I recently came across a blog post and discussion about the tradition of church meetings on Wednesday and Sunday nights.
One fairly-common response might be characterized like this: “I understand mid-week meetings. A few days after Sunday, it’s good to be with your church family and to be reminded of the things that matter most. In fact, some of my best times, highest moments, have been on Wednesday nights. But I just don’t get the Sunday-night thing.”
Maybe not, but if you’re a long-time member of the Church of Christ, chances are the habit of “Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night” feels sacrosanct. Doesn’t it?
Not only that, to even suggest that maybe we should perhaps think about considering (dare I say it?) not meeting a second time on Sunday seems like a deal with the devil.
But having now touched the ground where Faust might have feared to tread (brave me), not to mention that I’m well into my fifth decade of going to church meetings three times a week, I want to ask:
1. Where did Sunday-night meetings come from anyway? Where and when were the beginnings of that tradition? An armchair church historian, I’m embarrassed to admit that I don’t have a clue about this one. Yes, I could start digging on my own. But I won’t make the time to do that these days; and, besides, I can ask you.
2. I’m aware that things are done differently from church to church. In fact, assuming the norms as much as they often do, Church of Christ people might just be surprised to discover the real diversity among the congregations. (I say that, of course, believing that I have visited many more congregations of the Church of Christ than most of our people. And I’m right about that). But here’s my question: For those who have tampered with the time-honored tradition, what are the variations? Why were the changes made? And how has that alternate weekly rhythm worked out for the church?
Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Frank,
Great post as always!
I love that song tradition in the Fiddler on the Roof. Some traditions are good. They are inriching. Meaningful.
But...
I belive it is easy of Chrisitans especially those in the church of Christ to go through the traditions without ever knowing how they were started and why. Sunday night I know was started at our church because some members couldn't go to church on Sunday morning and need to take communion. Another church that I was at didn't have Sunday night or Wed. night church at all they met in homes on those nights. Which I loved so much.
I think it might be a different answer for every church maybe. I see that we are independant, non-denominational so the reason traditions get started may be different from every church. When we think we can't break the tradition or we see the tradition as God ordained that is when it become wrong.
I pray that the traditions in the church will never take precident over what God wills for his people, and that we will be free from those traditions that bind us to those who love legalism. I don't have all the answer and don't think I will even know the answers to these questions but that is what I think about your questions. It may vary from churches.
God bless you and thank you for this great post.
Frank,
I've been enjoying your blog for a number of weeks now to the extent that I've added a link to your blog on my blog. We are practically neighbors with me up here preaching in Southwes Kansas. I go to Amarillo now and then.
Anyhow, regarding this post, I read an article a number of years ago by Lynn Anderson--I think in Wineskins back when it was a print magazine. I can look for the exact reference for you, but if memory serves me it seems that Anderson said the Sunday PM assembly originated in rural America as we were making the transition into a more urban culture. People from the outskirts of the city used to come into town for AM worship. New gaslights had been installed in some of these cities' streets and some people would hang around to see them. Since the Christians were in town anyway, they would meet together and these evening meetings finally evolved into formal worship assemblies, which have since become a non-negotiable test of faithfulness to some.
As far as alternate formats go, we have small groups every other Sunday night. We began doing them every week, but we cut back to appease the naysayers (not my decision). Anyhow, we started them for the purpose of building a deeper fellowship and to possibly integrate newcomers into the life of the church at a less intimidating entry level. But frankly speaking :) the groups have been more effective for the deeper fellopwship than for evangelistic purposes. I find that oftimes newcomers would rather attend the larger assembly and remain incognito for a time while they check things out.
Of course we have the inevitable group that meets at the building for those who almost think it's sinful to meet in homes. Their argument is that the body was not divided as such in the 1st century. I say, how do they know? In a larger city, there may have been several houses churches. And even now there may be a Northside Church and a Southsdie Church.
There are pros and cons to the traditional Sunday night worship. With work schedules as they are and more and more businesses open 7 days a week, the only opportunity some have to hear a sermon or take the Lord's Supper is Sunday night because they work Sunday morning.
A big pro for Sunday night small groups is the deeper fellowship that they build. A night other than Sunday would not work because there is too much competition from sports, scouts, etc.
An overlooked advantage of no Sunday night preaching is that the preacher has more time to visit and be involved in people's lives through the week as opposed to being so bogged down with all that extra preparation.
I was brought up to believe that SUnday night's primary purpose was for those who couldn't be there on Sunday morning could partake of the Lord's Supper. It may have been oversimplified for my childhood's understanding but that is the story.
I have not gone to a church with formal Sunday evening services in over 4 years now. The last one I went to had gone to two separate SUnday night services that varied in worship style (this ended up having a splitting effect).
Here is what I like about not having SUnday night services. It does provide more opprotunity for fellowship in homes if it is encouraged. It does provide for a more relaxed Sunday for my family.
The one thing I miss is that Sunday night was where I cut my songleading , preaching and public prayer teeth. I even got my first chance lead the Sunday night Lord's Supper. It was kind of the minor leagues of the Sunday Morning Worship.
However, not having that time forces churches to incorporate the young into the "regular" worship. The church I attend now uses the 5th sunday as youth sunday and gives them control of the worship. They also use the youth on "regular" Sundays as well.
Yesterday, a 4th grade young man read scripture and you couldn't see his eyes over the pulpit. But he did an outstanding job of reading scripture. I am glad the full fellowship got to see that instead of just the smaller Sunday night crowd.
I'm pretty sure there were two factors that led to the near-canonization of Sunday night services.
First, in rural churches, it was for farmers who were trying to get the harvest in and needed all the daylight hours they could use. Offering them the chance to take communion, sing and hear a sermon was a nice use of technology (electric lights) around the turn of the century.
It split many churches. People complained that it would make people more complacent. There were also those who didn't want the church to be on the main power grid -- thinking that would make churches dependent upon the government.
The other factor was World War II. This was more for people in urban areas who worked split-shifts, and they simply employed a solution that had been in practice in rural churches for some time and had now achieved a status of acceptance. It was considered a patriotic thing to do, and it had the effect of unifying church practices in both the city and the country.
Post a Comment