Word came yesterday that a presbyterian church, in a NAPARC denomination, cancelled its Sabbath day service yesterday in order to allow its members to go out and spend time with sinners on and, only incidentally, watch the Super Bowl. We might call this Super Sunday Sabbath Slippage. What began a two decades ago as a move to replace the afternoon or evening service into a Super Bowl watching party has come to replace the only service. How? Well, in many ostensibly Reformed and Presbyterian congregations there is only one service. In some places that one service has been moved to the afternoon or early evening in order to accommodate the schedules of those who attend. After all, there are errands to run, work to do, and soccer games to attend.
This is another reminder that one thing doesn’t always lead to another but sometimes it does. It all depends on the rationale being employed. Many Reformed and Presbyterian congregations gave up the second service on the ground that they wanted to facilitate fellowship and so they replaced the second service with small groups. Implicit in this move is the notion that small group Bible study is on the same order as the “due use of ordinary means.” When that phrase was given to us it referred, in the first instance, to those things that occur in decent and orderly Sabbath-day worship services: the reading and preaching of the Word, prayer, and the administration of the sacraments. In other places two services simply gave way to one service or perhaps there never was a second service and there’s not even a small group substitute for the second service.
What is interesting about this latest development is its ostensible justification: evangelism. If evangelism is sufficient ground to justify canceling the only Lord’s Day service on Super Bowl Sunday, why hold Sunday services at all? After all, there are sinners in need to hearing witness to the Gospel every Sunday, are there not? On that ground, is it not cruel to deny to them witness to the gospel the other 51 Sundays each year?
In case it isn’t obvious, I’m being facetious. Nevertheless, there’s an important point here. There are 6 other days during the week besides the Lord’s Day. Unless every member works in a monastery (and even if they do), there are plenty of opportunities to rub shoulders with the lost Monday through Saturday. The lost have even been known to wander into (or be invited to) a regular service where the gospel is preached and forgiveness freely offered to all who repent and believe. To paraphrase Matthew 26:8, the lost we will always have with us but only have one day a week set aside to anoint the feet our Lord, as it were.
We ought to be greatly concerned about the lost and we ought be about giving witness to the faith and to our faith in the Savior to our friends, neighbors, and co-workers as the Lord grants opportunity. We should pray for such opportunities and pray for grace to speak up when they come. There is no need, however, to leverage worship with evangelism. It’s not an either/or proposition. What will we say to the lost whom we win on the churchless Sunday?
Evangelist: “We want you to come to church with us next week.”
Convert: “Why? You aren’t in church now.”
Evangelist: “True, but this is different. It is a special outreach.”
Convert: “Why is it special?”
Evangelist: “Because it’s the Super Bowl.”
Convert: “So, if there’s an event of sufficient importance Christians can cancel services?”
Evangelist: “Yes.”
“Convert: Great because I love the NFL and there are ton of unbelievers at the stadium and sports bar every Sunday!”
Evangelist: “Well, we can’t cancel services every Sunday. Just for the Super Bowl.”
Convert: “But I learned somewhere that Christians gather on Sunday because that’s the day Jesus was raised.”
Evangelist: “True, it is.”
Convert: “Now I’m confused. A man was raised from the dead on this day and you’re telling me that it’s the Super Bowl makes it special. Dude, that’s wack”
We can understand the convert’s confusion.
The same Lord who wants us to give witness to the faith (and our faith; see John 9) also wants us to gather on the Lord’s Day for the regular, divinely ordained worship services in which God speaks to us in his Word and we reply to him with his Word, where the preached gospel is sealed with the holy sacraments. It may not seem very powerful. Indeed, it has seemed to some to be downright foolish (see 1 Cor 1-2). Nevertheless, that’s God’s way in the world. Sending his Son to become incarnate of the Virgin Mary, to be crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead, buried, and raised on the third day was not a terribly efficient and obviously powerful or effective way to inaugurate his kingdom, but it was God’s way.
Let’s graciously give witness to the faith (and our faith) but let’s not neglect the assembling of ourselves together, as some are in the habit of doing (Heb 10).
Dr. Clark,
My final thoughts………….
I like trying to answer questions directly the best I can, instead of with more questions thrown back. I appreciate the same. So to your questions directly above…..Yes , yes and yes. Athough not always, again assumining the 1st service was faithfully attended, as Romans 14 , Col 2 and the spirit of “the Sabbath is made for man” allows more freedom from God than R. Scott Clark would like to give on this particular issue. I would have no issue with RC Sproul’s Sunday trips to his diner he speaks of , you would no doubt. I don’t think the diner visit in any way implies a willy nilly attitude towards the Sabbath, again assuming one has spent time & met in the worship, means of grace, etc. However I would sure respect my bros & sisters like you who would prefer not to do such a thing, assuming they held it not in spiritual pride.
My turn for questions (please answer) …..
1.Do you or do you not believe that a 2nd service is an absolute requirement from Scripture, from the Lord?
2. If so are the many churches who do not do it in sin?
3. If a church has a 2nd service and members do not always attend are they in need of discipline?
4. Is not one service also sufficient? Is 50% more services the key to spiritual well being?
Thanks so much for the discussion and the sharpening brother.
Blessings,
Eric
Eric,
I agree with the Reformed confession and church order. I’ve explained my views at length in RRC.
As I’ve said, consistories need to exercise wisdom and mercy in dealing with their members.
The Sabbath is for worship and rest. As a former pagan, who was enslaved by Christians on the Sabbath (if Christians didn’t patronize restaurants, they wouldn’t be open on Sun) it would have been a mercy not to clean up your dishes for you.
Dr. Clark,
I finished my re- read of your book early in the week , but I am only now getting time to get back here. The ultimate rule of faith and practice is Scripture not Reformed tradition, no matter how much you or I may respect it. And I do! However, I in no way agree with every jot & tittle of the Reformers, they made mistakes along the way. I don’t think having a 2nd service is a mistake, but holding that it is a requirement sure is and imposing it to the point of discipline would indeed be a legalistic lording over by anyone attempting to bind conscience where God has made free. Again assuming members are faithful /regular attendees of the main worship.
Sorry but I remain unconvinced by your rather weak arguments for an absolute must of a 2nnd service. You seem to think that if anyone thinks this issue is audiaphora they are like Gore in their over expanding of to include anything as audiaphora. That is simply not the case here. Your good intentions on the subject of 2nd service have clouded you to the point of your own QIRC on this particular topic. You have giving no clear Biblical evidence to support your hard line view of this topic of a “must have” 2nd service. The morning and evening of Gen you sight and the Hebrews 10:25 is not good proof for your hard line point. We can only say from these there is a requirement to meet regularly , we cannot say from this there is a requirement to meet 2 or 3 times on the Lord’s day. No, on this topic indeed Romans 14 , Colossians 2 & 1 Cor 4:6 are very helpful for us all to keep in mind.
Now getting back to the Lord’s Supper issue and how it indeed ties into this discussion. It would seem more clear cut from Scripture that it is better to have one service and observe the Lord’s Supper weekly, than be overly dogmatic about a 2nd service and observe the Lord’s Supper infrequently. Would you agree? The biggest reasons I hear throughout NAPARC for having the Lord’s Supper only once per month or less are twofold…..
1. If we had it more regularly it will make it less special. We don’t want to it to become old hat. (what an awful argument for not doing it once a week)
2. It is a matter of schedule problems and that is just tough to work out, because Communion makes the service longer so……..bla bla bla
In order to solve this time/scheduling problem Page 323 of your book sights that….”some congregations are experimenting with meeting for catechism and morning worship, a common lunch and then a brief 2nd service.” This is virtually one continued service and if the Lord’s Supper is in there I am all for it. Again I ask……. It would seem more clear cut from Scripture that it is better to have one service and observe the Lord’s Supper weekly (or at least more regular than once per month or less), than be overly dogmatic about a 2nd service and observe the Lord’s Supper infrequently. Would you agree? Yes we can do both, but my point is since schedule and the longness of the Lord’s Supper adding to the service time is often sited as excuse for its infrequent observance would not our focus be better spent on seeing to it that the Lord’s Supper is observed more often rather than on some dogmatic “must have” a 2nd service? A 2nd service no less which often, dare I say “regularly” does not include the Lord’s Supper!
I appreciate and respect you a great deal. You are one of my favorite Reformed leaders out there today. However, On the issue of a “must have” 2nd service you are insisting on you would do well to remember you own words…..
“The Word (read, preached, and visible in the sacraments) is God’s Word and prayer (said and sung using his Word) is our divinely authorized response. The elements are inviolable. The circumstances are mutable because they are morally indifferent. We have no moral stake in the time of the services but we have everything at stake in whether worship is conducted according to the express revealed will of God.” — R. Scott Clark
Don’t let this become your legalistic version of your own Lent………
http://heidelblog.net/2013/02/on-good-intentions-spiritual-disciplines-and-christian-freedom/
Thanks for the conversation.
Grace, Peace & Love,
Eric,
Practical questions. Say your congregation schedules a second service.
1. Would you concede that they are free to do that and even wise?
2. Would you recognize the second service as an administration of the means of grace?
3. If they did so would you attend?
4. If not, what would you do instead?
Dr Clark
Final thoughts- there is no explicit command for the 2nd service and churches offering only 1 service are not in sin. However, gathering twice on the Lord’s Day is wise and should be encouraged as a means for hearing the Word and communing with the saints as we wait eagerly for the consummation of all things.
Thanks for the dialogue and sharpening.
Dr. Clark
Thanks for those links. Can you also post for us here the verses or Bible sections that best make the case for a the more strict Sabbath or 2nd service view you are promoting?
Your original post here is great and no issues there, where it went I would say as did another is “off the farm” in your over insistance on how the Sabbath must be carried out beyond the clear requirement from Scripture of having a worship service on the Lord’s day.
To lay a bit more ground work, you and I are going to agree on a vast majority of things and when I first read your book (RRC) in 2009 there was hardly much I disagreed with, though I thought the last chapter was weak. No one here is agruing the necessary condition of the Sabbath or the goodness of a 2nd service. One (among many) reason I am no longer in the PCA is due to the fact I see a clear lack of Confessional and Ordinary Means of Grace respect in its majority ranks and by the vast majority of its leadership. I saw a heavy focus on pragmatism over and against the means of Grace focus. Again the Lord’s Supper is tied to all this and relevant, but I will come back to that later. I just re-read your chapter on Worship. Good stuff, in fact great stuff! You do not have a section or chapter entitled “Sabbath” in your book, you do have one (your last chapter )entitled…”Whatever Happend To The Second Service?” I begin to re-read that chapter as well today. I can see where that chapter discusses Sabbath issues, but it is very telling that this is the title of the chapter you chose, you are driving to your main overly dogmatic point & focus that is…..a “must” of a second service, that is the thrust. Evidence of this is the spot light focus in the chapters very title. Hardly it would seem exegesis on your part. Rom 14 & Col 2 seem a wise recall to our minds in the discussion.
I look forward to finishing again this last chapter and following up here again. Let us know on those other Scripture passages that would make this issue more clear directly from God’s Word.
Grace & Peace,
Eric,
What would you accept as proof? What is the burden of proof?
Dr. Clark
With all due respect, the burden of proof is on you if your desire is to mandate the second service. If you want to argue that it is wise and prIncipled based on your analogous view of creation and early Reformed heritage, I can respect. But I believe you are encroaching on teaching the laws of man, much like those religious zealots of Jesus’ day, by making this a test of orthodoxy.
I can’t find my copy of RRC, so if I have misinterpreted your position, please correct me and forgive me in Christ.
Michial,
I’m asking WHAT is the standard of evidence I have to meet in order to be persuasive?
Does it matter that the Reformed churches confessed universally a view of the Sabbath and that their church orders called for two services on the Lord’s Day, that this was universal Christian practice from the early church, through the medieval period, Reformation, post-Reformation, until last week? I understand that the ENTIRE Christian church could be wrong (sola Scriptura) but doesn’t that consensus deserve some respect? I get the sense that some folk are rather dismissive of what is to me an impressive consensus.
Did not most of that body have a misunderstanding of the civil laws applied to nation-states as well?
I need a command from the NT or good and necessary inference from the same in order to bind one’s conscience.
On a separate note, I’m interested to know if you mandate the tithe for those living in the NC?
Michial,
re: civil laws. No. The entire church has always understood that the civil laws of Moses were temporary and typological and expired with the Israelite state and have been abrogated in Christ. The Westminster Confession ch 19 speaks for the church catholic on that point. Theonomy, the desire to re-impose the civil laws is a novelty. If you’re asking about the state-church complex, the pre-Constantinian writers with whom I’m familiar did not argued for a state church, so for the first four centuries or so, no, they didn’t misunderstand the the civil laws. Even as the post-Constantinian church-state complex developed they did not re-impose the Mosaic civil laws.
To be sure, there were instances, under Constantine and after, where Christians spoke about post-Israelite nations as if they were, practically, God’s national people and some still do speak thus but that’s more a practical than theoretical error.
Are you suggesting that the practice of gathering for public worship twice on the Sabbath is on the same order as the confusion of church and state?
As to good and necessary inference, Heb 10:25 should do it. The synagogic practice inherited by the apostolic church was to meet twice on the Sabbath. The evidence from the NT is that the apostolic church followed the practice of the synagogue. We know that the post-apostolic church, very early in the 2nd century, followed this practice. If they didn’t learn it from the Apostles, from whom did they learn it? Whence the idea?
Why don’t the elders have the authority to call a second service on the Sabbath? Worship is the chief reason for the Sabbath, which was instituted as a part of the creational (not Mosaic) pattern.
It’s not like we’re talking even about Wednesday evening services (which used to be fairly common—I remember them in the SBC congregation I attended in the 70s). When I became a Christian in the mid-70s, a second service was a wide-spread practice. It’s only within the last 15 years or so that the second service has begun to disappear and it hasn’t happened as a matter of principle largely but simply negligence. It seems as if some are trying to formulate a justification ex post facto.
According to Gen 14:20, Abraham gave a tenth of all he had. That’s prior to Moses. The same pattern appears in Gen 28:22. Pre-Mosaic patterns persist in the NT. Distinctly Mosaic patterns do not. Thus, infant admission to the covenant community is grounded in Abraham, not Moses. The Sabbath is grounded in creation, not Moses.
I don’t mandate anything. God’s Word is the norm. The church gathers around God’s Word, reads it together, and submits to its instruction together. Does the church confess “the tithe”?
HC 55 says:
The giving of a tenth (if that = tithe) does originate in the typological period. How much did Christ give of himself? In that sense, I think the type, fulfilled in Christ continues to instruct us but we confess that, in Christ we’ve been given much and therefore ought to respond by giving much. So, in a sense, the New Covenant pattern is more not less. If we follow that pattern re worship….
“What is the burden of proof?”
Scripture will do. Show a clear point from Scripture on a “must have ” 2nd service??? You have failed to do this. You can’t because it does not exist.
Eric,
You’ve ignored my inferences from Scripture.
Dr. Clark,
As I said above , I need to go back and read those sections of your book. I trust there are several Bible references speaking to the point? I will make you a deal to try my very best to re- read those sections of your book soon, maybe even on this Lord’s Day. I will then come back to this post with questions or letting you know if my mind is changed or unchanged. Can you also give me the verses or Bible sections right here that best make the case for a the more strick Sabbath view you are promoting? Keeping in mind that it is not as if Sproul or myself or the like have some loosy goosy view of the Sabbath, but no doubt it is not as strict as yours is. My desire is to obey our great God, he deserves my all in all, may He change my heart where need be. May He rule and overrule.
Eric,
Here’s audio of a lecture on the same topic.
Here are resources on the Sabbath on the HB.
My understanding is that the lawn bowling story in regard to Calvin was not heard of until a century or more after his death. I’ve thought it was just revisionist history. Is there really a sound case for it being historical fact?
Hi Ron,
Chris Coldwell nailed it.
Yes I’m aware that the Calvin lawn bowling story may be a myth. R. C. Sproul also acknowledges this when speaking or writing about the story. However, that is not at all the larger point. No one is hanging the argument on that story. It is simply a demonstration of the larger point.
Which is >>> Since it cannot be demonstrated clearly from God’s Word that there should be a “must have” or “demanded” second service the Reformed churches who promote a second service but do not insist ny way of discipline are being very wise indeed.
I fall so short in my own honoring of the Sabbath , but by Grace I know the Lord is Sanctifying me via a continued struggle in my Christian walk, day by day conforming me more to Him.
Eric,
It is a myth.
No one is disputing Christian liberty. Have you read the Sabbath and worship chapters in RRC?
larger point…………….. that Reformed views of Sabbath are not monolithic. Well meaning Reformed Brothers & Sisters have legit differences here.
Eric,
I began my research into the Reformed views on the Sabbath expecting to find the sort of variety that exists now. That’s not what I found. The Reformed confession of the Sabbath is remarkably uniform.
“Does the church have liberty to institute a second service?”
—Yes, of course. To repeat again, no issues with having 2nd service. That is not in question, what is in question (and a legit one at that) is does the church have the authority to demand more than 1 service? To the point of discipline? Biblically it seems clear, that to demand that is to bind the conscience where God has given freedom. Since this and many other questions are being answered with questions , I think that gives me further insight to this issue and I think Sproul was right. This is not monolithic in the Reformed world and room for that freedom must be allowed to brothers.
Dr. Clark, Thanks for a great discussion and post. I always enjoy visiting the best theological blog in all of cyberspace, as well as enjoy your feedback and insights.
Grace & Peace,
larger point…………….. that Reformed views of Sabbath are not monolithic. Well meaning Reformed Brothers & Sisters have legit differences here.
Dr Clark, with all due respect you went off the farm in your argument for the 1st service. The history of Lord’s day gatherings from Acts and the exhortation in Heb 10 does not demand MORE than 1 service. I respect your argument from creation, but I believe we should maintain liberty on the issue as a Rom 14 and Col 2 suggests.
Michael,
Regardless of my present geographic location the question remains: how much evidence in the NT actually meets the test that you’ve set for the 2nd service?
Does the church have liberty to institute a second service?
Dr. Clark,
Again, no disagreement at all from me on the whole picking Super Bowl over Church worship service. Nor do I have objections to a 2nd service. My concern is the strident view of a “must have” 2nd service I sense and also perhaps some of the more strident Sabbath views. Morning service (or a service) required, and 2nd service promoted seems most Biblical. Now maybe this is all just my own hangers on as it were from my PCA days where going out to eat on Sunday was not a biggie, no doubt I have a lot to learn. I pray the Lord will change & convict me where needed on this or any issue. My point above is not that having 50% less number of services will help us achieve greater frequency of observance of the Lord’s Supper. You are right that we can do both/and. My point is that I don’t see the Biblical emphasis being near as great that a 2nd service be an absolute, but I do see regular observance of the Lord’s Supper as a much more clear Biblical requirement. Therefore so should we likewise emphasize. I’m suggesting that some with great motives to honor the Sabbath may put too strong an emphasis on a 2nd service while wrongly de-emphasizing the Lord’s Supper. Time is better spent being concerned about regular observance of Lord’s Supper and attendance of the standard main 1st service. Believers who are faithful servants in morning worship but prefer more liberty with their families to rest in the evening should be allowed that liberty. It would seem more clear cut from Scripture that it is better to have one service and observe the Lord’s Supper weekly, than be overly dogmatic about a 2nd service and observe the Lord’s Supper infrequently. Would you agree? Judging how infrequently many a NAPARC church observes the Lord’s Supper, all the while over emphasizing their small groups or evening service without the Supper, it would seem they too have a wrong emphasis. I’m not suggesting we over-emphasize the Lord’s Supper as a magic fix, but to borrow from Zrim……… If the Sacraments really do for us what we confess they do then why not more often? It was stated in one comment that we should be reasonable and not lay too much a burden on the flock with too many services, therefore 2 services are sufficient. I have no problem with that. However, a question I have, is not one service also sufficient? Is 50% more services the key to spiritual well being? Do 2 services take us to level 11 Christianity? (a little Spinal Tap lingo for you. 😉 Is not having 2 services on the Lord’s Day as serious a problem as infrequent observances of the Lord’s Supper? Biblically the answer is no. Is a church (and there are many respected Reformed leaders & churches who don’t) which does not practice a 2nd / evening service in serious error or need of discipline or correction? Is a member who does not attend the second service in the same need? I don’t think those who ask these questions are bucking against church authority as one comment suggested.
I am delighted and thankful to attend a wonderful church which has evening services. My family and I love worshiping the Lord at these services, but I am also glad my church does not discipline those who may not attend the 2nd. It would be legalistic if they did, assuming folks are faithfully attending the main and standard first service and not providentially hindered. I will go back and read again from your book about second service, but as of now I remain unconvinced Biblically that the strident view on this is a must. I have read Dr. Pipa on his Sabbath view, are there any other books you would suggest? Also besides the morning and evening reference you mention from Genesis can you unpack more from other text of Scripture that would insist on a 2nd service? I heard RC Sproul (perhaps he is only justifying why he pays to eat at a diner on some Sunday mornings) tell a story of John Knox visiting John Calvin, Knox was taken back aghast at the fact that Calvin played lawn bowling for recreation on the Lord’s Day. Sproul’s point was that Reformed folks are not monolithic on this and it is not as clear cut as do’s and don’ts. A good Christian conscience directed by God’s Word must guide.
Eric,
The biggest problem that people seem to have with a second service is the lack of evidence. Well, let’s apply that test to the first service. What is the evidence for a morning service? It’s not overwhelming. Why can’t we use the arguments against the second service also against the first service?
Your argument about the supper seems to reverse the order of things. I’ve spent a lot of time and effort not only trying to persuade people of the benefits of weekly communion but there is a hierarchy. The Supper is a seal of that which is preached. If I must choose between the preached Word and the sacramental Word, the former must have priority.
Time with family is wonderful. That’s why the Lord gave us 6 days. The Sabbath is also an opportunity for time with family but it is principally intended for public communion with God. The Sabbath is not principally “me time.”
I cannot accept your argument that “because NAPARC churches don’t do x, which is clear, why should we do y.” One mistake is not grounds for another.
A consistory should weigh each case. In my experience consistories have been patient and merciful in most cases. Because our congregations are often small and distant there are logistical challenges. I tried to address those in RRC. One solution is to hold the first service, lunch, and then the second service.
I deeply regret that the notion that private gatherings and devotions may substitute for the public administration of the means of grace in corporate worship. The end of such thinking will not be good for the church.
We should be cautious in taking a description of an administration in the OC and prescribing it under the NC. We can borrow the general equity of the law without become theonomists in applying the Sabbath practice.
Michael, fair point. There is a such a thing as Sabbatarianism-of-the-non-legalist-variety. Maybe a morning service required, an evening promoted. But it is my understanding that the modern theonomists reject the abiding validity of the fourth commandment (so only 9 commandments? But at least there’s one less possibility of executing people), which might make it hard to become theos on the issue.
Michael,
To be clear, as I argued in Recovering the Reformed Confession, the ground for the Sabbath and for the morning and evening pattern is not strictly speaking the old covenant. In New Testament terms the phrase “old covenant” refers to Moses.
The ground of the Sabbath is not in the Mosaic law. The ground of the Sabbath is in creation itself. In Genesis well before the Mosaic law was given and well before the old covenant was inaugurated at Sinai, the pattern of working six days and resting on one day was built into the very creation old fabric.
In Genesis 1, the pattern is morning and evening. That morning and evening pattern is what is said to constitute a day. There were mornings and evenings even before there was a sun, If we take the narrative to be strictly chronological or sequential.
Thus, the ground of the argument is not in the Mosaic civil law or in the Mosaic ceremonial law. Rather as Exodus 20:8 makes clear the ground is in the pattern established in creation.
It was to this pattern that our Lord Jesus appealed when he corrected the rabbinical misunderstanding of and corruption of the institution of the Sabbath: “man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man.”
I don’t see how an argument from creation is in any danger of lapsing into theonomy. Westminster Confession of Faith 19 makes it clear that the civil laws of Moses have expired and have been abrogated. The same people who confessed that doctrine also confessed the Sabbath and, in the Directory for Public Worship, instituted two services.
Zrim,
That is exactly my position! I understand more than that being promoted by some Sabbatarians. This prevents the Session from binding consciences and disciplining faithful members.
Dr Clark,
Ill admit that I want my QIRC on the sabbath issue. Yes, 2 separate questions indeed. I appreciate the discussion and your perspective on the issue.
For the record, I see the wisdom in the 2nd service and have practiced it in my family. It has pragmatic value as well – an aid in giving the entire day to The Lord in rest and worship. I struggle with applying this principle to other believers who have different convictions; believers who are faithful servants in morning worship but prefer more liberty with their families to rest in the evening.
Michael,
Aren’t we dealing with two distinct questions? The first is whether congregations should gather for stated services twice on the Lord’s Day and second, how should they address practical problems associated with the second service? If you take a look at RRC I tried to suggest some possible solutions. We should face the difficulties but those difficulties shouldn’t be a lever by which we deprive God’s people of the due use of ordinary means, should they? After all, how did God’s people manage for all of recorded history until, historically speaking, last week? There must be solutions, right? It’s not as if insoluble problems arose only last week.
Why stop at 2 services? The psalmist in 55 cried out to The Lord at noon as well.
Michael, because that’s more in line with the American-made ethic, e.g. “If one pill is good then two are better.” There are those amongst us two-service advocates who unfortunately say things like, “Why two services? The question should be more like why not three or four or more!” Meh. But doctors prescribe certain limited measures for good reason. In the same way, prescribing two services may ruffle those who find it burdensome, but it also has a way of settling down those who want even more. After all, the Sabbath is about rest, not frenzy. (There is a confession that speaks to limiting our Sabbath worship for the sake of our human frailty and frame, but I cannot locate it at the moment.)
It’s not too unlike those of us who advocate along with Calvin for communion at least weekly. Some of us are know for suggesting that if the sacraments really do for us what we confess they do then why not more often than once a week. But the same idea applies: per our human scale we’ve been prescribed certain and regular days and activities. In both cases, worship and sacraments, two in one day a week is sufficient.
Zrim, or more in line with many reformed sermons on tithing – if 10% was the standard under the law, then surely we should give more under the NC. Grace should always exuberate us to more, not less.
We should be cautious in taking a description of an administration in the OC and prescribing it under the NC. We can borrow the general equity of the law without become theonomists in applying the Sabbath practice.
It seems that objections to the second worship service on the Lord’s Day often stem from bristling up against the (ministerial) authority of the church and her insistence on attending the means of grace. Our culture today doesn’t really like dealing with authority.
Dig a little deeper and really what seems to be going on a lot of times is a grumbling against the Lord because we want to have more time to ourselves and our schedules on Sunday. But no one wants to come right out and admit that so the church’s authority becomes the handy scapegoat instead and anyone who insists on the second service becomes a legalist in their eyes.
I’m often amazed by the answer I hear to this question in the midst of this kind of discussion about attending the evening worship service: Why do you not want be in a church Sunday evening?
Dr. Clark, I especially appreciated reading “Dude, that’s wack.” I can hear your voice in my head saying it and that makes me laugh!
This is an issue I have been thinking about. I sure do not have it all nailed down, but as of yet I’m not convicted from God’s Word on the must of a 2nd service or as of yet about some of the more strident Sabbath views. Now if you are telling me the wisdom and goodness of it not only will I listen, but I will agree. Just do not see it clear cut from Scripture. I would also agree that any church that cancels a regularly scheduled worship service in favor of a Super Bowl is indeed very wrong. True that one thing doesn’t always lead to another but sometimes it does. It does all depends on the rationale being employed. While there is no doubt a good evangelism motive behind it, this is a case of getting cart before horse.
However, I would agree with others here that there is a certain binding of the conscience where God’s Word has not done so at times over “2nd service”.
I do not see clear cut requirements for the New Testament Church from the text of Scripture saying thou shalt have a second (or for that matter a third) service on Lord’s Day. But I do see clear cut from God’s Word and our Lord Jesus that the Church should regularly have the Lord’s Supper. There is a problem when NAPARC churches over emphasize a 2nd service or community small group over and above an emphasis on regular Communion/Lord’s Supper. At least that is my best honest understanding of Scripture to this point. Perhaps this emphasis on 2nd service is another case where one thing has led to another. In an attempt to honor the Sabbath, times and schedules, traditions of men often bump the Lord’s Supper to where it is done 1, 3 or 6 times a year, all far too infrequent. My understanding of Scripture would also have this horse before that cart.
Grace & Peace
Eric,
How will reducing the number of services by 50% help us achieve greater frequency of observance of the Lord’s Supper? Why not both/and?
(Dr. Clark, my previous comment submission had paragraphs out of sequence quoting from DPW – this has them properly ordered.)
The Directory for the Publick Worship of God from the Westminster Assembly, is clear about expectations for things like sanctifying the Christian Sabbath. It is, as I understand, taken as a recommendation today in Presbyterian (at least PCA) churches, and not as Church Law. The DPW says in part, in the section “Of the sanctification of the Lord’s Day” (find under http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/ ; note, I admit that I fall short of this, and am convicted by it, reading it again just now):
THE Lord’s day ought to be so remembered before-hand, as that all worldly business of our ordinary callings may be so ordered, and so timely and seasonably laid aside, as they may not be impediments to the due sanctifying of the day when it comes.
The whole day is to be celebrated as holy to the Lord, both in publick and private, as being the Christian sabbath. To which end, it is requisite, that there be a holy cessation or resting all that day from all unnecessary labours; and an abstaining, not only from all sports and pastimes, but also from all worldly words and thoughts.
…
That what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the congregation in publick, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of sermons; especially by calling their families to an account of what they have heard, and catechising of them, holy conferences, prayer for a blessing upon the publick ordinances, singing of psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy, accounting the sabbath a delight.
The Directory for the Publick Worship of God from the Westminster Assembly, is clear about expectations for things like sanctifying the Christian Sabbath. It is, as I understand, taken as a recommendation today in Presbyterian (at least PCA) churches, and not as Church Law. The DPW says in part, in the section “Of the sanctification of the Lord’s Day” (find under http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/ ; note, I admit that I fall short of this, and am convicted by it, reading it again just now):
THE Lord’s day ought to be so remembered before-hand, as that all worldly business of our ordinary callings may be so ordered, and so timely and seasonably laid aside, as they may not be impediments to the due sanctifying of the day when it comes.
…
That what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the congregation in publick, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of sermons; especially by calling their families to an account of what they have heard, and catechising of them, holy conferences, prayer for a blessing upon the publick ordinances, singing of psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy, accounting the sabbath a delight.
The whole day is to be celebrated as holy to the Lord, both in publick and private, as being the Christian sabbath. To which end, it is requisite, that there be a holy cessation or resting all that day from all unnecessary labours; and an abstaining, not only from all sports and pastimes, but also from all worldly words and thoughts.
Why stop at 2 services? The psalmist in 55 cried out to The Lord at noon as well. I like the pattern of morNing and evening worship daily ; however, tradition and OC ceremonial practice should not bind the conscience of a believer. If a church commits to 2 services, they will have to commit to disciplining those absent for violating their church oaths to submit to elders. The spirit of the Sabbath can be maintained by a day of morning worship and rest followed by family worship in the evening.
Dr. Clark,
I have been a traditional supporter of the 2- service model for many years. However, I’m questioning the biblical validity for mandating this model on parishioners and binding their consciences where Scripture is silent. I understand the morning and evening sacrifice of the Old Covenant – but question if this practice is sufficient grounds for the Church in the NC. Canceling the entire service is a non- starter.
Michael,
It’s not a matter of mere tradition. See the chapter on this in Recovering the Reformed Confession.
There’s a morning/evening pattern in Gen 1. Why is it there? I say that it has more to do with worship than it does with the length of the days.
The morning/evening pattern in the OT, synagogue (inter-testamental and 1st century), and the NT point us to two services.
As a matter of history, the early church, the medieval church, the Reformation church, they all point us to two services. We’re the least churched generation in Christian history. We’re also the least “psalmed,” if you will, of any generation in Christian history, but that’s another topic.
Why is the burden of proof on the church to justify why she would hold two services? Why isn’t the burden of proof on those who would not hold two services.
Why wouldn’t we convene twice on the Sabbath? What else have God’s people to do on the Sabbath? We’re not talking about Wednesdays or Fridays or any of the other six days. We’re talking about the Sabbath.
I’m convinced that the problem is not two services it’s the Sabbath.
Dr. Clark, I’m not disagreeing with your point about second services. I affirm the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the Sabbath, and believe that once people are convinced of Sabbath observance, most of the arguments against second services go away on their own.
However, I’m curious. How did you handle your time in the RCUS where, if I understand correctly, many and perhaps most churches do not have second services and have not had them for a very long time, perhaps not even back when their ancestors were living in Russia as German-speaking communities?
My views on the second service began to develop as a result of my research in Reformed orthodoxy, after I left Kansas City. Bob Godfrey was very helpful in pointing out that Bible studies and the like, valuable as they be, are not the means of grace. See the chapter in RRC.
Thank you, Dr. Clark. That makes sense. I have no desire to pick a fight with the RCUS; they’re obviously a conservative Reformed denomination whose historic German Reformed practices are different from the Dutch on this point.
For whatever it’s worth, Sabbath observance was something obvious to me from Scripture even before my conversion. I think one good proof of total depravity and the extent of the corruption of the human heart is that even when God gives us a “day off,” we insist on working on that day, even people whose natural inclinations are toward laziness.
Not being a confessional Presbyterian, I do not subscribe to the Sabbath observance as Presbyterians do, however, I also would not dare cancel Sunday services for the Super Bowl. My own church did this last year and this year, and for that we are heartbroken. You’ve nailed the issue: our priorities are so upside down, we simply lose credibility as Christians.
I’ve become fond of saying it this way: if it’s something you wouldn’t do in the midst of life-threatening persecution, don’t do it (regarding church order and worship).