Is An Order Of Service Necessary?

[Stumpmaster]

In the past I was a logistics co-ordinator responsible for putting the Order of Service together and leading the Sunday morning meetings of a congregation I was part of for quite a few years. I also trained interns to do this, but I was always aware that it was an arbitrary call that depended on there being an established pattern closely scrutinised by elders and longterm members alike.

I have also been involved in Home Fellowships whose reason for being was ostensibly to avoid programs and the dreaded order of service. I smile as I write this because these Home Fellowships invariably defaulted to a de facto order of service, albeit one less formal than the ones I prepared for the Nazarenes during my tour of duty with them.

With regard to my time among the Nazarenes, in the order of service I would include an opportunity for members of the congregation to bring a word, or read a Scripture, or share a testimony, but their having a ceasationist theology as a denomination, and my having a Charismatic/Pentecostal background, I discerned a definite quenching of the Holy Spirit and lack of congregational initiative from some who were uncomfortable with this, and the verse "Let all things be done decently and in order", was never in danger of being off the menu.

Any comments . . .

 

[amadeus]

@Stumpmaster You alone or I alone or anyone alone cannot make it happen to everyone that meets together has not followed a prescribed order of service as per men, either written out in advance for a leader to follow or done by default. Consider what Jesus said here:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20

When people read those words, do they all understand the importance of the "in my name" phrase? If men have decided what the order of service is going to be, will that not very often with many, or most, or even all, people present stifle the Spirit of God in them in favor of the order decided?

People need to learn what it means to be "in His name" and then go ahead and get into that Name as they are able. If at least two do it, then is He not there also? If none do it, will He be there with them?

 

[Stumpmaster]

@Stumpmaster You alone or I alone or anyone alone cannot make it happen to everyone that meets together has not followed a prescribed order of service as per men, either written out in advance for a leader to follow or done by default. Consider what Jesus said here:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20

When people read those words, do they all understand the importance of the "in my name" phrase? If men have decided what the order of service is going to be, will that not very often with many, or most, or even all, people present stifle the Spirit of God in them in favor of the order decided?

People need to learn what it means to be "in His name" and then go ahead and get into that Name as they are able. If at least two do it, then is He not there also? If none do it, will He be there with them?

Yes, thanks for your sage remarks, Amadeus. I was hoping for the sort of observation you have made as it is the gold standard of our fellowship. Nevertheless, I don't think having a guideline of how gatherings should be conducted is prohibited in Scripture.

Comments anyone . . .

 

[Rita]

I must admit that this was one of the things that I felt challenged by when I started to question ‘ how things were done ‘ in a church gathering. I had gone through the motions for years and never questioned it. It started with ‘ Why do the seats have to be in rows , very neatly positioned each week ‘ then Why do we have to have notices, a hymn, a prayer, another hymn, then a sermon, another hymn, then prayer, then a collection ect ect. Week in week out, the same format. Even after the service it was coffee and teas and’ let’s talk about anything but the sermon ‘ ......sorry but this is mans way of doing ‘ church ‘ it’s how we gradually claimed that it was ordered, structured , so it had to be right. I just stopped feeling it was okay.
There was no opportunity to do it differently, originally it would have been a fresh way and I guess may have achieved something, but now it has become routine and normal and very much places the ‘ control ‘ in the pulpit and limits what others can offer to meeting together. Everything is planned in advance.
I believe the quakers just sit and reflect and if anyone has anything to share they can.
Not every fellowship may be like this , to it was my experience over 30-35 years, I left the local church many years ago. Rita

 

[amadeus]

Yes, thanks for your sage remarks, Amadeus. I was hoping for the sort of observation you have made as it is the gold standard of our fellowship. Nevertheless, I don't think having a guideline of how gatherings should be conducted is prohibited in Scripture.

Comments anyone . . .

Younger or less experienced people in the Lord do need help from men, but the help should come from men/women who know the Lord and who walk with and in Him so it is not them who are stifling the Spirit. God did give us ministers for this purpose as per:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" Eph 4:11-14

Of course we should be careful so as not to presume that a person is working in one or more of those gifts simply because he/she says so... Help us dear Lord!

 

[Stumpmaster]

I must admit that this was one of the things that I felt challenged by when I started to question ‘ how things were done ‘ in a church gathering. I had gone through the motions for years and never questioned it. It started with ‘ Why do the seats have to be in rows , very neatly positioned each week ‘ then Why do we have to have notices, a hymn, a prayer, another hymn, then a sermon, another hymn, then prayer, then a collection ect ect. Week in week out, the same format. Even after the service it was coffee and teas and’ let’s talk about anything but the sermon ‘ ......sorry but this is mans way of doing ‘ church ‘ it’s how we gradually claimed that it was ordered, structured , so it had to be right. I just stopped feeling it was okay.
There was no opportunity to do it differently, originally it would have been a fresh way and I guess may have achieved something, but now it has become routine and normal and very much places the ‘ control ‘ in the pulpit and limits what others can offer to meeting together. Everything is planned in advance.
I believe the quakers just sit and reflect and if anyone has anything to share they can.
Not every fellowship may be like this , to it was my experience over 30-35 years, I left the local church many years ago. Rita

Thanks for your response, Barbara/Rita.

I was raised in the Anglican tradition. The liturgy was set by the hierarchy and clergy were dismissed if they didn't follow it. The old English Act of Uniformity is a real eye-opener on this score. In my time with the Anglicans, which ended 36 years ago, anyone who questioned the way things were done was told to go elsewhere.

When it comes to the formatting of assemblies, the assumption that "one size fits all" is a red flag to those who are tired of being coerced into "man's programs".

 

[Rita]

Thanks for your response, Barbara/Rita.

I was raised in the Anglican tradition. The liturgy was set by the hierarchy and clergy were dismissed if they didn't follow it. The old English Act of Uniformity is a real eye-opener on this score. In my time with the Anglicans, which ended 36 years ago, anyone who questioned the way things were done was told to go elsewhere.

When it comes to the formatting of assemblies, the assumption that "one size fits all" is a red flag to those who are tired of being coerced into "man's programs".

The churches I was a part of were evangelical and baptist, all independent all able to choose how they did things, so I didn’t have all the ‘ smells and bells ‘ as an elderly lady use to describe high church in the Church of England. I do understand that their needs to be respect in worship, and perhaps that gets lost as we look for other ways that are more free in expression. Personally I believe there is a place for a mixture , but in the same place rather than all the divisions x
Rita

 

[Josho]

I must admit that this was one of the things that I felt challenged by when I started to question ‘ how things were done ‘ in a church gathering. I had gone through the motions for years and never questioned it. It started with ‘ Why do the seats have to be in rows , very neatly positioned each week ‘ then Why do we have to have notices, a hymn, a prayer, another hymn, then a sermon, another hymn, then prayer, then a collection ect ect. Week in week out, the same format. Even after the service it was coffee and teas and’ let’s talk about anything but the sermon ‘ ......sorry but this is mans way of doing ‘ church ‘ it’s how we gradually claimed that it was ordered, structured , so it had to be right. I just stopped feeling it was okay.
There was no opportunity to do it differently, originally it would have been a fresh way and I guess may have achieved something, but now it has become routine and normal and very much places the ‘ control ‘ in the pulpit and limits what others can offer to meeting together. Everything is planned in advance.
I believe the quakers just sit and reflect and if anyone has anything to share they can.
Not every fellowship may be like this , to it was my experience over 30-35 years, I left the local church many years ago. Rita

Bring back the quakers you say? I think the quakers had a pretty good idea.

Now speaking about order or no order, it can go too far the other way too without order. We had to get out of one of the Churches we were going to, they started having what they called revival meetings in the night, but only about 3 people got saved out of that, and in the end it got into a mess and they started chasing angels instead of Jesus, we had to get out of that church.

And as some would know, in places without order some may start to manufacture gifts of the Holy Spirit themselves in the flesh.


I guess some ritual is fine when done out of the heart to Jesus.


Of course sometimes there is also too much order as the OP posted.

 

[Rita]

Bring back the quakers you say? I think the quakers had a pretty good idea.

Now speaking about order or no order, it can go too far the other way too without order. We had to get out of one of the Churches we were going to, they started having what they called revival meetings in the night, but only about 3 people got saved out of that, and in the end it got into a mess and they started chasing angels instead of Jesus, we had to get out of that church.

And as some would know, in places without order some may start to manufacture gifts of the Holy Spirit themselves in the flesh.


I guess some ritual is fine when done out of the heart to Jesus.


Of course sometimes there is also too much order as the OP posted.

Good points Josho , yes it can go the other way. I guess it’s about balance, being open but equally having a level or order within the openness. House groups can often give that balance, so maybe it’s about about how many people are meeting together.
Rita