# Split Thread from Two Worship Services Thread



## J. Dean (Nov 17, 2011)

I have absolutely no problem with it [Two Worship Services for separate church members], especially if you're the only Reformed church in the area and you have people hungry for good grace-based Bible exposition. To be frank, more churches ought to be considering two services rather than spending the money to increase their sanctuary size. Seems more economically responsible.


----------



## MarieP (Nov 17, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> To be frank, more churches ought to be considering two services rather than spending the money to increase their sanctuary size.



I haven't listened to the links, but I'm guessing they may be about having two _distinct_ services on the Lord's Day (such as an AM and a PM), not two _repeated_ services. I love having a morning and evening service- it is very conducive to seeing the entire day as a foretaste of Heaven!

I don't want to hijack the thread, but, as to a church having two _repeated_ services, I honestly would not be comfortable with it at all. The same for the "satellite campus" movement. At least you have the entire church physically under the ministry. But you still have a split church. At the very least, I think there should be a unified Lord's Supper service. I've heard some say it's just like having house churches, but each house church, if I understand correctly, had its own elders and deacons.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 17, 2011)

MarieP said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > To be frank, more churches ought to be considering two services rather than spending the money to increase their sanctuary size.
> ...


Ahhhh... Well, in that case, I'll save my disagreement with you regarding two repeated services for another thread  

Regarding an am and pm service, I can take it or leave it. But as far as I know (and I fully concede that I could be wrong on this), the early church didn't meet twice per Sunday. Not saying it's right, wrong, commanded, or forbidden; just pointing out that it is something within the freedom of churches to do or not do.

The only time I really have a problem with a two service am/pm format is when people get an air of superiority about it ("I'm more spiritual than you because I go to BOTH services"), not realizing that there may be other reasons why people may miss evening service than what is perceived to be spiritual laziness.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2011)

What is the objection to "repeated services?"


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 17, 2011)

Mark,
At minimum, there is a divided congregation. Shouldn't the whole congregation worship together as one body?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2011)

Scottish Lass said:


> Mark,
> At minimum, there is a divided congregation. Shouldn't the whole congregation worship together as one body?



This is a valid observation, and our Session has discussed the "seperate congregations" issue at length. How we have tried to deal with the "I'm an 8:00 member" and "I'm a 10:30 member" probably is a different thread. However, it seemed at the time, and still seems, that if we have more folks coming than we have room to house them, it is better to go to 2 services in the morning, rather than borrow $500K we don't have to enlarge the sanctuary.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 17, 2011)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > Mark,
> ...



Why not plant a church?


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 17, 2011)

Scottish Lass said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Scottish Lass said:
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2011)




----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2011)

The upside to "planting" a church in the same small town would be what, exactly? Formally splitting a congregation, to avoid having it informally "split" by 2 services?


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 17, 2011)

There are churches where I believe it's just poor stewardship to put a church plant in town rather than have repeated services. Rather than causing unnecessary expenses, get more elders if you think there are not enough to shepherd the flock. You need just as many elders for two churches as you need for one large church with repeated services, and in fact for one church with a repeated sermon you may require one less elder because there is not time taken from two men to prepare two different sermons; thus, with the same number of elders, you can have _better_ shepherding with one church and two services.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't know if the church planting thing always makes sense. Sometimes, sure; but I can think of other times that I might rather do something else.

For example, what if the meeting place is very small; it holds only 50 people.The church is currently running 80 people in its two services. Do 80 people really need two completely distinct churches with separate sessions to get good pastoral care? 

On the other hand, if the sanctuary holds 300, and there are 500 people attending every week, then I think a much greater case can be made for planting a new church. Then again, I'm not against big churches, either.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 17, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> There are churches where I believe it's just poor stewardship to put a church plant in town rather than have repeated services. Rather than causing unnecessary expenses, get more elders if you think there are not enough to shepherd the flock. You need just as many elders for two churches as you need for one large church with repeated services, and in fact for one church with a repeated sermon you may require one less elder because there is not time taken from two men to prepare two different sermons; thus, with the same number of elders, you can have _better_ shepherding with one church and two services.



Have you ever been part of a church with two services?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2011)

Why 2 services?


Why not 3? We eat 3 meals a day after all.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Nov 17, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> There are churches where I believe it's just poor stewardship to put a church plant in town rather than have repeated services. Rather than causing unnecessary expenses, get more elders if you think there are not enough to shepherd the flock. You need just as many elders for two churches as you need for one large church with repeated services, and in fact for one church with a repeated sermon you may require one less elder because there is not time taken from two men to prepare two different sermons; thus, with the same number of elders, you can have _better_ shepherding with one church and two services.



Would all elders attend both services? If not, you'd likely have congregants that elders didn't know. Is that good shepherding?


----------



## TexanRose (Nov 17, 2011)

If you have two services a day, and everyone attends both services, you get to know people twice as well.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 18, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > There are churches where I believe it's just poor stewardship to put a church plant in town rather than have repeated services. Rather than causing unnecessary expenses, get more elders if you think there are not enough to shepherd the flock. You need just as many elders for two churches as you need for one large church with repeated services, and in fact for one church with a repeated sermon you may require one less elder because there is not time taken from two men to prepare two different sermons; thus, with the same number of elders, you can have _better_ shepherding with one church and two services.
> ...



Yes. And the elders of my church mentor a church in town that does exactly the thing I said in my post, and it works very well.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------




Scottish Lass said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > There are churches where I believe it's just poor stewardship to put a church plant in town rather than have repeated services. Rather than causing unnecessary expenses, get more elders if you think there are not enough to shepherd the flock. You need just as many elders for two churches as you need for one large church with repeated services, and in fact for one church with a repeated sermon you may require one less elder because there is not time taken from two men to prepare two different sermons; thus, with the same number of elders, you can have _better_ shepherding with one church and two services.
> ...



If the elders are organized, every congregant can be known by at least a few pastors in even the largest of churches. Not every elder needs to know every person in a large church, otherwise we would have to plainly say that every large church has poor shepherding, which simply is not the case.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 18, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > AThornquist said:
> ...




I see - and how well did the church feel as a unified body? Was there not an 'early' congregation and a 'late' congregation? How did the elders keep the body 'one'?


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 18, 2011)

I was discussing the matter once with a woman who was against two services. Her rationale was "You just want to hurry up and get out early!"

My response was "And you want one service just so you can sleep in!"

Obviously it's not a good solution for every church. And people have said that it splits a congregation. But I would counter that such a factioning can happen in a church with a single morning service as well, especially with a larger church. I've seen churches that seem more like "churches within a church" due to what is often unintentional but inevitable factioning. 

Again, there's never going to be a perfect church. But potential problems come about with either one or two services, and neither one is foolproof against trouble.


----------

