Segregated worship churches are really individual/separate churches.

[ALAYMAN]

If you are pastoring a church with two services, you are in fact pastoring two churches.

link

The author of this quote undoubtedly intends the "two services" to mean differing styles of services ("blended services"). 

Whaddayathink?  Any merit to the assertion?

 

[T-Bone]

Actually the term blended refers to one service with both praise choruses and hymns.  The thought of the author to me is that when you have more than one service offered on Sunday morning there is no way for the whole church to feel like they are one body, as they never worship together...therefore the pastor is really pastoring more than one congregation.

That is what I think he is saying.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Actually the term blended refers to one service with both praise choruses and hymns.

ahhh, that makes sense.  Sorry bout using the wrong terminology.

  The thought of the author to me is that when you have more than one service offered on Sunday morning there is no way for the whole church to feel like they are one body, as they never worship together...therefore the pastor is really pastoring more than one congregation.

That is what I think he is saying.

Yes, that's it. 

My take on it was that there are mega-churches that have to have multiple services (like Hedied4U) because of the size of the congregation, or, there are some churches that have one contemporary service and then a more traditional service in the same morning.  Either situation could apply to what he is asserting.

 

[T-Bone]

Actually the term blended refers to one service with both praise choruses and hymns.

ahhh, that makes sense.  Sorry bout using the wrong terminology.

  The thought of the author to me is that when you have more than one service offered on Sunday morning there is no way for the whole church to feel like they are one body, as they never worship together...therefore the pastor is really pastoring more than one congregation.

That is what I think he is saying.

Yes, that's it. 

My take on it was that there are mega-churches that have to have multiple services (like Hedied4U) because of the size of the congregation, or, there are some churches that have one contemporary service and then a more traditional service in the same morning.  Either situation could apply to what he is asserting.

I think you are correct.

 

[Wisdoms Friend]

A couple of thoughts...

* Years ago, when our church was young, we purchased a small church building on a small piece of property.  Within 2 years, there was no more room. We knocked the walls out on the side of the auditorium (where classrooms had been) to gain a little more space, but ended up having two Sunday morning services simply to accommodate the growth.  We had the same music, same message, same order of service, etc.  We did this for about 2 years before recognizing that our two toilet building just could not accommodate 200+ people, even with double services.  Shortly after, we purchased another church building and property which was large enough to handle our congregation size, as well as future growth.  At that time we went back to single services.  We truly did not feel that we were two congregations, but were temporarily having two services.  Our most faithful members and dedicated laborers in the ministry voluntarily shifted to the early service for those 2 1/2 years, and our later service was primarily where our elderly, visitors and occasional attenders came. 

* In our area, several churches have attempted the "two services, one church" format to accommodate contemporary vs. traditional services.  None of these have worked.  The churches that survive are those who make a choice in format and go with it... either contemporary or traditional or blended.  When the services are intentionally different, then you create an "us" vs. "them" mentality.  One service will become the dominant, and the other feel they are being slighted.  Three churches in our immediate area switched to this format in the past 10 years, and all three have now closed.  The 20 something kids were not able to support the church financially, and the older members fled with their checkbooks, and the result is fewer churches.  It is sad.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Very interesting anecdotal testimony.  It seems to indicate that both the philosophy of an ekklesia and their actual coming together physically with regularity as significant factors in the cohesion of an assembly.  Of course the argument put forth in the link was a bit more academic, claiming that the ekklesia was defined by not only those two factors, but also their purpose (preaching, praying, etc).

A couple of thoughts...

* Years ago, when our church was young, we purchased a small church building on a small piece of property.  Within 2 years, there was no more room. We knocked the walls out on the side of the auditorium (where classrooms had been) to gain a little more space, but ended up having two Sunday morning services simply to accommodate the growth.  We had the same music, same message, same order of service, etc.  We did this for about 2 years before recognizing that our two toilet building just could not accommodate 200+ people, even with double services.  Shortly after, we purchased another church building and property which was large enough to handle our congregation size, as well as future growth.  At that time we went back to single services.  We truly did not feel that we were two congregations, but were temporarily having two services.  Our most faithful members and dedicated laborers in the ministry voluntarily shifted to the early service for those 2 1/2 years, and our later service was primarily where our elderly, visitors and occasional attenders came. 

* In our area, several churches have attempted the "two services, one church" format to accommodate contemporary vs. traditional services.  None of these have worked.  The churches that survive are those who make a choice in format and go with it... either contemporary or traditional or blended.  When the services are intentionally different, then you create an "us" vs. "them" mentality.  One service will become the dominant, and the other feel they are being slighted.  Three churches in our immediate area switched to this format in the past 10 years, and all three have now closed.  The 20 something kids were not able to support the church financially, and the older members fled with their checkbooks, and the result is fewer churches.  It is sad.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

If you are pastoring a church with two services, you are in fact pastoring two churches.

link

The author of this quote undoubtedly intends the "two services" to mean differing styles of services ("blended services"). 

Whaddayathink?  Any merit to the assertion?

Our church has two services, and both services are blended, if you will.  We sing traditional hymns, but also praise and worship music that may include CC.  We usually have preaching, sometimes accompanied by drama and skits, but all faithful to the word of God.

 

[Izdaari]

My old AoG church has three services on Sunday: early morning (traditional), mostly attended by the elderly and other early risers; late morning (blended); and evening (contemporary). Partly that's because of size, and partly to accommodate different schedules and style preferences. All three services get the same message, only the style differs. People from the same service do of course have more contact, but there's enough stuff going on that brings them together, special events, small groups, etc., so it doesn't feel like three separate churches. This is not an experiment, they've been doing it for years. It works fine and it's their normal pattern.

My new church has one morning service and one evening service, and the evening service is actually the main one, the most heavily attended. Again that's partly for reasons of size, and to accommodate different schedules. The style is the same at both.

 

[OverIt]

IFB churches have been following this practice for years with a separate Spanish service.

 

[OZZY]

IFB churches have been following this practice for years with a separate Spanish service.

That is why any church that starts a Spanish ministry should have it become an independent Church when has sufficient members that can support it. 

 

[Just John]

It is a broad brush really. Some anecdotal here that some work and others don't. I think you have to define exactly what a "church" in this equation equals. My church had 10 or 12 venues on campus and all with different music styles. The message was the same. Were they all the same church or different churches? Did it matter?

The key I think was there wasn't an issue of ego as to which was better....they were just all "different" with the sum being greater than the whole. And because the church was small group focused I think it made a big difference too. Make sense?

 

[HeDied4U]

Actually the term blended refers to one service with both praise choruses and hymns.

ahhh, that makes sense.  Sorry bout using the wrong terminology.

  The thought of the author to me is that when you have more than one service offered on Sunday morning there is no way for the whole church to feel like they are one body, as they never worship together...therefore the pastor is really pastoring more than one congregation.

That is what I think he is saying.

Yes, that's it. 

My take on it was that there are mega-churches that have to have multiple services (like Hedied4U) because of the size of the congregation, or, there are some churches that have one contemporary service and then a more traditional service in the same morning.  Either situation could apply to what he is asserting.

Yep, that's us. Four weekend services, but the same music style and the same message at each service time. Our church has a "satellite" campus about 20/25 miles away; the pastor there does the same sermon but they sing different songs.