The Evening Service: An Historic and Reformed Norm
Michael Brown
in Worship, Evening Service
|
5 Comments
Some Christians balk at the practice of attending an evening service because it is not what they are accustomed to. What they must understand, however, is that if what they are accustomed to is only one service on the Lord's Day, then they are accustomed not to the practice of the historic Christian church, but to a modern novelty.
As we look at the history of the church, we see that morning and evening worship on the Lord's Day was the norm. In the early fourth century, the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea described what he understood to be the universal practice of the church:
"For it is surely no small sign of God’s power that throughout the whole world in the churches of God at the morning rising of the sun and at the evening hours, hymns, praises, and truly divine delights are offered to God. God’s delights are indeed the hymns sent up everywhere on earth in his Church at the times of morning and evening." (emphasis mine)
During the Middle Ages, morning worship became known as “lauds” and evening worship “vespers.” Attending both lauds and vespers was standard practice for Christians.
At the time of the Reformation, the custom of morning and evening worship continued as evidenced in the liturgies of the Reformed churches in the sixteenth century. Typically, the evening (or in many cases, afternoon) service was devoted to an exposition of Reformed doctrine and was more catechetical in nature. So important was this second service to the life of the Reformed churches, that when it was threatened by the protests of the Remonstrants (Arminians), the matter was brought to the Synod of Dort (1618-19) and discussed at great length. The overwhelming testimony at the Synod by the delegates from countries all over Europe was that the second service was something to be guarded and cherished in order that the Reformed faith might continue to flourish and Christians have greater opportunity to mature in their understanding.
Through the centuries, this practice continued to be a principal part of Reformed worship as it can be traced in the traditions of the Dutch Reformed churches, English Puritanism and Scottish Presbyterianism, as well as Anglicanism and early Lutheranism. Thus, it must be understood that Protestant churches that have dropped the evening worship service altogether have sharply departed from what has historically been a normal practice of Christ’s church.
Reader Comments (5)
I think part of what also may figure in to the relative resistence is something I experienced when I first converted.
Coming out of secular unbelief and converting (and marrying) into a fairly vigorous PREF'ism (my own acronym for a form of broad Evangelicalism that has four streams running through: pietism, revivalism, evangelicalism [ok, redundant, but I needed a vowel!] and fundamentalism) the piety was one of *performance* and not one of *response*. Whatever was done it was always understood that it was our actions for God instead of completely a response to his words and actions. Hoping not to be too simplistic here, I really think this may be key for those who are trying to shed broad Evangelicalism or many things antithetical to Reformed confessionalism and grapple with these issues..
What happens when the program runs on performance instead of response is plain exhaustion. My in-laws' IFCA church has since dropped its evening service. In the words of Forrest Gump I bet many thought, "That's good, one less thing." My wife will likely take the rest of her life to slowly deprogram much of what she was born and bred for, which was high-octane performance. The second service is just another way to perform, not respond. In this way, I try very hard to keep this in mind as she resists the second service as well as some other aspects of what it means to keep the Sabbath. It is very understandable.
It is sort of like why we as reformed should never speak of how we "do church" or how we "do worship". Which is why I like the title "Divine service" over "worship service" because it better indicates who is the actor and who is the audience; it being the drama of redemption rather than the drama of "I think I can, I think I can".
I feel you Zrim, I was raised in that broad evangelicalism myself and my father has fallen victim to the same measure of apathy as that of you in-laws.
Zrim,
You make a great and important point. If the service is primarily about me serving, rather than God serving me by condescending to me in Word and Sacrament, then why would I want to go back in the evening? This really goes hand in hand with Willow Creek's survey about thier longtime members being exhausted and their conclusion that they need to "ween the mature people off of church"!
Adam,
Ditto.
Mike,
I think of Horton's recent comments about "Stop Serving God." God serves us, we turn and serve our neighbor. The difference is just absolutely mind-boggling.
Funny you mention WC. Way back, they were integral to my own conversion. It took about 4-5 years to become completely exhausted. I was on the trailheads to Rome until I came across Horton's writings and the Reformed tradition in general. It's been a good, long rest for many years. Phew.
Adam,
The more I think about your question/observation about the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, the more I think this relates to the rhthym of morning and evening that we see in creation and redemption. It's not to say, of course, that this is a type and the morning and evening service is the antitype (and I am not saying you are suggesting that), but it certainly does speak of the rhthym that God has established in creation and redemption.
It also speaks of his leading and guiding his people in that natural rhthym, which he does each Lord's Day.
Good stuff.