Measuring the exposure of any entity can be a tricky thing ... many factors ... numerical growth, number of visitors, marketing, etc ... A small entity can impact and have huge exposure as oppose to a large organization not effectively reaching the masses.
However, if we are to examine EXPOSURE to a core factor like the amount of churches that have sprung up in communities as preaching points throughout North America and worldwide ... the answer is Crakjak is probably wrong and right.
Here is some data that shows the numerical "growth" of the UPCI to about the late 1990's (source: spiritualabuse.org)
Quote:
Out of all the Oneness (also known as Apostolic) churches, the United Pentecostal Church is considered the largest.
In the organization's report on the growth statistics of the UPCI from 1945 through 1999, it is interesting that the UPCI compares its statistics with the Assembly of God. If the UPCI truly wants to compare growth, why not do so with other Apostolic churches? How does their growth compare to the PAW or ALJC? Below are some details of the report.
In 1945 the UPC had 521 churches and as of 1999 they had 3892.
From 1998 to 1999 they added 31 churches, which was an .8% growth.
(This is the net amount after subtracting the churches which closed or left the organization from the new ones which started.) This is certainly not an indicative of the 'enormous' growth some members claim. According to their records, on the average 147 new churches are added each year and 101 churches close or leave the UPCI. According to the official web site of the UPCI, they now have 3876 churches (down from 1999 figures), with an estimated constituency of 600,000. (These are all North America figures.)
In 1945 the UPC had 1838 ministers and as of 1999 they had 8372. From 1998to 1999 they added 153 ministers, which was a 1.86% growth. They had, as of 1999, 4480 more licensed ministers than they had churches.
In 1986 they gained 165 churches and lost 92; in 1987 they gained 175 and lost 97; in 1988 they gained 144 and lost 85; in 1989 they gained 172 and lost 111; in 1990 they gained 137 and lost 122; in 1991 they gained 147 and lost 91; in 1992 they gained 145 and lost 91; in 1993 they gained 136 and lost 177 (This was when the yearly affirmation took effect.); in 1994 they gained 146 and lost 98; in 1995 they gained 154 and lost 93; in 1996 they gained 130 and lost 78; and in 1997 they gained 123 and lost 78. From 1986 through 1997 the UPC did not average a net of more than 47 new churches per year in a 12 year period.
To bring it home, in 1982 New Jersey had 9 churches and in 1984 there were 11. That was an increase of one per year. In 2001 they had 20. So from 1982 to 2001, New Jersey added 11 churches, a growth rate of less than 1 per year. (This was taken from UPCI Church Directories.) It is evident the UPC ministry is growing at a much greater rate than their churches.
As of 2007 there are 4,358 churches ... adding 466 churches from 1999.
That is about 1 UPCI church for every 70,000 Americans.
If we were to compare global population of 6 billion people to the amount of UPCI churches world wide and here in America as of 2007 ... (32709churches) ... that is about 1 UPCI church per 2 million people on the planet.
One could argue this is incremental growth ...
but if we compare the percentage rates of the growth in population here in America and worldwide to the annual percentage rate of churches in the org since 1945 ... we no doubt would see a huge disparity in the negative column.
The question would be has the limited growth of churches kept up with population?
Hello
I have been a lurker for about a year now and after reading this entire post I had to ask a question.
Did Will ever give an answer for this? I know he was saying the scriptures clearly state a woman should not wear pants and this was brought to his attention. I looked through the thread twice and I can't find a post from him explaining this.
Im only curious because I have recently found myself questioning many of the things I have been told and I realize most things I have done are out of tradition.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*
No matter how you interpret these scriptures, you are left with this fact:
Men and women both wore robes during the time Deut. was written. For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, men and women both wore robes. Now, men and women both wear pants.
Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that men and women dress drastically different. Nowhere does it demand that they must be dressed completely different from the waist down.
There were slight differences in men and women's robes, there are slight differences in men and women's pants.
Women's pants is not a man's garment. I don't know a single man who would be caught dead in a pair of women's pants.
We have taken a cultural issue that was faced during the 1920s or thereabout, and forced Deut. to address that issue. It doesn't. Men had transitioned from robes to pants several hundred years before, now women were making that transition. It caused an uproar, because it was a transition, and transitions always cause an uproar. There is historical evidence that there was the same uproar when men transitioned from robes to pants. They were seen as immodest.
Men and women have worn the same general garment, with some distinctive differences, for most of human history. If you walk into Walmart, you can tell at a glance, without reading the signs, whether you're in the men's clothing department, or the women's. There is still an easily noticeable difference between men's and women's clothing.
I've bought jeans at a garage sale before, thinking they were boys. My sons would begin to put them on, and then whip them right back off, exclaiming - "These are girls' pants! I'm not wearing these!" The cut is different, the pockets are different, the button is different. It's a woman's garment, not a man's. Women's pants don't 'pertain to' a man. They pertain to a woman. That's why my sons won't wear them.
Hello
I have been a lurker for about a year now and after reading this entire post I had to ask a question.
Did Will ever give an answer for this? I know he was saying the scriptures clearly state a woman should not wear pants and this was brought to his attention. I looked through the thread twice and I can't find a post from him explaining this.
Im only curious because I have recently found myself questioning many of the things I have been told and I realize most things I have done are out of tradition.
Thanks
Good point! Thanks for bringing it up to the forefront.
Hello
I have been a lurker for about a year now and after reading this entire post I had to ask a question.
Did Will ever give an answer for this? I know he was saying the scriptures clearly state a woman should not wear pants and this was brought to his attention. I looked through the thread twice and I can't find a post from him explaining this.
Im only curious because I have recently found myself questioning many of the things I have been told and I realize most things I have done are out of tradition.
Pants, for example, scripturally and historically are equivalent to “girding up the loins like a man” (Job 38:3), something women did not do (Deuteronomy 22:5).
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
The big thing is that under the law of Moses it clearly states, "Women shall not wear a bifurcated garment." You won't find that in the KJV, not even the Word Aflame issue of the KJV with their notes, but if you check out the original Hebrew as explained by the more erudite scholars, it's there clear and simple. It's just that we uneducated and unwashed can't find it in our KJV or even in the NIV (Non Inspired Version) or in the NKJV (Nacho KJV).
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
The big thing is that under the law of Moses it clearly states, "Women shall not wear a bifurcated garment." You won't find that in the KJV, not even the Word Aflame issue of the KJV with their notes, but if you check out the original Hebrew as explained by the more erudite scholars, it's there clear and simple. It's just that we uneducated and unwashed can't find it in our KJV or even in the NIV (Non Inspired Version) or in the NKJV (Nacho KJV).
I have to ask............what does BIFURCATED GARMENT mean ?
__________________
DAVID A MAN AFTER GOD'S HEART.........
)
Linear Mode
