Time for 2 Different Services?

[rneufeld]

For about the last 10 years our fellowship has had 2 morning services, with current total attendance around 600. We have used a "blended" music style throughout and have been moving slowly towards more of a contemporary styling.

We seem to be at a crossroads. There is a strong desire among many for us to move to an overall contemporary style of worship, which goes beyond just song selection and includes dress code (i.e. loosing the tie which I would welcome!!) preaching and other elements such as prelude etc.

We also have a very loyal group that I sense are "tolerating" the change, but aren't too overly keen on where things are going .....

So, I'm wondering if any of you have gone through the challenge of making a decision to stay as a "blended congregation" or to move towards to distinct styles.

What are the challenges that you faced? What were the blessings? Would you do it again?

Blessings,
...Randy

[fmckinnon]

Hi Randy,

For about two years I helped out a local methodist church here on St. Simons Island (Wesley Methodist) ... they were in the same boat .. only they had two traditional services (8:30 and 11:00) and wanted to start a separate contemporary. We started at 9:00 - there was a great core group that helped us plant that service, but it never really grew substantially - that church was most well known for it's exceptional "traditional" service, and for those who weren't plugged into a church yet, there were some other churches who were already doing the "contemporary thing" very well that attracted most of those people.

That being said - I think it really could be a good thing - some folks don't like a "church within a church", but I think we have to be realistic and recognize that "style preference" doesn't necessarily mean we are "divided".

I think that one of the most important things is that you respect the different services - you don't "steal" musicians from one to another, singers, etc ... respect where people are and want to serve.

Also, it depends on your Senior Leadership - especially the Pastor. What's his vision? Would one service be his passion, and another his obligation? If so, that would become increasingly more apparent to each group. Maybe you have a large enough staff so that the other service is completely handled by other people.

It's definitely something to pray earnestly about .. I realize I didn't give a definite answer, but hope that my experience helps a bit!

Great question - look forward to seeing what others have to say.

[russhutto]

Don't mean to be a naysayer here, but in my opinion and experience, i'd say it's better to adhere to the Less is More mantra. I know there are many churches who do several different "preference" driven services, but in my opinion, it would be better to do one thing, and do that one thing exceptionally well.

Our primary gathering is geared towards people who are unchurched, untraditional, and generally unloved by society. We are constantly asked why we don't do things like other churches in the area, and the simple truth is why should we if they're already covering those bases? Not that we shouldn't have similarities, because if we're a "church" then by default, we should ALL have several HUGE common denominators. This is not necessarily what I'm talking about. More along the lines of pick a target group and minister to them well.

Typically, churches, driven by desire to minister and grow, try to reach too many different types of people. It almost sounds weird to say that, but again, in my opinion, it seems to click when we focus our efforts and use our talents, resources, and energies in a focused and intentional way, the results are far more rewarding then if we try to "do it all" to reach a whole bunch of different people.

I think it's hard on our people, and almost in a subtle unseen way, promotes a "natural" division within our walls, when we create "preference-driven" services. It's almost like we are saying that it's okay to put ourselves first. In our church culture here from the "front to the back" we promote an "it's not about me" attitude. And we are very explicit in teaching our people that our gatherings are about serving God and serving others. So everyone knows and expects our primary gathering to be what it is, and they know why.

Please, don't take this as me saying that it's wrong to have more than one type of service. I'm just thinking that good could be best if we didn't "scatter" our focus, sometimes.

Now all that being said, I'm not advocating or slamming a "preference-based" selection of churches. Everyone should follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their own unique situations. Truly, if God is leading you into more than one style of gathering per weekend, than go for it! Be Blessed!

[El Ben]

For me, I've always thought that two seperate services weren't a great idea for a couple of reasons:

1.) There's the marked danger of division between the attendees of the two services and the danger of just plain old disunity in general.

2.) Leadership obviouslly differes from one service to the other, so what happens when they come together? How do you respond as a leader? The contemporary way or the traditional way.

3.) Someone will always develop an opinion that one service or the other is "right" while the other is "wrong," and eventually one service will be favored over the other. Let's just be honest, in an ideal world, it wouldn't happen this way, but in the real world, I'll admit that I'd end up favoring the contemporary service and probably responding accordingly.

4.) It can be confusing for visitors to find a place to belong, be it in the contemporary or the traditional service. It doesn't have to be, but it could be.


This is not to make a shot at churches who have two seperate services, because I know of some churches that have made it work (mostly Baptist). I'm with Fred, though. It's all up to your Senior Pastor. It's ultimately his vision that's going to decide the direction you go.

[FreedbyJC]

We have two services- exactly the same- with a blended style of worship. We went to 2 services due to the size of the facility and the need for additional classroom space. We did not want to do two diiferent services but srtive t obe one church meeting at two times. There are always monor differences-decision, decications ordinations, promotopons but we announce what hapaens in one att he other if its not plannned and announce planned activites wel in advance. We are steady in the attendance to both [~40% attend @9 am and ~60 % @10:30 am]

For our people who enjoy a more contemporary we had a Youth Praise 2-3 times a year but we lost alot to graduations so we've not done on in a while. We also have our Hour of Praise- Every 5th Sunday of the month [~quarterly]. We have no 'sermon' but an hour of praise music, prayer, devotions and communion [we have communion every Lord's Day]. During this hour of Praise, we have a lost of differing styles of music- not to cater to the crowd but to offer a realse of the gifting of our members. The Praise Team usually leads the majority of corporate praise times and we have 3 ensembles and various soloists that periodically lead worship in their differing styles. The other two ensembles 'do "special" music' that is non-particapatory [one is a female CCM and the other is male Southern Gospel] and more perfomance. My mixed emsemble enjoys Southern Gospel but we are always seeking to do an upbeat "Praise the lord" type of music that lends the church particpating by either singing, or clapping along. We also do CCM pieces and usually do the call to worship for our the Hour of praise or a section of it -Potter's Hand, Ancient Words, How Great is Our God, Get on Your Feet etc.

[worshiptrench]

It only works well if you actually do the NorthCoast thing (see P.S. disclaimer below) and have several different styles where musical style then becomes tertiary rather than secondary. In our consulting work, churches doing one trad or trad/blend and one contemporary almost always have trouble. Much of it becomes a financial issue. You have money for new staff. The trad needs another scorer and the modern needs a competent tech director, trad wants organ repair/mod wants sub repair. Where do the resources flow? Some churches are able to deal with this well. Others are not. The least attended style soon become the stepchild.

Also, like it or not...certain musical styles attract certain personalities. At NorthWood, we need "risk takers" to accomplish what God has called us to do globally, having lay people use their vocations to engage domains of society in dangerous places rather than the traditional go be a full-time missionary approach. We found out that these folks were attracted more to a modern style of worship. The style doesn't drive the vision, it follows it.

(P.S. I also would not do a video venue service when I could raise up a gifted young leader and let him plant rather than piping in the "superstar", but that is another post altogether. NorthWood has started 90 churches and has 0 venues very intentionally. Little soapboxy on this, sorry.)

[MarkSooy]

Please keep in mind the need for continuity with the history of the church. If there is anything we can learn from the Fundamentalist movement of the 20th Century, it's that distancing oneself from history often causes a "thinning" of depth. Have you ever heard of a church that's "a mile wide and an inch deep?"

Even in churches that are discipling many new unChurched people into the faith, it is critical that they are connected to the broader, historical tradition within Christianity. Again, we learn this from the draw in the late 20th Century that many Orthodox wings of the Church had for many evangelicals, and their subsequent "defection" to Orthodox faith. This is also critical in the post-modern age when truth is considered relative to the present and the individual.

Listen to the wisdom of those who are "tolerating" the change. They may have some important insights...

[russhutto]

Please keep in mind the need for continuity with the history of the church. If there is anything we can learn from the Fundamentalist movement of the 20th Century, it's that distancing oneself from history often causes a "thinning" of depth. Have you ever heard of a church that's "a mile wide and an inch deep?"

Even in churches that are discipling many new unChurched people into the faith, it is critical that they are connected to the broader, historical tradition within Christianity. Again, we learn this from the draw in the late 20th Century that many Orthodox wings of the Church had for many evangelicals, and their subsequent "defection" to Orthodox faith. This is also critical in the post-modern age when truth is considered relative to the present and the individual.

Listen to the wisdom of those who are "tolerating" the change. They may have some important insights...

Hey Mark, could you elaborate please? I've got a pretty decent vocabulary, but somehow the concepts soared over my head there. :eek:

I love where you're coming from but would like to see a little more so that I can be sure I understand exactly what you're saying.

Thanks.

[El Ben]

Actually, it's not so much the vocabulary that threw me off here, it's the general vagueness of the post. I read it three times and still didn't get it. What particular aspects of church history are you talking about, Mark?

[MarkSooy]

In referencing the "Fundamentalists" more directly, I would say that this perspective often shows itself in the common perception that all I need for my faith is "me and my bible." By promoting the supremacy of Scripture (which I would agree with) the Fundamentalist movement denigrated the value of theological history (which I disagree with). Our faith and doctrinal beliefs were developed over many years of discussion and prayer by great men of faith. To lay that history aside is detrimental to our task, yet often the practice of churches in the Fundamentalist ilk.

We would never find this attitude in the Reformers, for example. Each of the "big three" (Luther, Calvin & Zwingli) promoted the supremacy of Scripture, and at the same time held closely to the development of Christian doctrine in the Creeds and the Fathers (especially Augustine). Though raised in a fundamentalist setting, I would hold much more closely with the Reformers on this.

In relation to worship, one can find the writings and work of Robert Webber very enlightening and important. He is certainly one of the key thinkers in the late 20th Century to re-introduce the value of tradition and history in the realm of worship. Dr. Webber's model of "Ancient-future" worship, though limiting in some respects, draws attention to our need for connection with Church history. To see how this resonates with younger leaders in the church refer to his book "The Younger Evangelicals." This book is a good read for a worship leader.

So even when many in our churches have no particular connection to the church in their youth (they are "unchurched"), I still think it to be our responsibility, as they become a part of the church, to help them see, feel, and understand the continuity of faith through the ages. What binds us together as Christians is not ourselves, but the work and presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church over these centuries.

I hope that clarifies some of the background of my original thoughts.

[worshiptrench]

Yes, Mark I agree.

Church History did not start when Luther posted his thesis. Many Protestants (of which i am one) teach that the church was a wasteland before that time. It was still God's bride even before the reformation (just maybe with some zits, but then every period of church history, including ours, has its zits). People need to be introduced to Chrysostom, Augustine and others.

one tip, if you do an ancient song, occasionally put in into context of the period of history it happened (kind of the "story behind the music" approach)...it really helps worshipers focus their mind's attention. I wouldn't do it everytime though because it then makes hymns seem foreign rather than integrated into the flow of worship...just do it you would add vanilla to a cake frosting...a little dab (and not that cheesy imitation vanilla, REAL mexican vanilla only please)