If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
So, the analogy or comparison of re-baptism does not work then for you? You suggest that re-baptism is a confessional issue, and that women in office is not. Hmmm. Is not one of the foundational confessional precepts, that scripture is our authority for life and doctrine and practice? Compare these two issues then on the basis of scripture. On the one hand, re-baptism. Name the passages or the scriptural reasoning (reasoning found directly in scripture) that forbids or even recommends against re-baptism. I am not talking about extrapolation or deductions from a scriptural view of covenant, but from scripture itself.
Now name the passages and practices found in scripture that indicate against women in office (having authority over men). Regardless of your conclusions on each of these practices, it is undeniable that scripture gives more direct indications against women in authority over men, than it does against re-baptism.
To say that women in office is not "confessional" is muddying the waters. I believe that infant baptism is a good practice, that it indicates God chooses us before we choose him, and that God works through believers and their families. However, there is also a very good case to be made that baptism should follow belief and repentance and confession, regardless of the covenant of grace with believers. I do not hold to that, but it is still a good case. The confessional issue is the covenant of grace; the practice of denying re-baptism may not be necessary to hold to that covenant of grace. I know it is not strictly or absolutely necessary, since I know people who hold to the covenant of grace working through believers and their children, and yet participate in re-baptism.
The apostle Paul made women in authority a confessional issue by the parallels he made with Christ and the church, as well as the origin of sin and the fall.
So the argument could be made that ministry is hindered when these precepts are ignored or denied.
Randy, I agree with John Calvin on this issue. But it is my perception, that you have avoided the main question I asked, to which disputable matter, women in office or rebaptism, does scripture address itself more specifically? Downloading this question to what synod said at one time or another abour confessional vs non-confessional is not helpful.
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, "Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
So, the analogy or comparison of re-baptism does not work then for you? You suggest that re-baptism is a confessional issue, and that women in office is not. Hmmm. Is not one of the foundational confessional precepts, that scripture is our authority for life and doctrine and practice? Compare these two issues then on the basis of scripture. On the one hand, re-baptism. Name the passages or the scriptural reasoning (reasoning found directly in scripture) that forbids or even recommends against re-baptism. I am not talking about extrapolation or deductions from a scriptural view of covenant, but from scripture itself.
Now name the passages and practices found in scripture that indicate against women in office (having authority over men). Regardless of your conclusions on each of these practices, it is undeniable that scripture gives more direct indications against women in authority over men, than it does against re-baptism.
To say that women in office is not "confessional" is muddying the waters. I believe that infant baptism is a good practice, that it indicates God chooses us before we choose him, and that God works through believers and their families. However, there is also a very good case to be made that baptism should follow belief and repentance and confession, regardless of the covenant of grace with believers. I do not hold to that, but it is still a good case. The confessional issue is the covenant of grace; the practice of denying re-baptism may not be necessary to hold to that covenant of grace. I know it is not strictly or absolutely necessary, since I know people who hold to the covenant of grace working through believers and their children, and yet participate in re-baptism.
The apostle Paul made women in authority a confessional issue by the parallels he made with Christ and the church, as well as the origin of sin and the fall.
So the argument could be made that ministry is hindered when these precepts are ignored or denied.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, I agree with John Calvin on this issue. But it is my perception, that you have avoided the main question I asked, to which disputable matter, women in office or rebaptism, does scripture address itself more specifically? Downloading this question to what synod said at one time or another abour confessional vs non-confessional is not helpful.
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Curious I am, as to why this is more anabaptist than reformed. Could you explain?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Many people often think that evolution is a scientific explanation and "creation" is a religious explanation. Nothing is further from the truth. Macro-evolution is actually a religious explanation for our existence, which depends on supernatural events such as genesis of life from non-life (for which there is no scientific evidence), or such as the big bang (which has never been observed, is not testable, repeatable as scientific "facts" must be). Nor is there a preponderance of evidence for the development of "more advanced" species from other species. Nor is there any significant observable evidence of the constant attempt of various species to differentiate into new species. The cited "evidence" is sparse, and highly debatable.
The evidence of DNA replication indicates self-correction in DNA mistakes, as well as the simple unlikelihood of survival of significant DNA mutations that might lead to new organs or new species.
It is also interesting that the theory of uniformitarianism was first initiated not by scientists, but by a lawyer named Charles Lyell, who postulated that "the present is key to the past". Ironically, "As his eyesight began to deteriorate, he turned to geology as a full-time profession.["(Wiki) Although Lyell was a teacher of Darwin, "Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection . '(Wiki) Eventually he did somewhat reluctantly endorse evolution as a theory.
Charles Lyell got his idea of uniformity, the present is the key to the past, from James Hutton, who originally apprenticed as a lawyer but who trained and became a physician.
It is also interesting that Charles Darwin was not originally a scientist, but rather had an education and degree in theology. He began with attempting to get an education in medicine (which was pushed by his doctor father), but neglected those studies, and eventually achieved an "ordinary" degree (Bachelor of Arts) in order to become a parson (his father's second choice). It appears he was not too interested in following his father's wishes. He never did become a parson.
He was influenced slightly by Lamark who theorized on ''acquired" inheritance, which has since been discredited. He was also influenced more by Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world would run out of capacity to sustain human life as the human race continued to populate. He had lots of money from his father, and this allowed him to roam the world, as well as to get in the door with various teachers, societies, and educated men.
Thomas Huxley was defender of Darwin, and influenced the thought of the day. In one debate, " Thomas Huxley's legendary retort, that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his gifts, came to symbolise a triumph of science over religion..... Huxley portrayed a polarisation between religion and science. He campaigned pugnaciously against the authority of the clergy in education, aiming to overturn the dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional scientists (Wiki)" ."
The influence of Darwin's own thoughts and speculations on evolution and survival of the fittest, as well as the adoration and support of the people of the day, led to Darwin's perception of God and faith and the body of Christ.
quote] "To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, ] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[ He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[ Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[ but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[ and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. (Wiki)"[/quote]
It would have been better for him and for science if he had remained an agnostic about evolution.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For those who are interested, creationist Ian Juby has a new video on youtube about the errors of whale evolution, as well as "the faint young sun", and other topics. youtube.com/user/wazooloo You can also view his previous videos on this site, or view his presentations on the miracle channel.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Not all churches have lost members. "The Christian and Missionary Alliance has experienced steady and significant growth since its inception. In 1925, there were just 25,000 members in 392 churches.[9] Membership reached 50,000 members in 1950 and by 1976 had reached 150,000.[9] In 2006, there were 417,008 members in 2,010 congregations.[9] ….[10] As of January 1, 2011, there was recorded more than 2,000 U.S. churches with a combined membership of more than 430,000 regularly gather to celebrate Jesus in multiple languages, according to the C&MA website." But you are right, elder Lubbert, that most churches have declining membership, and some, like the Rom Cath that seem to have high membership still, have very low attendance and participation rates. In North America and Europe. On the other hand, in Asia and Africa, memberships and participation is generally growing. Complacency, apathy, lack of passion, lukewarmness, lack of trial and testing, lack of real committment, and affluence have all combined to reduce the desire of many for a God who saves and rules. The thorns and thistles of the world are reducing the yield of the Word sown. In many cases, the churches fertilize the weeds as much as the crop.