Divided Worship Service?

[aggie03]

I have heard that there are growing number of people who want to "divide" the congregation when the saints come together. The most recent thing that I have heard is an idea that is called "children's worship". The idea is dividing the congregation up into two separate groups so that one can watch the children while the other group worships. The same will happen later so that the other group can worship.

What do you all think about this?

[Freedom&Light]

I don't necessarily like it, but my church does it and I can see some good points.

Children's church is good because it preaches the message on a child's level- but I think it's only really good until 5th or 6th grade. Then, the kids need to be in the regular service.

If a church is HUGE, then I think they not only need separate services, but they *need* small groups, so that people don't become lost.

But, I do worry that it separates the body. So I don't know.

:)

[constance]

I had some amazing experiences as a child in Junior Church. I had a hard time paying attention in Senior Church. I think I learned more in Junior Church.

My daughter benefits much more from Junior Church than Senior Church - and it isn't "dividing the adults of the congregation".

I would like to see the scriptural points that are mentioned.

Thanks,

Constance, current Disciples of Christ church member

[aggie03]

Well that's just the point isn't? I can't find authority in the Scriptures for dividing the worship service.

[WesWoodell]

I believe we should be more interested in what is going to reach the lost. If a divided worship service is going to make it easier to reach the lost, I'm all for it.

The younger generations (young adults) tend to enjoy a more contempory worship service. Older generations tend to enjoy the more traditional. Children have a hard time grasping teachings that are geared toward adults.

I'm all for whatever is going to most effectivly reach the lost, and if a divided worship service is the means to reach that goal, I'll support it.

[constance]

Yes, I assumed that since someone voted "The scriptures are against this" that someone in their infinite wisdom would be able to point out which particular one. :)

Constance

[otter272]

Well that's just the point isn't? I can't find authority in the Scriptures for dividing the worship service.

True, but keep in mind that the Scriptures also don't say anything against it either.

[aggie03]

I believe we should be more interested in what is going to reach the lost.

I believe that we should be most interested in doing what God has said. If we do what God has said, then HE will reach the lost. I can't find anywhere in the Scriptures where it talks about dividing the saints when they come together; in other words, there is no authority for it.

The younger generations (young adults) tend to enjoy a more contempory worship service. Older generations tend to enjoy the more traditional. Children have a hard time grasping teachings that are geared toward adults.

Should we worship the way that I like or the way that God has provided?

I'm all for whatever is going to most effectivly reach the lost, and if a divided worship service is the means to reach that goal, I'll support it.

I suppose that I should add at the end of this that nothing you seem to have suggested as a reason for dividing up a congregation cannot be accomplished without doing so. Not every single person may glean a complete understanding from every lesson and some may be beneath others. This can happen no matter where you are and no matter who is preaching. Additionally, it is not the preacher's job to study for the congregation. We all have Bibles, we should use them.

Your focus on "reaching the lost" does bring up another interesting question that fits rather well into this discussion. Can you think of a single incident in the New Testament where someone was saved during what we would call "the worship service" today? Off the top of my head, I can't. This may be because the worship service was not used to convert people - it was used to worship God. It seems as though individual Christians took the gospel where ever they went and used the word of God to save people.

It's a little late, so I just wanted to clarify that this is not a "mean" post :) I'm not sure how it will sound when you read it. I hope to hear back from you soon.

[aggie03]

True, but keep in mind that the Scriptures also don't say anything against it either.

Oh, I think that they do. In telling Christians to assemble together that seems to directly speak against the dividing of them apart. In support of this, I do not see a single time in the New Testament when the Christians in the first century gathered together to worship God and then divided up before doing so.

[WesWoodell]

I believe that we should be most interested in doing what God has said. If we do what God has said, then HE will reach the lost. I can't find anywhere in the Scriptures where it talks about dividing the saints when they come together; in other words, there is no authority for it.

And He has commanded us to reach the lost.



Should we worship the way that I like or the way that God has provided?


We should worship God in spirit and in truth. That can be done many different ways, and you're right. It's not about you, it's about Him. One of the greatest ways we bring glory to God is to introduce Him to those who are lost.



Your focus on "reaching the lost" does bring up another interesting question that fits rather well into this discussion. Can you think of a single incident in the New Testament where someone was saved during what we would call "the worship service" today? Off the top of my head, I can't. This may be because the worship service was not used to convert people - it was used to worship God. It seems as though individual Christians took the gospel where ever they went and used the word of God to save people.

Good point. But what about preaching?

Should we take culture into consideration? I believe we all should - and I will. I'm not going to get hung up on traditions of men. I certainly will not go against what the Bible commands, but at the same time I'm not going to get hung up on the cookie-cutter church of Christ dogma that has caused congregations to average around 40 members nationwide.

After much study, the mainstream idea of "restoration" isn't a very good one to me. I agree that our doctrines should be exactly the same as the apostles, and I agree that the spirit and the motives behind our actions should be exactly the same as the apostles, but I do not believe the church today is the church of the first century simply because we are living in the 21st century.

When I think of the bulk of the church of Christ, I do not think of the first century. I think of 1950s america. That's a whole other discussion though.:)

[aggie03]

And He has commanded us to reach the lost.

Yes, but how has he commanded us to reach the lost? When has he commanded us to reach the lost? We must also remember that there are other commands besides this one (understood and derived through command, example or necessary inference) and they must be followed as well. With regard to the worship service, if we do not have authority for doing something then we should not do it. Can you find a place in the Scriptures where through command, example or necessary inference one could make a case for a divided worship service? I've read through Acts twice since we've started this thread and I haven't been able to find anything yet.

We should worship God in spirit and in truth. That can be done many different ways, and you're right. It's not about you, it's about Him. One of the greatest ways we bring glory to God is to introduce Him to those who are lost.

But again, shouldn't we be doing this in ways that God has authorized? If we follow the example of the New Testament Christians they reached the lost outside of what we would call the "worship service". They preached everywhere and all the time. Paul even went to Jewish services (Acts 13:14-41) and even before a ruling council in Athens (Acts 17:19).

It seems as though we tend to not follow this pattern of personal evangelism at all times and in all ways, but have fallen into an unscriptural slothfulness, if you will, with regard to dragging people to an assembly.

Good point. But what about preaching?

Currently, from the studies I have been doing with regard to this topic, I have seen the following two examples of preaching in the New Testament:

1. In 2 Timothy 4:2 Timothy is told by Paul to preach the word so that he could "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching". This seems to be referring to things that are said to individuals who are already Christians. This is the kind of preaching that we ought to hear when we come together in an assembly: preaching from a saint for other saints.

2. In Acts 8:35 Phillip was "preaching Jesus" to the Ethiopian eunuch who was not a Christian. This was an exchange between two individuals where one was saved and the other was not. The saved person was providing the lost person with the information that he needed so he could come into a right relationship with God. This also happens between a single person and large groups of "unsaved" people. Paul and his actions in the Areopagus (Acts 17) are a good example of this.

The only passage that I have found so far that seems to leave these two patterns is 1 Corinthians 14:23,24, but the individuals who are not saved come in after the church has assembled together making it seem they heard or saw something and were drawn to the group. Even in these instances, however, we find no pattern that would suggest the assembly should be altered because there is an unbeliever in the midst. This seems to strengthen the idea that the assembling of the saints was not used specifically in order to teach non-Christians about Jesus, but if they happened to walk in they certainly would not be turned away :)

Should we take culture into consideration? I believe we all should - and I will.

I think we should consider culture, too. Where I worship we hold our worship services in English, people dress in American clothing styles and we are finished in the morning by our culturally defined "lunch hour". All these things are taking culture into consideration. Taking culture into consideration does not mean that we can alter our worship from the patterns in the Scriptures simply because some people like it better - that would be following after men rather than God.

I'm not going to get hung up on traditions of men.

Then we can't let men dictate how we woship - we have to let the Scriptures alone do that. This is a very admirable thing, and I will admit that for me this is a very difficult thing. I was not always a Christian and come from a background deeply entrenched in traditions of men. I battle to overcome that evey day, so each day I read the Scriptures and try to change my life, evey aspect of it, to fit the things that God has said in the Bible.

I certainly will not go against what the Bible commands, but at the same time I'm not going to get hung up on the cookie-cutter church of Christ dogma that has caused congregations to average around 40 members nationwide.

If doing what the Bible says means that congregations in certain areas have to be small, then that's way that it will have to be. I do think that we can sacrifice or give even a little when it comes to the Scriptures and God's commands (you have indicated this as well :) ) - so if people refuse to listen then we will just have to accept the fact that they aren't willing to be obedient.

We must also realize, however, that some times there are things we get comfortable with and we must be willing to change those for the sakes of others. We should be willing to sing more modern songs, change the time we meet or any number of other things that are not specified in the text. In some instances, we must be willing to "not eat the meat" so to speak if it means helping other people. But we must always be careful never to go beyond the things that are written (1 Corinthians 4:6).


After much study, the mainstream idea of "restoration" isn't a very good one to me. I agree that our doctrines should be exactly the same as the apostles, and I agree that the spirit and the motives behind our actions should be exactly the same as the apostles, but I do not believe the church today is the church of the first century simply because we are living in the 21st century.

I would ask that you please clarify what you mean here before I agree or disagree with you :) From what you have written, I can see how this could be taken in three or so different ways.

When I think of the bulk of the church of Christ, I do not think of the first century. I think of 1950s america. That's a whole other discussion though.

You're probably right about this being an entirely new thread :).

I would like to end this with another disclaimer that it was very late when I wrote this and I am not trying to be mean. Sometimes words just don't come out they way they were intended to after midnight. I hope that none of this seems agressive or derogatory in any way. As always, I look forward to hearing back from you. :wave:

[WesWoodell]

You didn't come across mean at all. :)

I do disagree with you, but I can agree to disagree.

God bless. :)

[aggie03]

You didn't come across mean at all. :)

Thanks :) I'm always worried about that on here. We can't hear each other's voices so sometimes it can be very difficult to "hear" the way that someone intends for something to be "said".

I do disagree with you, but I can agree to disagree.

I can agree that we disagree, but I cannot agree to let it stay that way. Let me explain what I mean :)

The fact that two people do not agree on something in the Scriptures is going to happen with any two people get together to talk about the Bible. There are different levels of understanding, different levels of experience, etc, that affect our what we know about the Bible. I believe the fact is, though, that God had a particular intent for each Testament, each letter/book/scroll, each chapter and each verse of the Scriptures. We should always strive to find out what God's intent was. I am readily willing to admit that I do not understand everything perfectly about the Scriptures -- but I want to understand everything perfectly. It is this want, this desire to know for certain what God intended that will not allow me to leave things at an agreement to disagree. If there is a disagreement, then there must be some reason for the disagreement. Only one of the two ideas can right (both may even be wrong). The only way that I can know for certain is to talk about things until there is no longer a disagreement that is founded upon the Scriptures.

If we disagree then I would like to continue talking about why -- not so that one of us can be right and the other person is then wrong, but so that God can be right, and we can both understand what God means.

God bless. :)

And you also :)