Evening worship service poll (required, optimal, not required, etc.)

A Lord's Day afternoon/evening service is

  • Required (someway commanded in Scripture, and my church has one)

    Votes: 9 10.0%
  • Required (someway commanded in Scripture, but my church does not have one)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something Scripture suggests is normal to have (my church does have one)

    Votes: 21 23.3%
  • Something Scripture suggests is normal to have (my church does not have one)

    Votes: 6 6.7%
  • Optimal for Lord's Day observance (my church has one)

    Votes: 26 28.9%
  • Optimal for Lord's Day observance (my church does not have one and I wish it did)

    Votes: 22 24.4%
  • Not necessary or especially beneficial (my church has one)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not necessary or especially beneficial (my church does not have one)

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • Total voters
    90
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, seriously - I have never before considered evening services as being mandated by Scripture. Thank you.

I find it interesting that in the same manner you make the argument about these sacrifices to support Lord’s day church services being morning and evening you also make the point about the sacrifices being every single day in perpetuity, but clearly this isn’t applied in the same manner.
 
We do an evening activity at my church 3x per month. 2 Sundays I do an advanced theology class and 1 Sunday we gather for songs and a devotional.
 
I became born again because a PCA church had an evening service
No, you didn't. At least, not because they chose to have an evening service.
But your point is taken that the additional opportunity to hear the gospel is, always, beneficial. However, that doesn't, of itself, substantiate a call to evening worship.
 
I voted "something Scripture suggests is normal to have." I'm open to being shown that it's commanded, I just don't know, and not sure I've heard it taught. I do believe that if a church has an evening service its members are obligated to attend (and I hope delighted to do so). (Hey does that imply commanded??) The first thought that came to mind was Paul preaching into the night when the young man fell from the window.

The fact that Paul preached into the night at that particular time and that particular place doesn't imply (much less command) that he did it as a regular thing or that it was an official stated worship service. It could just as easily have been a one-time thing due to the fact that he had a lot to say on that particular evening. You could argue the other way: Paul preached so long that the guy fell asleep and then out of the window, thus an argument against evening services because people are exhausted at the end of the day.
 
Yes, seriously - I have never before considered evening services as being mandated by Scripture. Thank you.

I find it interesting that in the same manner you make the argument about these sacrifices to support Lord’s day church services being morning and evening you also make the point about the sacrifices being every single day in perpetuity, but clearly this isn’t applied in the same manner.

You realize he's kidding, right?
 
Seriously? Ex 29:38-42 specifies morning and evening sacrifices every day, 365 days a year, in perpetuity. We all know that a “sacrifice” is just another way of saying “full blown worship service.” Further, Lev 9:6-13, elaborates that the fire on the altar is to be kept burning, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in perpetuity. Numbers 28 is careful to note that this includes the Sabbath (no sabbathing from offering sacrifices on the Sabbath)… all of this clearly means that in the New Covenant, despite the fact that we generally claim that the Old Covenant ceremonial and civil laws have been fulfilled in the person and work of Christ, we are nonetheless obligated to conduct worship services/sacrifices twice (morning and evening - two morning services definitely do not count) each Lord’s Day though we are not obligated to hold morning and evening services/sacrifices the other 6 days of the week.

The arguments I suspect you have made sarcastically are in fact the true basis for:

- Myself
- My family
- Many families known to us
- Our church
- Many churches known to us

Practicing:

- Private worship, morning and evening, every day
- Family worship, morning and evening, every day
- Public worship in the assembly, morning and evening, every Lord's day

Join us. It won't hurt you.
 
It's a pragmatic argument, perhaps, but I ended up in the OPC because I was (sinfully) involved in theater work and had Sunday matinees every day. The OPC was the only evening game in town. 6:00 pm. I could make it.

I was not at first sinning deliberately i.e. I did not know not to. Then I was under contract and thought it would be a sin to break it. Well, I don't know if my conclusion was correct but I was a new Christian and not a member so was not subject to discipline. It was the last acting job I took, for obvious reasons.

Anyway had the OPC not had the 6 pm service I'd have naively attended anywhere that did, including Catholic mass.

While my reasons were not generally considered legit, there are many reasons that are. Lots of valid jobs require Saturday night or Sunday morning work. I advocate having an EVENING worship (not an afternoon). Making it more possible for those who truly cannot attend morning worship.
 
Greetings,

Well, I'll accept being the odd man out on this one. I'm one of the four people who voted for the last option. – "Not necessary or especially beneficial (our church does not have one)."

Let me explain. I believe an evening service can be very beneficial, and I wish our church had one. But I would rarely attend. In my vote on the poll, I was answering for myself alone–just for my private Lord's Day observance.

Our morning meeting was great. Even better than usual. On the half-hour drive to worship, Mary and I, and a long-term special needs friend we bring each week, listened to Bunyan's "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners." When we arrived, we found fellowship sweet, heard a powerful message (James 3:13), and the shared meal after the service couldn't have been better. Nevertheless, adding a second service every week would knock such a hole in my time with the Lord that His Day would become almost unrecognizable to me.

I have talked elsewhere on the PB and, in retrospect, said way too much about the surprising relationship with God that He has seen fit to gift this poor sinner. Just yesterday, (sans the details) miles up on the Appalachian Trail, my Friend (Song 5:16) condescended to fellowship with me again. But then, all of a sudden, something so wonderful happened that I knew almost immediately this day would be remembered as one of the best days of my life. It was of such a nature that it could not have occurred if I had been at an afternoon or evening service.

Some Christians say that hiking on the Lord His Day is wrong. Even sinful. What do you think?
~~~~~~~
I took this photo yesterday from the top of Mt Minsi, PA.
It is the sister peak, maybe two miles away across the Delaware River in New Jersey.
I've been here over 300 times in the past 30 years.


from minsi(s).png
 
Last edited:
I'll ponder a new thread or poll on sabbath recreations since it is a perennial question, but as thread author and a moderator I'll say let's not bog this poll thread down on that specific subject. But aside from that, I do think public worship must be preferred to private, as the title of David Clarkson's famous piece goes. To be providentially hindered is one thing, but if one's church offers it, it should be given priority over private devotions, which of course are not restricted to pursue in all sorts of ways on the other six days. https://books.google.com/books?id=_okEAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false
Greetings,

Well, I'll accept being the odd man out on this one. I'm one of the four people who voted for the last option. – "Not necessary or especially beneficial (our church does not have one)."

Let me explain. I believe an evening service can be very beneficial, and I wish our church had one. But I would rarely attend. In my vote on the poll, I was answering for myself alone–just for my private Lord's Day observance.

Our morning meeting was great. Even better than usual. On the half-hour drive to worship, Mary and I, and a long-term special needs friend we bring each week, listened to Bunyan's "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners." When we arrived, we found fellowship sweet, heard a powerful message (James 3:13), and the shared meal after the service couldn't have been better. Nevertheless, adding a second service every week would knock such a hole in my time with the Lord that His Day would become almost unrecognizable to me.

I have talked elsewhere on the PB and, in retrospect, said way too much about the surprising relationship with God that He has seen fit to gift this poor sinner. Just yesterday, (sans the details) miles up on the Appalachian Trail, my Friend (Song 5:16) condescended to fellowship with me again. But then, all of a sudden, something so wonderful happened that I knew almost immediately this day would be remembered as one of the best days of my life. It was of such a nature that it could not have occurred if I had been at an afternoon or evening service.

Some Christians say that hiking on the Lord His Day is wrong. Even sinful. What do you think?
~~~~~~~
I took this photo yesterday from the top of Mt Minsi, PA.
It is the sister peak, maybe two miles away across the Delaware River in New Jersey.
I've been here over 300 times in the past 30 years.

 
Last edited:
Our PCA congregation is the first one we've been members of that holds an evening service. (At our previous church, Sunday night small groups were the norm.) It's typically three or four Sundays out of a month. I think they started increasing the number of Sundays once we got an associate pastor; he preaches in the evenings and the senior pastor in the mornings. We also have the Lord's Supper on the third evening service of the month.

We also have fellowship meals right before the evening service two Sundays a month. This seems to help more people attend, especially young families.

The evening service has been a tremendous blessing to us and has been such a help to observing -- and loving -- the Sabbath. I cherish the evening service and would feel bereft if we no longer had one.
 
I didn't see my POV in the choices, so here goes. The Lord's day is the Lord's day so however we decide to worship him or learn about him is fine by me, within scripture and reason (common sense). I'm Dutch Reformed on relaxing on the sabbath so if you want to watch football or john wikk go ahead. But don't commit any crimes on the sabbath, there are six other days to do that (smile face, couldn't get my picture machine to work.)
 
“Relaxing the sabbath.” That takes the cake.

Is it any wonder why the western visible church seems to be in such dreadful declension?

LORD help us!
 
I am in a Dutch Reformed church. I would have to be shown from the scripture that it is absolutely required to have a stated service in the afternoon or evening. With that said, it is the Lord's Day, not the Lord's hour or morning. By having an afternoon or evening service, a church is helping it's members make a most productive use out of the Day. I think in the book of Acts it is pretty clear that the entire day was spent together with the other believers. How exactly the services were scheduled is not indicated. What I am sure did not happen, is that everyone showed up for 2 hours, and then went home to the beach or to watch a football game. Typically in our churches our services last about 1 hour 20 minutes, with the sermons about 40 minutes. There is of course nothing in the Bible that would prevent a church from having services that last 2 hours and 40 minutes, with an 80 minute sermon. That kind of decision is a up to the sanctified wisdom of the elders.
 
Daniel, I assume from your post that you would say we have a moral duty to have a time of personal worship twice a day every day? What about family worship?

Greetings Zach, I would agree that we do have a moral obligation to worship God morning and evening insofar as we are able. The pattern of the morning and evening sacrifice was the application of the general natural and moral principle to the specific circumstances of the church in her minority. Just because we are not to apply it now in a crudely literalistic fashion, which would be incongruous with Christ's abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonies, does not mean that there is not an underlying moral principle that we are free to ignore. I would suggest that many of us have not seriously considered what Westminster Confession XIX.3 teaches on this matter - particularly the section in bold:

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

If we take the view that no instruction as to our moral obligations may be gleaned from the abrogated ceremonies, then how can we confess that the ceremonies partly held forth various instructions concerning our moral duties?

On a practical level, however, I would stress that daily private and family worship should be fairly brief in order to avoid it becoming unduly burdensome. Nevertheless, the pattern of morning and evening worship is clearly a useful one for maintaining spiritual discipline.
 
I am in a Dutch Reformed church. I would have to be shown from the scripture that it is absolutely required to have a stated service in the afternoon or evening.
Didn't the Synod of Dort stipulate that churches have an evening service where they preach sequentially through the catechism?
 
I am in a Dutch Reformed church. I would have to be shown from the scripture that it is absolutely required to have a stated service in the afternoon or evening. With that said, it is the Lord's Day, not the Lord's hour or morning. By having an afternoon or evening service, a church is helping it's members make a most productive use out of the Day. I think in the book of Acts it is pretty clear that the entire day was spent together with the other believers. How exactly the services were scheduled is not indicated. What I am sure did not happen, is that everyone showed up for 2 hours, and then went home to the beach or to watch a football game. Typically in our churches our services last about 1 hour 20 minutes, with the sermons about 40 minutes. There is of course nothing in the Bible that would prevent a church from having services that last 2 hours and 40 minutes, with an 80 minute sermon. That kind of decision is a up to the sanctified wisdom of the elders.
In the early church they mostly met in the very early morning hour before dawn and then went to work. If permitted, they would return at a very late hour again to fellowship. (Read the account of Pliny as related to Trajan). Christians were not under the Mosaic formulation of the Sabbath. It would be impossible to carry out the 4th commandment as from the hands of Moses without the theocracy.
 
See Danny Hyde's Regulae de Observatione Sabbathi: The Synod of Dort’s (1618–19) Deliverance on the Sabbath, and from this thread, the Synod of Dort said,
There shall always be catechetical sermons on
p. 60. Sundays at noon, in which the Heidelberg Catechism, adopted in our churches, shall be explained
according to that order, as charged in the aforementioned article. These afternoon sermons shall not be
omitted or neglected because of the small number of listeners, which may be pretended in some
villages, even if the ministers should preach to few listeners at first, yes, only to their families, while, no
doubt, if the pastors lead by the example of their families, and diligently exhort others, especially those
who are devoted to the Reformed religion, in time, many will come to these sermons. And in order that
the people on the afternoon Sundays, delayed by other work or exercise, may not be distracted from
these afternoon sermons, the Magistrates will be requested to discontinue all serviceable or daily works,
and especially the games, drunkenness and revels, and other desecrations of the Sabbath, with which
the afternoon time on Sundays, mostly in the villages, is usually spent, with strict decrees, so that they,
also in this way, all the better may be brought to the afternoon preaching, and thus learn to celebrate
the entire Sabbath.

p. 67. By authority of the Government shall be
requested to strictly forbid all games and exercises, whereby the Sabbath shall be profaned, and this
holy use prevented, and to urge and incite the people to these catechetical questionings in the most
expedient ways and manners.

p. 1081.
5. That the High Lords of the States General will be requested that the frequent and daily
increasing violation of the Sabbath everywhere in this province, may be averted and prevented by new
and sharp placards.
On the occasion of the order to prevent the violation of the Sabbath, the question of the necessity of
the maintenance of the Lord's Day, which has been started to be investigated in the Churches of
Zeeland, has been considered, and the Lords Professors have been requested to have a friendly
conference with the brethren of Zeeland about the matter, and to consider at once, whether some
certain general rules might be understood and established by mutual consent, within whose limits both
parties, in discussing this matter, would keep themselves until, at the next National Synod, this matter
would be further investigated.


p. 1090-91.
XIV. That those abominable and frequent profanations of the Sabbath, which occur daily by market
days, fairs, meals of guilds, guards, neighborhoods, weddings, by weapon exercises, hunting, fishing,
bird-catching, embalming, by the playing of comedies, by dances, boating, lying, and all manner of little needed
slave works, and very many other such things, which in these countries, with great annoyance,
and to the dishonor of the Reformed religion, and great impediment of the religion, are generally
increasing, may be very severely forbidden and prevented.
 
In the early church they mostly met in the very early morning hour before dawn and then went to work. If permitted, they would return at a very late hour again to fellowship. (Read the account of Pliny as related to Trajan). Christians were not under the Mosaic formulation of the Sabbath. It would be impossible to carry out the 4th commandment as from the hands of Moses without the theocracy.
I don't think we should be basing our Sabbath practice on what Pliny observed. Even if he observed it, it does not follow that what he observed was Biblical or right, only that it was what was practiced in the place where he observed it. For what we ought to do, the scriptures are the guide. The Sabbath is not complicated and the Mosaic Theocracy is not necessary to properly observe it. It is defined as a day of rest following 6 days of labour (Ex 20) and also a holy convocation (Lev 23). These two must go together and are nowhere abrogated. Therefore if someone is to properly observe the Lord's Day, it necessarily involves an abstaining from regular labour (with an exception for acts of necessity and mercy). It may well have been the practice of early Christians to meet early in the morning and then go to work. I don't think they should have done that.
 
I don't think we should be basing our Sabbath practice on what Pliny observed. Even if he observed it, it does not follow that what he observed was Biblical or right, only that it was what was practiced in the place where he observed it. For what we ought to do, the scriptures are the guide. The Sabbath is not complicated and the Mosaic Theocracy is not necessary to properly observe it. It is defined as a day of rest following 6 days of labour (Ex 20) and also a holy convocation (Lev 23). These two must go together and are nowhere abrogated. Therefore if someone is to properly observe the Lord's Day, it necessarily involves an abstaining from regular labour (with an exception for acts of necessity and mercy). It may well have been the practice of early Christians to meet early in the morning and then go to work. I don't think they should have done that.
Even if true it does not go to Christian teaching. They were often slaves or servants and like now may not have had all the control they would have liked over the use of the day.
 
p. 1090-91.
XIV. That those abominable and frequent profanations of the Sabbath, which occur daily by market
days, fairs, meals of guilds, guards, neighborhoods, weddings, by weapon exercises, hunting, fishing,
bird-catching, embalming, by the playing of comedies, by dances, boating, lying, and all manner of little needed
slave works, and very many other such things, which in these countries, with great annoyance,
and to the dishonor of the Reformed religion, and great impediment of the religion, are generally
increasing, may be very severely forbidden and prevented.
Here is the same passage in my own translation. Machine translation is getting better, but it's not quite there yet. I found the mistranslation of "ball games" as "embalming" amusing.
"In order that those most serious and manifold profanations of the Sabbath, which are carried out often through markets, festivals, and the feasts of communities, watchmen, neighborhoods, and weddings; through practicing with arms, through hunting, fishing, fowling, and ball games; through comedic stage-plays, through dancing, the auctioning-off of goods, drinking parties, and through any less-necessary servile works, and many other similar things, which proliferate throughout these regions, with great scandal, and dishonor to the Reformed religion, and with great hindrance to divine worship, be strictly and wholly prohibited and impeded."
 
I'm Dutch Reformed on relaxing on the sabbath so if you want to watch football or john wikk go ahead. But don't commit any crimes on the sabbath, there are six other days to do that
The irony is watching sports and movies on the Christian Sabbath are crimes against the holy law of God and sins against Him.
 
I don't think we should be basing our Sabbath practice on what Pliny observed. Even if he observed it, it does not follow that what he observed was Biblical or right, only that it was what was practiced in the place where he observed it. For what we ought to do, the scriptures are the guide. The Sabbath is not complicated and the Mosaic Theocracy is not necessary to properly observe it. It is defined as a day of rest following 6 days of labour (Ex 20) and also a holy convocation (Lev 23). These two must go together and are nowhere abrogated. Therefore if someone is to properly observe the Lord's Day, it necessarily involves an abstaining from regular labour (with an exception for acts of necessity and mercy). It may well have been the practice of early Christians to meet early in the morning and then go to work. I don't think they should have done that.
I was simply pushing back on this seemingly overconfident simplistic view: "I think in the book of Acts it is pretty clear that the entire day was spent together with the other believers. How exactly the services were scheduled is not indicated. What I am sure did not happen, is that everyone showed up for 2 hours, and then went home to the beach or to watch a football game."

"The whole day spent together." Maybe appears to be that way in one passage, but the history and probability considering the culture would have made it highly unlikely. Sunday was a workday in the Roman Empire. Slaves couldn't just punch out or take a sick day and go to church. Hence, you see Pliny's observation and other early church accounts. Sure, they were pushed into this situation by external circumstances and would probably not structure their Lord's Day the way they did without duress. My point is that they weren't sinning a la the 4 commandment as provided from the hands of Moses. There is a distinction with a difference here.
 
Could be a good idea. The danger is taking good ideas from Scripture and making them commands.
 
Last edited:
I'll throw in as a general addition to the thread-- even if you don't see it as biblically commanded, an evening service makes it far easier for congregants to honor the Sabbath for the full day. The Sabbath is better and more easily honored with the community of believers, than if individuals or families have to go home and come up with appropriate things to do for the entire afternoon and evening.
 
Greetings Zach, I would agree that we do have a moral obligation to worship God morning and evening insofar as we are able. The pattern of the morning and evening sacrifice was the application of the general natural and moral principle to the specific circumstances of the church in her minority. Just because we are not to apply it now in a crudely literalistic fashion, which would be incongruous with Christ's abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonies, does not mean that there is not an underlying moral principle that we are free to ignore. I would suggest that many of us have not seriously considered what Westminster Confession XIX.3 teaches on this matter - particularly the section in bold:

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

If we take the view that no instruction as to our moral obligations may be gleaned from the abrogated ceremonies, then how can we confess that the ceremonies partly held forth various instructions concerning our moral duties?

On a practical level, however, I would stress that daily private and family worship should be fairly brief in order to avoid it becoming unduly burdensome. Nevertheless, the pattern of morning and evening worship is clearly a useful one for maintaining spiritual discipline.
Thanks, Daniel. How would you go about identifying or determining where a natural and moral principle underlies a ceremonial law that places an abiding moral duty on us? You're right that I haven't spent a lot of time considering that part of WCF 19.3, but when I think about the typology of the morning and evening sacrifices (it's the priests, not the people offering the sacrifice, the sacrifices are types of Christ and his once for all sacrifice, etc.) I have a hard time getting from there to direct application to us. I guess I've usually read that part of 19.3 as referencing moral duties under the old order that are now abrogated but it seems to me that even in terms of determining abiding moral duties from ceremonial law there are clearer examples of how 19.3 could be applied where the typology is more direct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top