reporters are out to get us?

Phillips: Generally speaking, reporters are out to get the story. There are clear cases of bias in the media, but even the most slanted reporters almost always give the other side a chance to speak. Keep in mind the difference between a news story, analysis and commentary.

Which reporters should we talk to?

Phillips: All of them, but in a crisis you may need to prioritize according to ministry and business needs. Even if you don't like some reporters, remember never to pick a fight with people who buy paper by the ton and ink by the barrel.

Who should talk to reporters?

Phillips: Designated spokespersons from your church or organization. If possible, they should be media trained. This will prepare them to share key messages in addition to answering the questions.

-- If I'm the spokesperson, what should I say?

Phillips: Stick with what you know -- your area of expertise. Don't speculate. Don't discuss confidential or privileged information, such as employee records. Say, "I don't know," when you don't know. Most importantly, when you've answered the question and bridged to a message, stop talking.

What if a reporter uses only one quote?

Phillips: Reporters tend to look for "sound bites," not monologues. Also, editors can be merciless on reporters' copy, and other pressing news items may have reduced the "news hole" for the day. It's good to have two or three key messages when you agree to an interview. Keep repeating the messages as you answer the reporter's questions.

Why can't I see the story before it's printed?

Phillips: Frankly, it's offensive to a journalist to be asked that question. Reporters talk to lots of people, work on tight deadlines and submit their stories to editors. Good writers will call you to check facts before filing a story. As a safeguard, you may want to record your interview. It might encourage the reporter to quote you accurately, and you can always post the interview on your blog or website if you think you were treated unfairly.

When should I say "no comment?"

Phillips: Never. These two words imply that you're guilty or hiding something. However, it's perfectly appropriate to say, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss this because ..." when you don't have anything to say; when you're not the designated spokesperson; when you're not prepared; or when the information is privileged (like personnel files), proprietary (competitive data, for example) or in litigation. In other words, it's OK to decline comment when you have a good reason, but you should share that reason with the reporter rather than use the fateful words "no comment."

Is it OK to speak "off the record?"

Phillips: Generally, no. A good rule of thumb is that anytime you're in the presence of a reporter -- even at a social function or church -- consider yourself on the record. An exception is the "background" interview during which you provide non-attributable information to a journalist to help shape a story or increase the reporter's understanding. Trust must be established between you and the reporter for such an interview to be granted, or you may end up wishing you had said "no comment."

How do I fix it if the reporter gets it wrong?

Phillips: First, assess the damage. Is a misspelled name or a minor factual error worth your outrage? If the story is negative to begin with, do you want to risk a second negative story? If the errors are substantial, however, begin by contacting the reporter who may print a correction or even a retraction. If you reach an impasse, contact the editor for that section of the paper, write a letter to the editor or post a comment on the newspaper's website (many online newspaper editions allow this). Keep your church website, and perhaps your blog, in mind as potential places to get "equal time."

What should I do if a reporter calls me?

Phillips: Get the reporter's name, number, deadline, subject and other specifics. Promise a call back -- and keep your promise. Then work through your organization's media response procedure to provide an appropriate response. You are never obligated to provide an on-the-spot interview just because a reporter asked. 
--30--
Reported by the communications office of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Churches planted in New England where liberal ones failed
by G. Jeffrey MacDonald/The Layman
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

WEST PAWLET, Vt. (BP)--Four years ago in this remote valley hamlet in Vermont, the last eight members of the financially strapped United Church of West Pawlet voted to disband the congregation. Tad Perry remembers the wrenching vote as "one of the hardest things I've ever had to do."

But now on a nine-degree Sunday morning in January, a steady plume rises once again from the chimney behind the steeple.

Inside, nearly 50 people singing catchy hymns with piano accompaniment help make the tiny sanctuary feel close to full. And the voice from the pulpit bespeaks what's taking place -- not only here, but in formerly vacant, old church buildings across northern New England.

"The mission of this church is to see lost people saved throughout this region and to disciple the saved," says pastor Lyandon Warren in a thick southern accent that gives away his Waynesville, N.C., roots. His drawl also meshes with the new, Southern Baptist affiliation of the church, which reopened in May 2007 as Mettowee Valley Church.

20 CHURCHES SINCE 2001

Since 2001, Southern Baptists have added 20 churches in Vermont, where the denomination's count now stands at 37 congregations. Half of the new church plants have taken root in buildings once operated by other Protestant denominations. Where more theologically liberal ministries failed, church planters say, opportunity still awaits for harvesting souls -- even here in New England's notoriously rocky spiritual soil.

For Southern Baptists, the price to acquire church properties in Vermont has been right. In each case, congregation members have transferred church deeds free of charge since they're just happy a church of any stripe will continue to operate on the sites they regard as sacred, according to Terry Dorsett, director of missions for Green Mountain Baptist Association covering Vermont and New Hampshire.

Securing a building, however, may well be the easy part. Evangelical Christianity can be a hard sell in this state that leans left politically and culturally, such as when the legislature passed the nation's first civil union law in 2000. Warren courts controversy in Vermont, where tolerance is a much-professed virtue, when he says matter-of-factly, "I hope other people see that without Christ, they're doomed."

THEOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENT

But Southern Baptists are discovering New England may not be as cold to faith as the region's reputation would suggest.

"I don't know that I'd say we've abandoned the concept of conversion, but we've adjusted it," Dorsett says. "Now instead of going door-to-door and talking to strangers, we've urged our people to become involved in their communities and share their faith while they work ... to say, while they're washing dishes at the soup kitchen, 'I'm here because Jesus made a difference in my life.'

"Vermonters aren't interested in a pie-in-the-sky, 'I'm better than you' kind of faith," Dorsett says. "But a roll-up-the-sleeves and help my community kind of faith? There are a lot of Vermonters interested in that."

Southerners have arrived in force to demonstrate what's possible and help get new church plants going in Vermont. Over two summers, multiple North Carolina teams with as many as 30 volunteers have descended on West Pawlet. Each toiled for a week or so at a time before handing the baton to the next team. Workers cleaned out the basement, repaired a caved-in floor, painted the exterior, launched a fellowship hall renovation and framed a new addition. They even helped fix up the damaged porch of an elderly woman in the neighborhood. Through it all, these out-of-state missionaries importantly didn't make proud New Englanders feel like charity recipients.

A BLESSING, NOT CHARITY

"I don't think of it as charity but as a blessing what the Lord wanted to happen," says Heather Baker, a former Jehovah's Witness who's recently become a Christian.

Not all of the recent witnessing has taken the form of building projects. At a summer fair, church members gave out bottles of water along with tracts and information about the church. A few people came to worship after taking a bottle and a tract on that hot day. Some even appreciated it when Warren went door-to-door in 2007 to announce the church's reopening.

"I could tell him the names of everybody in town who needed to be here, but I didn't think I needed to be here," construction worker Cliff White says. But when he yearned to quit drinking, he remembered the Warrens' visit and decided to give the church a try. With the congregation's help, he's been sober since May 2008.

Figuring out what works in revitalizing rural New England churches has become a pressing challenge for the region as a whole. Tens of church buildings are for sale at any given time across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (as well as rural New York state). Warren got familiar with the usual explanation: Too many young people had either lost interest in faith or had moved away from small-town Vermont in order to earn a living elsewhere.

"They say there are no people here, but there are people here," Warren says. "When they hear that a church is preaching the Bible and standing for truth, they want to go investigate."

OPENING NEW CHURCHES

Now some theological conservatives seem to regard the closure of mainline churches as an opening for a more orthodox resurgence. Southern Baptists planted 24 new churches in New Hampshire, for instance, between 1998 and 2004.

In smelling opportunity, Southern Baptists aren't alone. The Assemblies of God denomination also is actively recruiting church planters for northern New England. The AOG has planted at least five new churches in Maine and New Hampshire since 2006, including two targeting Indonesian immigrants in southern New Hampshire.

At this point, churches are still learning which approaches might catch fire in a region where mega-churches haven't blossomed on a large scale and where the vast majority of congregations count fewer than 100 members. West Pawlet's experience suggests having a coherent strategy and a broad support network can go a long way. 

Having received lots of help from North Carolinians, Mettowee Valley Church has been able to free up funds from a tithing congregation to support a few strategic investments. A new $5,000 oil boiler, for instance, means the church is usually warm when the congregation gathers. (As a back-up measure for sub-zero days when the wind is howling, each of the 18 pews is equipped with a crimson fleece blanket).

TRANSPORTING TEENS

The congregation also paid about $7,000 in cash for a 1998, 15-passenger van on eBay last summer. Warren flew to Florida to pick it up and drove it back. Now a driver who's well-known among area families plies this area's picturesque, twisty, hilly backroads every Sunday afternoon. He picks up youth for teen night and a meal at the church, and later brings them home. Informality reigns. Kids playing in the neighborhood holler for parental permission to ride along with their friends and then jump in. Parents sometimes show up in church on Sunday to see what all the fuss is about.

Such active ministries are convincing area families that something interesting is afoot in this working-class town of 1,400. Heather Baker and her husband Steven lived directly across the street from the church building when it was United Church. Though they watched individuals occasionally come and go, they never even thought about attending.

"It just didn't seem appealing," says Steven Baker. "I didn't feel like I needed to be here."

Now as Mettowee Valley Church settles into its second year, church leaders aren't worried about failure. They're laying groundwork for endurance. Citing 1 Timothy 5:17-25, Warren exhorted parishioners in early January to keep leaders accountable for the long term by choosing elders carefully and by regarding church leadership as a group project. Lay leader Lee Perry urged them to remember, "Our Christian walk is a war. It's a battle. We huddle in here, but then we take it out of here, and that's the battle." Hymns underscored his point as the congregation sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and "We Want to See Jesus Lifted High."

"... Little by little, we're taking ground," they sang. "Every prayer a powerful weapon / Strongholds come tumbling down / And down and down and down."
--30--
Originally published in The Layman, a publication of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, www.layman.org. Reprinted by permission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

FIRST-PERSON: Decriminalizing marijuana: making matters worse
by Barrett Duke
Date: April 27, 2009 - Monday

WASHINGTON (BP)--"What has he been smoking?" This common expression illustrates how deeply the conversation about marijuana is embedded in popular culture. It is a subject of humor for many people. Such cultural penetration naturally leads to relaxed attitudes about marijuana. As attitudes relax, people are becoming open to arguments favoring decriminalizing its use. Today, a vocal, passionate minority is using such arguments as personal freedom, health needs and our country's stalled war on drugs to advance this cause. The sincerity of these arguments notwithstanding, there is no justification for decriminalizing marijuana. 

First, personal freedom must be tempered by personal and social responsibility. Decriminalization of marijuana will encourage destructive behavior in users and affect the entire nation. When users no longer fear arrest, they will have marijuana more often and use it more often. Inebriation is only part of the problem. Marijuana users have higher risks of numerous medical problems, including cancer, psychosis, strokes, respiratory damage and heart attacks. They increase these risks with increased use. Additionally, increased use will lead to more personal and family problems. Work productivity will decrease as will employability. Such outcomes will put additional pressure on families, communities, businesses, health services and law enforcement.

Decriminalization likely will lead more people to try marijuana, especially impressionable, curious, young people, supposing that the government considers it safe. Most troubling is the prospect that more young people will begin a lifetime of drug addiction. It is known that teenagers who use drugs are more likely to develop lifetime drug dependencies. 

Advocates cite a couple of surveys that say states with medical marijuana laws have steeper declines in overall marijuana use than states without them. There is not enough evidence that these early reports are accurate. But even if they are, and that's a big "if," they do not assist the cause of general decriminalization. The suggested reason for this supposed drop in overall usage is that people in these states think of marijuana as a medicine rather than as a recreational drug. If so, the medical marijuana argument does not support the broader decriminalization movement since it is not advocating for the medicinal use of marijuana but rather its recreational use.

Second, no medical arguments justify decriminalization, not even arguments that claim overall marijuana use declines when marijuana is treated as a medicine. Marijuana is a dangerous drug, with countless negative effects. While much more work needs to be done to determine its value for a limited range of carefully monitored, controlled, medical applications, like treating glaucoma or enhancing appetite, the rush to decriminalization in the name of pain control or mental health cannot be justified. Most people who use marijuana to relieve severe pain combine it with stronger pain relievers because marijuana is not effective enough by itself. Furthermore, marijuana's pain-relieving ingredient has been available by prescription for years. The use of marijuana as a means to self-medicate one's mental health is also not justifiable. People dealing with depression need the regular care of a trained professional. If they require drugs, there are plenty of proven mood-altering ones available that do not introduce as many potential and likely problems as marijuana.

Smoking marijuana medicinally threatens to make bad situations worse for many users. Marijuana introduces multiple toxic chemicals into the systems of people whose bodies are already weakened from their ailments. Not only might these toxic chemicals interfere with the healing process, but users risk developing additional problems like those mentioned earlier. 

Third, decriminalization will not solve our drug control problems. It will not rid us of the illicit drug trade. Since distribution would still be illegal, most people would have to resort to the illegal drug trade to obtain marijuana. Additionally, some people who use marijuana will want to try other drugs, fueling more illicit drug trade. 

It will not empty our prisons of drug offenders, either. Very few people go to prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Marijuana possession at the time of their arrest might be a factor, but their sentencing is related to more serious offenses, like intent to sell drugs, robbery or violent crimes. It is likely that decriminalization will result in more people going to prison for drug-related crimes. In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32 percent of state prisoners and 26 percent of federal prisoners said they committed their offense while under the influence of drugs. Marijuana is the drug used most often in these instances. In a 2002 survey of inmates, 14 percent said they were high on marijuana and 11 percent said they were high on cocaine or crack at the time they committed their crimes. 

It's possible that part of the reason we have not had more success ending rampant illicit drug abuse in our nation is the fact that 13 states have legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for so-called medicinal purposes. Such counterproductive policies are the equivalent of drilling holes in the bottom of your boat while you are frantically trying to bail water. Instead of making drug use easier, we should redouble our efforts to warn people of the dangers of drug use, develop more effective rehabilitation programs for those who are convicted of drug possession, and increase our prosecution of those who supply the drugs. We are in a battle for the lives of millions of people. They deserve our best efforts, not our surrender.
--30--
Barrett Duke is vice president for public policy and research for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. A version of this column first was published in The Washington Times.



