Adding contemporary service to our Sunday schedule

**Michaeldt** · 10-22-2012, 09:04 AM

Good morning friends,

Wanted to throw this out to the group. Our church pastoral staff has been praying about and discussing dropping our Sunday evening service for awhile now. The evening service has dwindled in the past years and over the last three months we've averaged about 25-30 in our evening service.

Along with that, there is also some discussion about adding a contemporary service to our Sunday morning schedule. So our regular service would become a more "traditional" service (hymns, etc.) and the contemporary service would be modern praise and worship music.

What I'd like to find out is if any of you folks have gone through that transition in your church of adding a more modern service, and what, if any, barriers or struggles you were faced with.

The first thought would be to have a traditional service around 9am, then Sunday School around 10:15, and the contemporary service after SS, probably around 11:30. I'm sure through discussions the times will be tweaked a bit, but I'm just throwing that out as an example.

So, who has gone through this before in your church, and what are some things we should be considering.

As far as the musical aspect of things, it's thrilling for me to know that there will be a set time that we'll be able to worship with hymns and the more traditional music, and then another set time that we'll be able to stretch our tents a little with the modern praise music. I have to admit I'm nervous about the planning aspects of it, but I'm also excited about the possibilities that are being put in our path.

I would appreciate all who would comment on what your church, your music ministry went through during such a transition/change.

michael

p.s.

I might add to this that currently our Sunday morning services are blended musically, and even though we've been doing that for a few years now, it still meets some kind dissention from different congregation members.

**milepost13** · 10-22-2012, 11:21 AM

As somebody who has been on staff at two churches who have attempted both a traditional and a contemporary service, what you are about to do will either create a schizophrenic church or two completely separate churches. Either way, you will no longer have one healthy church.

Nate

**Mike on Bass** · 10-22-2012, 03:10 PM

There are going to be different experiences and different things to consider.

The biggest one to consider- will this ultimately move the church forward in reaching others for Christ, or will it hinder? We can do a lot of things for our own convenience or appeasement and justify it one way or another.

Sunday evening service- our church gets about that many as well. However, those that are there are treated to a more interactive, deeper and thorough preaching/teaching than a standard AM service. The people who are there are deliberately there- they made a choice to seek out more of God's word. Also, our PM service is often attended by those who can't make the AM service because they work a weekend shift. It's not always about leadership's convenience. Keep that in mind while making the decision to end the service. There are a few options

- What are people getting out of it? Is the preaching/teaching growing people, or is it more obligatory, like people are there because it's open?
- What will the church gain spiritually by ending this service? How will this help people grow their walk with God?
- Are there needs that will be unfulfilled, such as those who work, those with other reasons not to attend the AM service? For example we have a couple of people who attend our PM service because their health condition makes the AM service run a higher risk of them being injured by all the kids we have running around.
- What does the Bible say about it?

-From our perspective, the thought process is pretty simple. We are living in a time where the church, Christians, and religion as a whole is under attack. More people are hurting from bad relationships, substance abuses, and the world filling their lives with a bunch of self-destructive vices. Do we (as in my church) think a proper response to this situation would be to have less church? We don't think so.

As far as having two services, I know there are some that try it, but the ones I know of in my area that try it usually abandon it about a year or so later. They found out it was basically maintaining and pastoring two churches and it caused more problems than it cured. They tried to appease the older generation who were grumbling about the change and appease the younger who want to hear more Tomlin and guitars. It has a HUGE potential to backfire and no one is pleased, and with all the extra drama, about 1/3 of your church leaves. Again, I'd ask the questions-

- How will this help make my church stronger, and move forward in Kingdom work?
- Will having these services unite my church or further divide it?
- What does the Bible say about it?

p.s.

I might add to this that currently our Sunday morning services are blended musically, and even though we've been doing that for a few years now, it still meets some kind dissention from different congregation members.

You will ALWAYS have people complain about something. That's a pretty weak reason to make that drastic of a change. You can't lead a with a goal of trying to make everyone happy. If you start appeasing complainers, others will complain and everyone will think they can get their way.

As far as modernizing service, 90% of it is communication. Lay out a plan to move forward. Take time to explain and listen to concerns. Be respectful, but lay it out as -'here's where we are at, here's where we need to go, here's how we are going to get there. I appreciate where we've been, but it's time to move forward'.

Also, do it in phases. Let people adapt to it. Give them opportunities to get involved. Let them feel like part of the process. Don't blindside people with it.

Be prepared that some people will leave. Don't sweat it. If they want to be hard-hearted and stubborn, that's their choice. It's also a sign of spiritual immaturity. They aren't going to be happy with anything. You can pray for them and be sad to see them go, but you can't give in to them if they throw a tantrum like a spoiled teenager that's going to 'run away' if they don't get what they want.

Hope this helps,
Mike

**Deuce** · 10-22-2012, 08:13 PM

The church I used to attend has had 2 separate services for the last 15 years with just minor grumbling.
I really don't see the issue there. Everyone finds the service that fits their schedule.

**efrisch** · 10-23-2012, 01:35 AM

There are always exceptions, but unfortunately my experiences have been similar to Nate's. Many traditional churches that add contemporary experiences end up with divided congregations. One or both of the services end up under resourced, and animosity begins to develop. Or the leadership overestimates the support for contemporary styles in the current congregation.

I love all styles, but my general opinion is that each church should focus on the style that most identifies with its people. I think it's okay to be a great traditional church. I also think it's possible to be a healthy church with both styles, but these churches seem to be the exception to the rule. Ultimately, only your church will be able to figure out whether or not it's the right move for you, but I would proceed with caution.

**Suzi Best** · 10-23-2012, 04:20 AM

Well to throw the cat among the pigeons so to speak, I have been involved in Churches for the last 8 years who have at least two if not three totally different services per Sunday, and one even four, and they often had people attending more than one of them. The Church I attend now is the only one I have been to that does not do that, and it is more divided than any other Church I have ever been to! I don't personally think that a Church being divided has any relevance having differing services.

In the past I have attended Churches who had a traditional service earlier, a contemporary service later and an evening partial outreach or youth orientated service for the evening and sometimes even a mid-week totally outreach focused service. They were all well supported and they all had a purpose.

I think personally that something you would have to consider, is something that we have had drummed into us at Bible College this semester, and something close to what I think someone else has already said on here, if you are going to do something, there needs to be a good reason - our tutor calls it being "intentional". I agree with what else has been said, you need to plan, discuss and get people on board. I also agree that some will leave, but so be it. You can never please some people, sadly.

On another note, we are blessed at the Church I am at now, to have even 20-30 people at our main service! So I guess numbers are all relevant, and if you consider how Jesus told the parable about the 1 lost sheep, it shows how much he thinks about numbers... each one of us is important to him.

Blessings, Suz

**merry** · 10-23-2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by efrisch

I love all styles, but my general opinion is that each church should focus on the style that most identifies with its people. I think it's okay to be a great traditional church. I also think it's possible to be a healthy church with both styles, but these churches seem to be the exception to the rule. Ultimately, only your church will be able to figure out whether or not it's the right move for you, but I would proceed with caution.

This. 100x.

The congregation we are in had one blended service then changed to one traditional and one contemporary about 5-6 years ago or so. That was before we moved here, so we were not part of that. We have heard lots of stories from a number of people. One of the worst things that happened is that church leadership allowed people to be intensely critical of the "other side" and did not address that negative spirit. Going to two services of different styles has been successful on some levels and unsuccessful on other levels. In the "traditional" service, there are people who want more variety and more contemporary. In the "contemporary" service, there are people who want more variety and more traditional. People who think music needs to be their way still thinks it needs to be their way.

My husband has served as interim music minister twice now during the time we have been here and we have both been actively involved in music the whole time we have been here (4.5 years). He puts a lot of effort into gently incorporating more contemporary music in the traditional service. And he also throws a few hymns (usually contemporary-styled) into the contemporary service.

The leadership in the last couple years has worked hard to foster a spirit of unity among the whole body and intentionally planned multi-generational activities to help it not be "two churches in one building".

The overall spirit of the church has been "improving", and after a lot of really difficult times, people are now starting to value the people and overall ministry of the church over the style of music. A lot of people have left in the process. And a lot of people have been hurt in the process.

All that to say this: Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? I don't know. Will it be easy? No way.

**Michaeldt** · 10-23-2012, 10:54 AM

Thanks everyone for your replies and experiences.

I have to add this; I am actually quite torn about it personally. As a 40 something guy I grew up in a small, small, small baptist church singing all the traditional hymns. My exposure to praise music and contemporary music was not until well into my 30's, mainly because in my late teens and twenties I drifted away from church and my main diet of music was hard rock/country/jazz.

When the HS started being more adamant in my life and God turned me around again, it was refreshing to start learning how to worship daily instead of just weekly, and now there was the already popular modern music. I didn't just flock to it and spurn hymns at all, but I have a love for both (which it seems some in our church are dead set on one style or the other). My personal worship in our church is not hindered because we're singing "The Old Rugged Cross", nor is it hindered because we're singing "Holy Is The Lord", but I find myself worshiping regardless of the songs played (and this was before I started serving as "the music guy" for our church).

So I can admit to you folks here (hopefully some of you can relate) that it bugs me a little when I listen to someone say they cannot worship to hymns, or they cannot worship to modern praise music, they don't "feel it", or this music or that music only affects them this way or that way...when it is overwhelmingly clear that they are making a case as to what they want to hear or what they want to sing to....and bottom line (in my humble opinion) is that it's not about them, it's not about me, but it should be all about God. (OK OK......I'm ranting.........sorry)

So as far as I'm concerned, we could keep our Sunday morning service blended (as it is currently) and I'd just be giddy about that, being able to sing and play a hymn backed up by a Paul Baloche tune, etc. . .

I know I could be very comfortable in either setting, traditional, contemporary, blended, whatever; mainly because my main focus is helping our congregation turn our thoughts and our Sunday mornings to a vertical position instead of a horizontal position, and focus on Jesus instead of focusing on ourselves.

There are a number of options to consider, even the option of not doing anything for now. I know our church leadership doesn't want to be callous to the desires of our members, but also I'm sure they are praying and consulting and wanting to provide the best possible aspects of worship for our members and guests who come and worship with us.

So, I guess I've written a lot of words and not really said anything.........sorry