2 Services?

Operative question: Are you out of room in 1 service? Or just wanting to start a 2nd?

This doesn't indicate a problem...it's just that if you have to go to two services, things are so much easier...than if you simply choose to go to two services...

 

RBell's question is a good one. Motive is always important.

We went to 2 services 10 years ago because we couldn't fit all the people into 1. We were doing a blended service, but decided to offer 2 different kinds. For some reason, we decided that the 8:30 am service would be the traditional. The 10:45 am service would be moved towards casual/contemporary. (contemporary is Oprey is a relative term)

The message is still the same but over time the more contemporary service attracted more newer Christians and lost people. So, although the basic message is the same (using the same power point and stuff), it ends up I have to spend more time explaining and defining terms in it. The "all hymns, all the time" service has more mature believers so the explanation is less vital about some basic issues.

I understand Salty's idea that there are 2 different churches, but don't agree. And church service develops its own kind of personality and a 2nd morning service will also. This would be true even if they were exactly the same in format, style and content. But we try to do our best to make certain that we developed cross over events so that people from each service mingles. So we did Bible study between the 2 services.

It's alot more work doing 2 services. But for us, following what the Lord led us to do has brought His blesssings on both.

 

We have four services on Sundays.

During the middle two we provide a time for Bible study groups (also times outside of these.) One of our services is a Spanish service which meets concurrently with our 11:00 service but a member of our preaching team who speaks Spanish preaches the same message as the other services. It is a wonderful ministry. We also have a multi-site strategy in place (which I guess adds two more services for the two campuses) that helps us extend our influence and reach.

I think it is a fine thing, if your church is growing, to add a service or two as needed. Also, if you particular worship style is geared towards an older crowd and your area around you is younger offering an alternative worship style is a great way to expand.

Our primary reason is for size. Our worship center only holds so many people and this allows us to reach a large crowd.

I disagree with the thought that when you divide services you "divide churches." Usually when you get to the size where you need to add a service or two you've got a large enough congregation that people are becoming less known to each other. That's a perfectly okay place to be too. There are all kinds of churches that reach all kinds of people. Large churches have a different philosophy because of their needs just like smaller churches have a different philosophy because of their needs.

Doesn't make one model more spiritually superior to others. Also for us it is a stewardship issue. To expand our worship center to add seating would be cost prohibitive. We'd spend more than several million dollars and get a marginal return. So instead we're more apt to add a service or start a new site in our area or help a new church start. Both are so much better stewardship of our resources than expanding facilities.

Also, just for the record our church works with and helps plant churches throughout the metro area we serve. For our area we have utilize a regional church model that helps us extend our influence, invite people in who might not be here otherwise, then show them how to enjoy rich relationships with others in our church. Works good for us and our people. :saint:

 

Two thoughts:
1. When your church gets large enough to go to two services, then "church" is likely happening more in small groups (for us, Sunday School) than Worship. Worship service is a "front door" for involving people and reaching them.

2. If you do differing styles...give ALL of them your very best. Some churches choose to invest more in one service than another. We invest heavily in both of ours (which are stylistically different from one another). BOTH services, thank God, are growing and doing well.

 

Same here at a church I was at a number of years ago. It did divide the church just a little, but we also met together Sunday pm.

 

Absolutely!

 

I have been in two different churches that have had multiple services. The current church I am in had one due to not enough space, and the services were identical.

The other church I was in made the very early service for the more traditionalites. The later services were meant to be blended but I think the 9:30 service ended up being blended and the 11 o clock service rocked. It was more of "da bomb".

 

If the split is on account of size, then praise God, but it seems to me that it is time to investigate forming a second church, possibly a little way from the first. It surely cannot be healthy to have a church so large that its members cannot meet together.

If the split is over musical taste, then logically we could have countless services, each one representing a particular musical style, or bible translation, or preaching style, or order of service...the list could go on, and we could end up with Christians worshipping individually. The idea of having multiple services so members can pick and choose until they can say, "Yes, this one fits me and my tastes" is surely wrong, and without scriptural foundation.

 

We have two services every other week or so for the purpose of ministering to a younger crowd who enjoy a more contemporary service. Ours is timed for 8 am. It is well attended and few even stay through SS to the more tradional service even though the message is the same. (usually those with children who want to be a part of children's church or those that serve in the first and worship in the second or vice versa)

It works for us. We are ONE church despite the differences in worship style.

Really? Can you provide a scriptural foundation for the "traditional" service? Or are the traditions of worship we follow the preference of our ancestors that no one thought to change? Because I find if we go back to the example of the early church, we'd still be meeting from house to house. I'm not being cocky, but would appreciate a serious answer.

 

Thanks for replying, MK. (And I certainly didn't read your words as being in any way "cocky" - I hope you didn't think mine were either!)

I wasn't arguing either for or against "traditional" services (after all, "traditional" means different things to different people), but against the idea of splitting a church up for worship according to people's musical or other preferences.

Yes, I agree that the early church did not have church buildings as we do, so they held their services in homes, or in the open air. But the principal was that the whole church gathered for worship.

 

LOL, David. Its been a rough weekend and I'm having tone perception problems and when I reread my own post I thought I'd better post a disclaimer!

So now I have to ask another question. Did the entire Jerusalem church meet in one place? (wasn't there like 3000 of them after Pentecost?)

I've always interpreted "meeting from house to house" to mean that the apostle (or church leaders) went from house to house instructing whoever showed up, but more different houses in different areas of Jerusalem likely drew participants from the immediate location rather than people traveling across town to go church.

 

This is very much what happened in the church our church split off from. The old church became very much seeker sensitive to the point that we had a rock band and the sermons were based on movies. They tried to have a second service for those of us who wanted to worship with the great hymns of the faith and not merely "Amazing Grace" sung to the tune of Ted Nugent's "Stranglehold" or "You Spin Me Right Round Jesus".

It became very clear, very quickly that we were considered second class citizens in the church, so much so that even another elder and I were shut out.

I love contemporary music for entertainment outside of church. If you were to look on my ipod, most of it would be various folk, rock, R&B, and Texas singer songwriter type artists and only a handful of Gospel music. But that's for entertainment. For edification, for worship, for the instruction of the saints, it simply wouldn't be appropriate.

The music you have in a church service doesn't stop when the song stops. It carries over into the attitude of the rest of the service.

This is one of the reasons we won't allow contemporary music in our church. We'd rather be united and have people think we're old fashioned, than to be hip and be divided.

I've never understood why the church is in such a hurry to copy the world.

 

I have never understood this position, brother. Where in scripture are we commanded to divide the body in a given locale, artificially? Is it not a better use of resources to remain in one church building? Planting churches in the same given locale seems counterproductive to the purpose of the local church...which is to bring ALL believers in an area together, for fellowship and instruction.

I would contend that the only legitimate reason to open a different church in town, is if there are doctrinal problems with the existing churches (i.e. there is no doctrinally sound church in a given city/town).

 

Just remember those hymns were once the "hip new thing" that was following along with the world, too. We are never commanded to divorce ourselves from our culture, unless that culture is inherently sinful. Nothing sinful about Chris Tomlin...

I would contend that banning contemporary music is just as wrong as embracing it at the expense of hymns. The issue with music should be its doctrinal soundness, not style. Chris Tomlin, Phil Wickham, and a score of others have beautiful praise music, that is doctrinally sound and well suited for church service. Our church does a wonderful job of balancing the "old" and the "new." So much so that our older people have really learned to appreciate the newer music, and the reverse has also happened: our youth enjoy the classic hymns as well!

A second service is a mistake, if it is done for stylistic differences. The church music program should be a blend of the culture of the church, so that everyone is able to express worship. This should be an open and loving environment...anything else is sinful and selfish, IMHO.

 

For those advocating a new church plant as opposed to a second service, let me throw this in for thought:

We have 27 churches within easy driving distance of my house which have the word Baptist in their name. And those are just the ones that budget for a yellowpages ad, so there may even be more than that.

Now, are you SURE we need to plant another church in this area? A second service sounds much more practical.

 

Let me guess: you believe that the hymns were based on secular songs sung in taverns?

You and your church are welcome to do as you please.

Like I said, you and your church are welcome to do as you please.