In a church that takes the concept of covenant seriously—God’s covenant of grace with us and our gracious covenant with each other—and where we as a congregation have been given the keys to receive and release members, we have an obligation to pursue unity, to pursue togetherness. If Christ created in himself “one new man” (Eph. 2:15), we don’t want to live as two men. Or three men. Or anything more than one.
In Acts 2, we read that the early church devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, and in Hebrews, the author urges believers not to forsake the assembly.
Why? Because God made us one. Therefore, we don’t want to live as “two.”
The Lord’s Day worship gathering is like a family reunion, and when the family reunion hits, every able-bodied person is committed to being there, because we’ve committed to togetherness.
Therefore, your pastors want to remind you of—or, for some of our newer members, perhaps introduce you to—the conviction we share that our church should practice one Sunday worship gathering. Your pastors have had the conviction that we should be a one service church for years now. We initially moved to two services about six years ago, simply because our present sanctuary could not contain the number of members and other attendees coming to worship. We envisioned this move being temporary, an impermanent concession to facilitate our growth, and we simultaneously began working toward a plan for returning to one service in a new (or expanded) sanctuary space.
But what began as an accommodation, a concession, has become—to our consciences—6 years of compromise. We do not believe that the multiple service format has become ideal for us, nor an appropriate arrangement for congregational health or unity. While our expansion plans were put on hold due to unforeseen circumstances, we have resumed those plans now that our leadership/staffing structure has stabilized. Our desire is to actively lead us back into one Sunday morning gathering.
Here, in summary form, is some of our rationale:
Biblical Reasons
The Greek for church (ekklesia) literally means “assembly,” or “gathering.” And in the New Testament, the church Christ builds is defined by its assembling together. The Bible’s very conception of the church is inextricable from its gathering. Now, there are a few texts in the NT where the word ekklesia may refer to the idea of the “universal church,” but these references are vastly outnumbered by texts that refer to a local assembly. Use of ekklesia to refer to the universal church concept happens in the NT basically 9 times. Use of ekklesia to refer to an assembly or gathering of the church happens 91 times. So in the Scriptures, the word “church” is practically synonymous with a gathering, a physical coming together.
So if our church has more than one assembly, we functionally have more than one church. God made us one. But we’re operating as two.
Now, this does not mean we are not a family when we are not gathering. The church is not limited to the gathering but it is defined by it. In his book One Assembly, Jonathan Leeman uses the analogy of a team. He says:
“A team is a group of people who play a sport together but not only when they play a sport together. You wouldn’t call them a team if they never played as one. But insofar as they do, you would call them a team even when they are not together. The function creates the thing, without which there is no thing.”
Similarly, the members of Liberty Baptist Church are still Liberty Baptist Church even when we’re not assembled in this building. We are still one church Monday through Saturday. But it’s our assembly on the Lord’s Day that centers us as a church.
Sometimes you will hear people say “Well, look, the church isn’t a building or a service; it’s a people.” And that’s true in one sense. But in a biblical sense, the church is a people defined by the boundaries of its organization around the teaching of God’s word and the practicing of the ordinances. In which case, the gathering is defining for our existence as a church.
Now, if the exegetical/lexical argument were all we had, it would be enough. But we also have another reason we want to move back to one service.
Cultural Reasons
We don’t just functionally have two churches, because of the unique dynamics of each service, we culturally are operating as two churches. Members may come to one service and thus rarely (or at least, irregularly) worship with the members of the other service. When we observe the Lord’s Supper, we are doing so as a divided church, when the New Testament enjoins us to “welcome one another” to partake. (In the ESV, to “wait for one another.”) This command is impossible to obey if we are not observing the ordinance together in one gathering.
Furthermore, our two services have taken on unique “personalities” that make them different experiences—both for the congregation and for those of us who lead. Not to put too fine a point on it, but customarily our first service is usually more full and the worshipers more verbal. The second service is usually less full and more reserved. There is no shame in worshiping as the Lord leads you—whether more physically or verbally “engaged” or less so. But when two services become customarily known by such a contrast, it only enhances the experience of having “two churches” in worship.
In my sermon I described this as each service having its own “vibe.” That word may not communicate all that it ought to in describing the experience of our two services, but the burden I and your other leaders share, is that our church not be divided this way. We would love all of our members to worship together at one time, that we might learn what our “vibe” together might be! It is impossible for our members to “speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” if they are not in the same room together.
We lose the true experience of unity if we are not worshiping in functional division.
And if the exegetical and cultural/spiritual reasons aren’t enough to think through one service, there remains still more reason:
Practical Reasons
Multiple services by necessity leads to more energy expended, more volunteer needs, and more potential for burnout on behalf of those who lead in our services week to week. Speaking as a regular preacher, I can say that personally it becomes more wearying than it ought to be to give everything you’ve got in preaching one service, to “leave it all out on the field” as it were, and then desire to repeat that in a subsequent service. It is much more desirable to preach with everything the Lord will give to everybody at once. Further, with multiple services, it can sometimes strike both preachers and song leaders and other leaders as though we are having to re-create moods or moments that run dangerously near the concept of performance.
But if for the endurance and energy of our people resources alone, one service is a clear advantage over multiple services.
Further, the question arises: if we continue to grow, as the Lord allows, does this mean we would move to adding a third service? We know that hundreds of churches have accepted that arrangement as a necessary concession to growth, but we only see that as a further compromise of our biblical convictions. And it would put even greater strain on our leaders and volunteers. One service puts us back into the worship gathering as an event for the whole church together.
Now, we also look to the future of our church as an opportunity to become serious about church planting. Sending out leaders and church members to plant churches is a New Testament value that we want to share to be faithful to God’s mission. And church planting would also help us manage future growth. There is no “magic number” of worship attendees we have identified, but in the interim, we still find it practically important to do what we can to transition into one worship gathering, which will afford us a bit more time to work toward becoming a church-planting church.
As Pastor Bobby shared at our June 2024 members meeting, our hope is to begin the move to one service in an incremental way that is the least disruptive way possible while still qualifying as obedient steps toward operating according to our convictions. Initially, this will likely entail moving to a once-a-month one service gathering at Manor Hill Elementary School.
We know that change is difficult, especially a change of this significance. But we hope you will share not just our theological convictions about one service but share the desire to get our whole family back around the same table! It won’t be easy, but nothing worth doing usually is. Your pastors want to make sure everything important is accounted for in such a transition—everything from childcare considerations to congregational comfort, from impact on Equipping Groups to impact on visitors—but we believe whatever the cost, it will not be as great as the cost of worshiping in a divided state.
We covenant as one, so we should gather as one. We want to see everybody’s face. We want to be encouraged by the presence of everyone. We want to hear everybody’s voice. We want that “one new man” to function as one, not as two or more. All the body parts together, not separated.
Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered, there I am among you,” and he was speaking to the unique supernatural quality of the church gathered together. There is a specialness in our gathering; Christ’s Spirit is manifested in a unique way when Christ’s body is gathered.
Which is a very good reason why we want to as soon as feasibly possible worship together in one service.
More resources:
One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite and Multiservice Church Models by Jonathan Leeman (book)
The case for One Assembly in three minutes from Jonathan Leeman (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fag-rCFcVLY
“Two Reasons a Church Shouldn’t Have Multiple Gatherings” by Kyle Schwahn (article) https://www.9marks.org/article/two-reasons-a-church-shouldnt-have-multiple-gatherings/