Mid-Afternoon Second Service

[bookslover]

I attended a church's mid-afternoon service yesterday to see what it was like. It ran from 3pm to 4:30pm. The church has the morning service from 11am to 12:30pm. Then they all gather to have a leisurely lunch together there at the church. Then they do the second service.

This seems to make more sense to me than having the morning service, then everyone going home and then coming back for the second service at 6. Why not have the second service right after a lunch and fellowship time while everyone is still there? Why make double trips?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Our church service goes from 11am to about 12:30pm (NZST), then we have lunch together. The afternoon service goes from 2pm to about 3:15pm.

This seems to make more sense to me than having the morning service, then everyone going home and then coming back for the second service at 6. Why not have the second service right after a lunch and fellowship time while everyone is still there? Why make double trips?

 

[Polanus1561]

It may depend on proximity of members. In Grand Rapids, a lot live at most 15-20 minutes away. Double trips are not a big deal.
And, services ending at 12.30 pm is not the norm. Also, not every church is able to host lunch for everyone.

 

[Jake]

I've done both. My last church had the schedule you described: morning worship + lunch + afternoon worship. My church now has morning worship and evening worship. We have two identical morning services with sunday school in between (for space reasons, can't fit everyone in our worship space) and then evening worship at 6pm.

I see advantages of both. My last church was a lot more spread apart geographically, with everyone having some sort of commute in. I now am in a church where at least half of the church lives within 5 miles and everyone is within 30 minutes of the church. I'm one of the farthest away from the church and it is an easy 23 minute drive for me through the country to get there.

I think both options are preferable to only having a morning service. Here is why I would generally encourage morning and evening rather than morning and afternoon though:

- Biblical pattern we base two services is on is morning and evening prayer, which seems to me to be closer to having earlier in the morning and later in the day rather than putting them together.
- More opportunities for fellowship in homes on the Lord's Day. We do have congregational lunch together on special occasions, but there are many more opportunities to invite people over for lunch. Our associate pastor has started inviting people over to his house before evening worship (he lives in a manse right by the church) for fellowship which has been great.
- Encourages the congregation to be more local. From my experience, while it can be a chicken-and-egg problem, churches with morning + lunch + evening tend to be more geographically spread apart.
- Gives an opportunity for rest. Many folks have trouble keeping everyone together so long. A Sunday afternoon nap can be good for kids and older folks alike to be better prepared for the evening service.
- More opportunity for those who can't make a service time. We have several folks who attend more regularly or only at the evening service. Some because their home church does not have an evening service. Some because they have health issues which make it hard to up in the morning. Some because of employment. We have a visiting family working hard to get off Sunday mornings but can more consistently get off Sunday evening. I think that is an increasing possibility in the post-Christian world we live in. I think an evening service is often more conducive to folks who can't always make it in the morning than an afternoon service, but I could be wrong on that.

 

[bookish_Basset]

I agree with what's been said about the tradeoffs of both approaches. I've been blessed by churches I've visited that take the morning-lunch-afternoon approach.

That said, I've come to treasure my church's evening service. I do imagine it is harder for some families to make it back for the second service. We've started having a fellowship meal twice a month right before the evening service, and that does seem to help more families with small children to attend. I also find something especially sweet about closing the Lord's Day with an evening service, especially during the darker winter months.

Presbycast had a really good episode a few weeks ago about second services and some of the practical questions around timing of a second service: https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/presbycast/id/27655566

 

[Jake]

I agree with what's been said about the tradeoffs of both approaches. I've been blessed by churches I've visited that take the morning-lunch-afternoon approach.

That said, I've come to treasure my church's evening service. I do imagine it is harder for some families to make it back for the second service. We've started having a fellowship meal twice a month right before the evening service, and that does seem to help more families with small children to attend. I also find something especially sweet about closing the Lord's Day with an evening service, especially during the darker winter months.

Presbycast had a really good episode a few weeks ago about second services and some of the practical questions around timing of a second service: https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/presbycast/id/27655566

I'll add when I got to my church we had a "snack supper" every Sunday night before service: we would rotate 2 different families making something easy like grilled cheese, spaghetti, etc. for whoever came. We typically have 60-80 on Sunday night. I think it was a good idea, and went on for many years, but I think it got hard to organize and it fell off after we paused it during Covid. But it did make it easier for young families to attend.

Also that is a great podcast episode!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It may depend on proximity of members. In Grand Rapids, a lot live at most 15-20 minutes away. Double trips are not a big deal.
And, services ending at 12.30 pm is not the norm. Also, not every church is able to host lunch for everyone.

If by hosting you mean providing food, we have potluck and it works out well (we have an early evening service, 5 pm, but still eat lunch together).

 

[Northern Crofter]

I attended a church's mid-afternoon service yesterday to see what it was like. It ran from 3pm to 4:30pm. The church has the morning service from 11am to 12:30pm. Then they all gather to have a leisurely lunch together there at the church. Then they do the second service.

This seems to make more sense to me than having the morning service, then everyone going home and then coming back for the second service at 6. Why not have the second service right after a lunch and fellowship time while everyone is still there? Why make double trips?

If the purpose is to help those travelling large distances, or you have a large number of farmers (especially dairy), this is an act of compassion.

If it is simply so people can sleep in late or have the evening free to pursue worldly pleasures, it is an unwise decision by the congregation and its leadership.

At different times and circumstances in my life (single student, married with small children, living near, living far) I have preferred different things. Living now on a farm 45 minutes away from where we worship, I would prefer a late morning service, followed by a potluck, and then a relatively early evening service.

Whatever helps most people in the congregation have time for rest and remembrance on the Lord's Day should be the goal, and that might have to change as the makeup of the congregation changes.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

luck

luck,

Have you good Reformed people read Calvin's Institutes 1:16:2. He clearly says there is no such thing as fortune or chance

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Have you good Reformed people read Calvin's Institutes 1:16:2. He clearly says there is no such thing as fortune or chance

I knew somebody would get me on that one!

 

[Northern Crofter]

Have you good Reformed people read Calvin's Institutes 1:16:2. He clearly says there is no such thing as fortune or chance

Do you prefer "potlach"?

 

[Miss Marple]

I attended a church's mid-afternoon service yesterday to see what it was like. It ran from 3pm to 4:30pm. The church has the morning service from 11am to 12:30pm. Then they all gather to have a leisurely lunch together there at the church. Then they do the second service.

This seems to make more sense to me than having the morning service, then everyone going home and then coming back for the second service at 6. Why not have the second service right after a lunch and fellowship time while everyone is still there? Why make double trips?

For me personally, I set up coffee, then have Sunday School, then have morning worship, then have fellowship lunch. To have 2 pm or whatever service next, is like a marathon in my experience. I rarely do it.

Also, to have the services more spread out (say, 11 am and 6 pm) considers those who, legitimately, can't make Sunday daytime. They may have a valid job requirement on the day shift. They may work nights. Neither of these things is a sin, and a larger space between services accommodates them. There is otherwise no accommodation. They can either not attend, or, attend exhausted.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I don't think we have potlach in this part of the world.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Have you good Reformed people read Calvin's Institutes 1:16:2. He clearly says there is no such thing as fortune or chance

I don't think we have potlach in this part of the world.

Now that I think of it, growing up in southern PA, it was always called a "covered-dish supper" (which I think we borrowed from the other side of the Mason-Dixon line). I never considered the difference but I do wonder if it was a purposeful avoidance of the "luck" aspect. Food for thought...

 

[Jack K]

A meal followed by an afternoon service sounds good when:

1. You don't have to work a necessary day shift.
2. No one in your family needs an afternoon nap.
3. Travel is a burden.

The church I grew up in had its second service in the afternoon mostly for reason 3, the travel. It isn't necessary to have an organized meal, and we typically did not. People who lived nearby would go home for lunch and come right back, while those who couldn't travel packed a lunch and would either eat it together at the church site or at the home of someone who lived in town. Everyone managed to be home for the day by nightfall, which was important since some travelled by horse or were ranchers.

Do what works for your people in their setting.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I say eat together as often as possible. Why? Because we’re family! Because we ought to love one another! If you really need a third reason, I’d say that we have very good reason to believe this was the pattern of the early church.

To that end, I think churches ought to look as much like what we see in Acts 2 and Acts 4 as possible.

It ought be a greater burden to part ways than to assemble. It is the Lord’s Day, not merely the Lord’s Morning.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I knew somebody would get me on that one!

Jeri you could have gained the high moral ground over me and quoted the Heidelberg Catechism LD43 Q112 where we are told not to twist someone's words. I deleted part of the word 'potluck'. All in good fun

 

[Northern Crofter]

Jeri you could have gained the high moral ground over me and quoted the Heidelberg Catechism LD43 Q112 where we are told not to twist someone's words. I deleted part of the word 'potluck'. All in good fun

But it is, as far as I can tell, an old English saying which meant food provided for an unexpected guest who would have to accept "the luck of the pot" for their supper. Considering I don't say "good luck" to people out of principle, I am rather convinced I should revert back to the "covered dish supper" of my youth. I also found that "potluck" is not derived from "potlach" - the latter was an Early American pagan tradition and was banned by the Canadian government until as recently as 1951 "as anti-Christian, reckless and wasteful of personal property."