Sunday Night Worship

[Soonerborn]

I recently read an old post on the Heidelblog which discussed the reason for having a Second Service.

Why A Second Service? Heidelblog

I have also read much of R. Scott Clark's book on the topic, Recovering the Reformed Confession (and wholeheartedly recommend it!).

Our PCA church does not have regular Sunday evening worship. We have "home groups" which have replaced worship.

To quote from this Heidelblog entry, Clark says in response to the prevalent practice of the modern church abandoning the 2nd service

"What does it mean? It means at least two things:
1) we’ve lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and
2) we’ve lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

Bible studies (under the right circumstances and with the right leadership) are great and useful. Home groups can be useful and edifying (with some qualifications) but they are no substitute for the preaching of the gospel."

I agree with him. My question though is if our church doesn't offer 2 services, what should I do with my family? Home groups may have a place in church life, but they shouldn't replace the ordinary means of grace God has ordained.

Should I look for another church around town to attend at night? I don't want to violate the vows I took to my church, and I have no plans on leaving my church.

Any thoughts?

 

[Montanablue]

Perhaps you should discuss this with your elders? (I'm not saying you shouldn't ask on the PB too, but it seems like perhaps you should discuss the possibility of having an evening service with the session since you think its so important)

 

[nasa30]

Have family worship at home. That is the reason our church does not do a Sunday night service. That and we usually go from 9:30am until around 1pm so this give more time to be a home with the family.

 

[Albatross]

"What does it mean? It means at least two things:
1) we’ve lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and
2) we’ve lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

Not to distract from what your family should do on Sunday evenings but I question the validity of the two points above when this is also in the Heidelblog.

"From the moment the second service was instituted in the 16th century the Reformed Churches had to struggle to get folk to attend."

Should this be the motivation for Sunday evening services?

Currently, my church offers a Sunday evening service. Attendance is very low and I am certain discussions are taking place as to what to do. If the decision is made to move away from a Sunday evening service to something else, in no way do I think we have 1) lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and 2)lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

 

[dannyhyde]

"From the moment the second service was instituted in the 16th century the Reformed Churches had to struggle to get folk to attend."

This is why the Synod of Dort said that even if the minister and his family were the only ones in attendance, the second service had to be called by the consistory.

 

[A guy]

How can the sunday evening service be "the way of the Christian life" if it wasn't instituted until the 16th century?

 

[Mark Hettler]

What does it mean? It means at least two things:
1) we’ve lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and
2) we’ve lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

Maybe in some cases. But I read in Acts 2:42 that "they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, and to breaking of bread and to prayer." And I think what is happening in some churches that are moving away from a second service in favor of small groups is that they are losing their sense of the preaching of the Word as the ONLY means of grace, and realizing that fellowship and prayer are of greater importance than has been accorded them traditionally.

 

[Pergamum]

If doing away with a second service is stealing away part of the Lord's Day and this Lord's Day is 24 hours, why not institute a 3rd or 4th service...or have a 24-hour service once a week from midnight to midnight?

 

[dannyhyde]

How can the sunday evening service be "the way of the Christian life" if it wasn't instituted until the 16th century?

This line from Dr. Clark is actually incorrect factually as the second service was an inherited part of Christianity from the medieval church, back to the post-apostolic church, and further back to the days of the apostles themselves as the book of Acts evidences.

 

[Pergamum]

Can you quote the Scriptures which speak of the church in Acts meeting twice per day in two separate services, morning and evening?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Can you quote the Scriptures which speak of the church in Acts meeting twice per day in two separate services, morning and evening?

The point being made is that Scripture teaches the special blessing of God's presence promised to the gathered church (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 6:19; Heb. 10:24-25). As well as to the efficacy of the Word preached as a means of grace (Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2, 5).

Two services on Sunday are not explicitly commanded nor exemplified in Scripture. However, the blessing and benefit of a morning and evening service must be weighed against the benefits of not having an evening service.

As for the argument that we should in light of these things have a 24 hour service on Sunday, that argument is simply immoderate and effusive.

Private and family worship are necessary parts of the Christian life and they are certainly accompanied with God's blessing. However, God has ordained that the assembled church shall be the special object of his divine blessing and presence.

 

[Herald]

We meet in a school, therefore we don't have access to a large enough facility for the entire church to meet on Sunday evening. In order to enjoy the blessing of the Sabbath we have fellowship groups that meet directly after worship. We share a meal, have time in the Word, and enjoy fellowship. Ad a group of elders we are satisified that we are honoring the Lord's Day.

 

[A guy]

How can the sunday evening service be "the way of the Christian life" if it wasn't instituted until the 16th century?

This line from Dr. Clark is actually incorrect factually as the second service was an inherited part of Christianity from the medieval church, back to the post-apostolic church, and further back to the days of the apostles themselves as the book of Acts evidences.

Do you have proof that your claims are factually correct?

 

[Albatross]

However, God has ordained that the assembled church shall be the special object of his divine blessing and presence.

I completely agree but does this require 2 services?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

However, God has ordained that the assembled church shall be the special object of his divine blessing and presence.

I completely agree but does this require 2 services?

No. That wasn't my point. Read the post.

My point was that the benefits of two services on the Lord's Day outweigh the arguments for dropping the evening service for other things.

 

[Albatross]

However, God has ordained that the assembled church shall be the special object of his divine blessing and presence.

I completely agree but does this require 2 services?

No. That wasn't my point. Read the post.

My point was that the benefits of two services on the Lord's Day outweigh the arguments for dropping the evening service for other things.

I'm not disagreeing with the benefits. I'm disagreeing with the assertion that if my church stops the evening service then we are devaluing the assembled church and not keeping the Sabbath.

Also, don't take this to mean I am suggesting a 24 hr service but why do you stop at 2? There are options b/t 2 services and a service that lasts all day.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I'm not disagreeing with the benefits. I'm disagreeing with the assertion that if my church stops the evening service then we are devaluing the assembled church and not keeping the Sabbath.

I never made any such an assertion. Your gripe is with the straw man.

Also, don't take this to mean I am suggesting a 24 hr service but why do you stop at 2? There are options b/t 2 services and a service that lasts all day.

This isn't the issue at hand. We're dealing with a two-service Lord's Day because that's how the OP framed the discussion and because its the common custom of Evangelical churches. Your hypotheticals are distracting from the real point.

 

[Albatross]

I'm not disagreeing with the benefits. I'm disagreeing with the assertion that if my church stops the evening service then we are devaluing the assembled church and not keeping the Sabbath.

I never made any such an assertion. Your gripe is with the straw man.

Also, don't take this to mean I am suggesting a 24 hr service but why do you stop at 2? There are options b/t 2 services and a service that lasts all day.

This isn't the issue at hand. We're dealing with a two-service Lord's Day because that's how the OP framed the discussion and because its the common custom of Evangelical churches. Your hypotheticals are distracting from the real point.

Who is the straw man?

The OP included the assertion.......
"What does it mean? It means at least two things:
1) we’ve lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and
2) we’ve lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

My hypotheticals are not distracting they are pointing to the fact that a "common custom" is not always sufficient grounds for doing or not doing something. Consider, seriously, having a second service but if the decision is not to, let's not pretend it is anti-Scripture, Sabbath, or preaching.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Who is the straw man?

The OP included the assertion.......
"What does it mean? It means at least two things:
1) we’ve lost our doctrine of the Sabbath and
2) we’ve lost our sense that the preaching of the Word is a means of grace.

My hypotheticals are not distracting they are pointing to the fact that a "common custom" is not always sufficient grounds for doing or not doing something. Consider, seriously, having a second service but if the decision is not to, let's not pretend it is anti-Scripture, Sabbath, or preaching.

I have never said (or hinted) that not having a second Lord's Day service was "anti-Scripture, Sabbath, or preaching" (ergo the "straw man"). It was my understanding that you were interpreting my argument in that way. If not, then I was mistaken. So long as we're clear that that's not my position even though I do maintain that a two-service Sunday is preferable if possible.

 

[Pergamum]

Can you quote the Scriptures which speak of the church in Acts meeting twice per day in two separate services, morning and evening?

The point being made is that Scripture teaches the special blessing of God's presence promised to the gathered church (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 6:19; Heb. 10:24-25). As well as to the efficacy of the Word preached as a means of grace (Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2, 5).

Two services on Sunday are not explicitly commanded nor exemplified in Scripture. However, the blessing and benefit of a morning and evening service must be weighed against the benefits of not having an evening service.

As for the argument that we should in light of these things have a 24 hour service on Sunday, that argument is simply immoderate and effusive.

Private and family worship are necessary parts of the Christian life and they are certainly accompanied with God's blessing. However, God has ordained that the assembled church shall be the special object of his divine blessing and presence.

You have just made my point, that two separate services are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture.

If a church chooses one corporate worship service to give time for private devotion they should not, therefore, be told that they are devaluing the Sabbath.

If we are commanding things that are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture and the whole day is the Sabbath day, then I could equally have my church hold 4 services a day, or a 24 hour service, and accuse all others of devaluing the day because they do not match my rigor. The blog article posted does just this, but to a lesser degree.

 

[ewenlin]

Devaluation of the Sabbath aside, if preaching of the Word is rightly understood to be a greater means of grace than simply having small groups fellowship, a second service would be a good idea wouldn't it?

 

[Pergamum]

Devaluation of the Sabbath aside, if preaching of the Word is rightly understood to be a greater means of grace than simply having small groups fellowship, a second service would be a good idea wouldn't it?

A 3rd and a 4th service, then, even better!

 

[ewenlin]

Devaluation of the Sabbath aside, if preaching of the Word is rightly understood to be a greater means of grace than simply having small groups fellowship, a second service would be a good idea wouldn't it?

A 3rd and a 4th service, then, even better!

I knew you'd agree with me! Pity the preacher though!

 

[DMcFadden]

Hmmmmm.

Back in the day, Robert Haldane had 3,600 people at his Sunday evening services. A.A. Hodge turned his Sunday evening messages into Outlines in Theology. Lloyd-Jones gave such moving messages in his Sunday evening services that the year he attended proved catalytic in the life of young J.I. Packer, helping to motivate him toward ordination and vocational ministry.

Do any PBers have vital Sunday evening services in their congregations???

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

You have just made my point, that two separate services are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture.

If a church chooses one corporate worship service to give time for private devotion they should not, therefore, be told that they are devaluing the Sabbath.

If we are commanding things that are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture and the whole day is the Sabbath day, then I could equally have my church hold 4 services a day, or a 24 hour service, and accuse all others of devaluing the day because they do not match my rigor. The blog article posted does just this, but to a lesser degree.

It would seem that some are interpreting my advocacy of two services on the Lord's Day as complete agreement with Dr. Clark's position that anyone not holding two services on the Lord's Day are "devaluing" the Sabbath.

As I've stated before, I do not believe that a church having only one service on the Sabbath is "devaluing" it. This would not be the first time that I took issue with Dr. Clark on a tertiary matter.

Once again I will say it, I feel that a Reformed understanding of worship and the means of grace, lend themselves to a favorable view of a two-service Sabbath. I think the blessings and benefits are desirable. I think the cultural pressures and distractions of this world play a large part in some churches discontinuing the evening service. In as much as that is the case, these churches are indeed devaluing the Sabbath. Having said that, I do not necessarily think that a church meeting only once is "devaluing" the Sabbath.

So I would ask you all to interact with my reasoning and argumentation and not assume I agree with Dr. Clark in this matter.

 

[Kevin]

We only have sunday evening services.

We are praying & planning to "launch" a sunday morning service next year.

 

[bisonrancher]

We have a sunday aftenoon service (2:30pm) that is 90% attended. Usually the only ones who are not there are milking cows or are not in good physical condition to be able to attend two services.

 

[Pergamum]

You have just made my point, that two separate services are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture.

If a church chooses one corporate worship service to give time for private devotion they should not, therefore, be told that they are devaluing the Sabbath.

If we are commanding things that are neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture and the whole day is the Sabbath day, then I could equally have my church hold 4 services a day, or a 24 hour service, and accuse all others of devaluing the day because they do not match my rigor. The blog article posted does just this, but to a lesser degree.

It would seem that some are interpreting my advocacy of two services on the Lord's Day as complete agreement with Dr. Clark's position that anyone not holding two services on the Lord's Day are "devaluing" the Sabbath.

As I've stated before, I do not believe that a church having only one service on the Sabbath is "devaluing" it. This would not be the first time that I took issue with Dr. Clark on a tertiary matter.

Once again I will say it, I feel that a Reformed understanding of worship and the means of grace, lend themselves to a favorable view of a two-service Sabbath. I think the blessings and benefits are desirable. I think the cultural pressures and distractions of this world play a large part in some churches discontinuing the evening service. In as much as that is the case, these churches are indeed devaluing the Sabbath. Having said that, I do not necessarily think that a church meeting only once is "devaluing" the Sabbath.

So I would ask you all to interact with my reasoning and argumentation and not assume I agree with Dr. Clark in this matter.

Thanks! Sorry, I think me and you are in agreement then.

 

[bookslover]

As has been said, having two worship services on the Lord's Day is neither demonstrated nor commanded in Scripture. It is required that we be involved in public worship on the Lord's Day (and I can say that I have missed only a handful of worship services in nearly 30 years as a believer), but how many services a congregation has is part of the adiaphora, those things which are indifferent, that the Scriptures have no opinion about, one way or the other.

Given this, the statement that someone above posted about how the Heidelberg Catechism states that there must be a Sunday evening worship service - even if only the minister and his family show up for it - is unscriptural, and more redolent of a cultural opinion than a biblical one.

 

[Tim]

I think there is a theological principle that says "public worship is to be preferred over private". I am not sure where it comes from or who championed it. Can someone elaborate?