Regler Joe at the Big Orange Truck asked what people thought about having more than one service each week in church. He made it clear he does that and loves that, but wondered what people thought. I wrote this response, and as I was writing it I thought it’d make a good post for my blog. Well due to Blogger not displaying the word verification box properly on my computer tonight, that post is happening now. And that is why the post is “so Joe knows”. And now you know, and so I’ll stop while I’m ahead and give you that comment.
———————————
Joe,
It would be interesting to know the Puritans well enought to hear their answer. I suspect it would have been one service a week and only on Sunday.
Sunday School originally was invented for the purposes of helping orphans and poor kids. They would have to work a 40+ hour week in the factories in horrible conditions, and on Sundays (their only day off), people would come and have school with them. They would teach them how to read and write and about arithemetic and etc. Of course the people doing this were Christians, and they would teach the Bible too. This eventually morphed into the modern day Bible lessons for kids on Sundays. Click here for more info.
Sunday evening service was not possible really, before the invention of oil lamps. And it actually was the invention of oil lamps which started Sunday evening services. Churches purchased oil lamps when they were still novel, and lit them on Sunday nights. This attracted a crowd, and an evangelisic service was held. So originally, it was Sunday evening services which were evangelistic in nature, and Sunday morning services were worshipful and geared toward the believing church members rather than lost attenders. It also may have been tied to the fact that in pioneering type days, people would travel miles to get to church and would not just turn around and leave, but would rather stay and fellowship. See more here.
I’m not sure about Wednesday night’s history, however.
Anyways, these are traditions. Tradition is great, and if you and the people want to do these services wonderful! But I said all that to say this, we should not needlessly tie ourselves into traditions of men merely for tradition’s sake. We shouldn’t look down our noses at people who don’t do it like us. And beyond that, we should take the time to learn church history better (and history in general, for that matter) so that we don’t live in an isolated 100 year time bubble.
And I plead guilty to having lived there at times, and of still needing to do more learning and researching myself.
Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter. (Don’t mean to sound “preachy” or anything!)
Also, thanks for bringing this up, Joe. Great questions and great discussion so far.
Blessings in Christ to all,
Bob Hayton
Rom. 15:5-7
———————————
I would really like to find some more authoritative internet sources for my history cited here. I did read this in another book, and I believe I’ve heard others mention it as well. So anyone reading this, please feel free to correct me or to add some further proof. Anyone read the Puritans more than I have? Can you attest to my claims?
Thanks!
The Wednesday night service is tied up with the custom of holding weekly prayer meetings. While I was surfing the web, I found an old book someone scanned in that will be very interesting if we were to take the time to read it. It’s the history of prayer meetings from Adam through the latter half of the nineteenth century. Naturally, the Wednesday night prayer meeting as we know it began basically as a means of revival and revivalism. Here’s a quote:
“The question whether this is an ordinance of religious worship, appointed by the Head of the Church to be observed by all Churches and Christians, as other acknowledged ordinances of worship; or, whether being simply sui generic, it comes under no Scripture recognition, as all other ordinances of religious worship divinely appointed, but not being forbidden, may be observed as other indifferent things; or, may be ignored altogether, has, perhaps, received from Christians, generally, very little consideration.â€
The Prayer-Meeting, and It’s History: As Identified with the Life and Power of Godliness, and the Revival of Religion— by J. B. Johnston, 1870, United Presbyterian Board of Publication.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&idno=ajf9087.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=1
I’m excited about Joe’s and your writing about these things. I get weary of receiving a special ‘atta boy for being more spiritual than others who don’t/can’t attend the other services. Then there’s the whole being on time guilt trip . . .
Bob,
I appreciated the historical backgound you (and CHK) presented. I knew some if it, but it still is helpful. Thanks for writing. I read regularly and really enjoy what you are doing.
The practice of holding two services on the Lord’s Day is grounded in the biblical principle of bringing both a morning and evening sacrifice to the Lord. The practice of a mid-week service is more modern (probably early Reformation) where ministers began to understand the need to not only provide a means of worship (as in the RCC) for the lay people, but actually educate them and equip them for Christian service. So whereas the Lord’s Day worship could been seen as Scriptually authoritative and therefore morally binding, any other services (mid-week, Christimas Eve, etc.) are not.
Mr. McCrory,
I think the “morning and evening sacrifice” argument is weak. They also stood while performing the sacrifices…should we thereby refrain from sitting during our services? Daniel prayed three times every day, while we are often commanded to praise the Lord “at all times”–should we thereby infer that corporate worship must take place three times daily, or literally “at all times”? Such naiveties, I’m afraid, are not logically distant from such an argument.
Also, you asserted:
“…the Lord’s Day worship could been seen as Scripturally authoritative and therefore morally binding…”
But then, how do you obey Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5???
Respectfully,
Dave H.
Bob,
Thanks for the info.
I find the history very interesting.
My biggest concern with traditionalism (not that traditions are wrong), is that we may stay dedicated to a certain way of doing things, simply because we have “always done it this way.” That type of tunnel vision inhibits us from doing something new that may actually work better.
At one time “Sunday school” was an innovative idea. I wonder what new innovative idea we miss by being strapped to certain traditions.
On the flipside is the danger of constantly chasing fads – of never settling into a useful and productive routine.
Good post. It is so true how we can get wrapped up in tradition. As the new, young pastor coming into an established church – I am finding out first hand the resistance to even minor change.
I would love to redo our approach to services – but know this will take much time.
Reg Joe,
You are so correct on the two edged sword of being trapped by traditions, or being a slave to fads.
Pastor Tales,
Thanks for stopping by. I understand that any change must be slow and not against the will of the collective body.
Blessings in Christ to you both,
Bob