Are two morning services separating the church?

< Are two morning services separating the church? >

No, this only separates the services.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeronimo:
Recently my home church has gone to two Sunday morning services. One service is before Sunday School, and the other service is after Sunday School. Most people go to one or the other service. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did your church go to this format to facilitate a growth upsurge? Or, did they do it to facilitate this to an accomodate ones lifestyle?[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

No, not at all. Where in Scripture is it required the entire church meet at the same time?

 

From an historical perspective there were thousands of Believers in Jerusalem at the end of the first century, and because of persecution, they met in small groups in people's homes.

 

Our pastor has considered having two morning services . . . though, not because of growth, but because some people "have other things to do". I, too, am concerned about this because our church attendance, on a good Sunday, is around 80 to 100. Personally, I don't see that great a need for two services at this point, and I think it could do more harm than good. I don't think there would be enough to attend the early service to justify adding it.

Instead of building massive churches and adding services, once a church reaches a sizable congregation, is it or is it not Biblical to "break off" into sister churches? (Just a curiosity question)

Also, what do y'all think of churches who have 15 piano players and 20 men called to preach? Do all of these get to use their gift and calling if they stay?

Ok . . . I think I got off the original topic. Sorry . . .

 

Julia Said: Instead of building massive churches and adding services, once a church reaches a sizable congregation, is it or is it not Biblical to "break off" into sister churches? (Just a curiosity question)


My Reply: I agree

Joseph

 

I too think it is more Biblical for churches to start churches.

Julia, I sometimes wish we had 15 pianists! or at least a few more to help relieve me occasionally. I am torn right now between sitting in the service in order to teach my two preschoolers how to sit still and behave in church, and how to worship the Lord as a family, and playing the piano. ( I am the only pianist) My husband is an usher, I am the pianist, so my children sit with another family. Again, another topic!

 

To answer the question, no. We had to do it a couple of years ago because of growth issues and parking problems. It has been very successful in its implementation. The only draw-back, our pastor has to preach once at 8:25, teach his Sunday School class at 9:45, preach again at 11:00 and then again at 6:00pm, so it makes for a long day for him!

But recently, I heard that he has been letting someone else teach his Sunday School class sometimes.

Overall, if your church is growing and is out of parking spaces, then it is a good move!

 

I think churches should go to two services only as a last resort. If the church is growing too much to accomodate everyone then I think they should have godly men to start daughter churches, men who have been trained in that church, or trained elsewhere.I know a Pastor who retired from a very large IFB church back in 1981, who had "chapels" and believed that the churches ought to be autonomos; I heard him say with my own ears not to consider these "chapels" going independent. Isn't that a double-standard? I think it's good that this huge church had chapels, all over the area, but they should be allowed to be self-governing.
Back to the original question, I know a church that separated "classes" of people; those who were "not like you & me" i.e. Minorities, met for service at 1:30 PM. This is disgusting to say the least! And if you think it happened "way back when", you're wrong, this was in the early 1980's.It reminds me of James 2:1-6.Thanks brothers & sisters.

 

In our church we had two services for awhile due to overcrowding. I thought it worked very well and saw nothing wrong with it. We did, however, go back to one crowded service. The main reasons given were similar to some stated above, mainly that it hurt relationships and that folks didn't get to see each other. In my opinion both of those reasons are entirely bogus for two reasons:

1) If someone feels that they are missing seeing someone, there are many easy remedies: a) Sunday school hour b) Sunday evening c) Wednesday evening d) ask someone to Sunday lunch or e)the most obvious: SWITCH SERVICES NEXT SUNDAY, DUMMY!

2) The most hollow and ridiculous complaint is that relationships suffered. Any "relationship" that suffers from something as simple as two services is certainly not much of a relationship. Very silly.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with two services to, as some have said, "fit a lifestyle". Consider that the "lifestyle" of many folks is a 12-14 hour work day 5 days per week, and chores around the home or farm all day Saturday. If God gave us Sunday for rest then why do we need to crowd it so much that we can't even sit down for a few hours?

Just my $0.02.

P. Jim

[ May 26, 2001: Message edited by: Pennsylvania Jim ]

 

Penn. Jim ~ The question then would be . . . did God indeed give us Sunday to rest? Or are we to gather to gather to worship and fellowship with other believers? The way I see it, IMHO, is that the Lord pretty much allows us to live our lives during the week . . . why should it be so difficult to set Sunday aside in honour of Christ, to gather with other believers?

One church in our area even has Saturday night, come as you are, services for those who for some reason can't seem to make it to Sunday services. Granted, I know some must work jobs on Sunday (nurses, doctors, etc). However, I am concerned that many folks plan other events and activities (going to hte lake, ball game, races, etc) on Sunday knowing that there is that Saturday evening service.

Juat my $.03 worth.

 

Joseph ~ I think I shall faint now We actually agree on something!

Joy ~ Our church as ZERO pianists at this point, and we've been praying for one for about 3 or 4 years. There is another IFB up the road from us (about 1/4 of a mile) and they have several gifted piano players. It's somewhat disheartening, and I will honestly say I don't know what the Lord has not provided. It surely makes for a difficult time with the choir and congregational singing.

 

Keeper, I largely agree with what you say. I did not mean to imply that Sunday worship should be compromised. I do think that God has established at the very least a pattern of one in seven days rest. For now that would seem to be Sunday. I think that Sunday should generally be characterized by worship, family time, and rest, in balance. My complaint is when the balance is broken by a church schedule that packs so much into Sunday (Sunday school, AM Worship, quick meetings, Choir practice, PM worship, etc), and scheduled in such a way as to become a "rat race" in itself...we were not built to have constant go-go-go with no time to relax, not to mention some "down time" with our families just to slow down and enjoy each other.

PA Jim

 

We must understand that the Sabbath has been fulfilled by Christ. He is our Sabbath and in him we rest.

Dave

 

PA Jim ~ I certainly agree with what you say about trying to cram so many church activities into Sunday. I think we've come to the point of have so many programs and such in the church that we miss the whole point in gathering together.

 

&lt; Saturday night, come as you are, services &gt;

It is an oncoming trend to have Friday or Saturday night services in addition to the customary Sunday morning and/or evening times, but personally I think it is a good idea. Those who oppose this do so because it does not entirely agree with what they have always known and thought proper. And, as has been remarked here, there will be some who choose these worship times not for reasons of business or necessity, but to plan other things for customary Sunday morning. I would look at it, though, from the other side of the valley... Why should there be movies, barbecues, dances, ball games, et al, on FRI or SAT nights, but *NOT church* as an option to choose?

As for the "come as you are" part, I am all in favor of that. Think of the irony when a congregation of Sunday morning worshipers-- many of whom wear coats and ties or dresses only at that time of the week-- are there on their best behavior, censoring their speech, keeping that conjured smile on their faces, singing "Just As I Am," or "Come Just As You Are." Then if someone dressed in jeans and tennis shoes does 'come' *just as he is* to stand before the assembly to join them, what is the worshippers' opinion compared to another who comes in a tailored suit and the look of an executive?

 

We have had two services pretty successfully over the last few years.

It is not a divisive tool. It is just a tool.

If the whole "church" should fellowship together on any given day, then we should have one big body like in heaven.

Plus, there is nothing wrong with starting complete new churches, but there isn't anything wrong with using the church building as much as possible, either.

Besides, I cannot possibly fellowship with all the believers before, during and after one service anyway.

If communication is consistent, there does not need to be any problems.

Plus, there is nothing wrong with starting a new church--great idea--but there is nothing wrong with using the building well that God has given us, either.

If your church has gifted people, pianists and otherwise, and aren't using them, starting new churches won't help the problem, nor will adding new churches keep you from having other problems. You should be using your gifted people.

Why do we have to worship at "11:00" on Sunday????? What is bad about a "come as you are" service? Different than on Sunday?

[ May 27, 2001: Message edited by: SaggyWoman ]