Church service

[Heavenhome]

Hi all
I have posted before asking questions about church services, namely Easter.
Today I just generally wondered about what your church has in its service. Reading previous posts I have come to see there are many different Presbyterian churches. In Australia it is mainly Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian and Free Presbyterian.
Where I am there is only the Presbyterian and that is not in my small country town, I have to drive to it.
If it were possible I would go to a Reformed or Free but this is not so.
I am quite confused as last week I attended the other church my minister goes to and the service was different.
In that service the Psalm was read by the minister and the reading was from the King James Bible and the minister did all the reading.
At the church I usually attend it is a modern translation used (I still use my King James) and women and men read from the Bible, plus when the Psalm is read the minister reads one line and the congregation reads alternately.
Why are they so different?
I know I should ask my minister, which I will do but after church he is ready to go onto the other congregation so cannot spend time and if someone else is talking to him, well you usually miss out.(which I did).
From previous reading of posts it sounds like the PC of America is more like our Uniting church which out here came about some time ago with Methodist, Congregational and Presbyterian joining together to form the Uniting Church. Those who did not agree with this remained Presbyterian.
The Uniting Church amongst other things accepts women preachers and gays and are very liberal.
So what am I really asking? Well I am confused that the same minister has two very different services .
1/ What does your church do?
2/What would you do in my position ?
3/Why would a minister hold two very different services?
If it was to please both congregations, is this scriptural?
As I keep saying I will ask my minister.
Thank you to any replies.

 

[Radagast]

I am quite confused as last week I attended the other church my minister goes to and the service was different.

If it's a typical Australian country parish, it's likely that the minister adjusts the services according to the way each congregation "has always done it."

From previous reading of posts it sounds like the PC of America is more like our Uniting church

No, the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA is much like Presbyterian Church of Australia, and they have fraternal connections.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC is much like the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, and they have fraternal connections.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) or PCUSA is much like the Uniting Church in Australia, and they have fraternal connections.

Well I am confused that the same minister has two very different services.

Small Australian country parishes are often the merger of small congregations with different traditions. Those traditions often persist for a long time. Because the minister is "shared" between congregations that are far apart, local elders have even more influence than is usual in the Presbyterian Church.

No doubt the minister has priorities regarding what he would like to change, and what he's happy not to change. For example, if I was a minister, I'd be happy to do the Bible readings myself, and I'd also be happy for members of the congregation to do them.

 

[Heavenhome]

If it's a typical Australian country parish, it's likely that the minister adjusts the services according to the way each congregation "has always done it."



No, the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA is much like Presbyterian Church of Australia, and they have fraternal connections.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is much like the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, and they have fraternal connections.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) or PCUSA is much like our Uniting Church, and they have fraternal connections.



Small Australian country parishes are often the merger of small congregations with different traditions. Those traditions often persist for a long time. Because the minister is "shared" between congregations that are far apart, local elders have even more influence than is usual in the Presbyterian Church.

No doubt the minister has priorities regarding what he would like to change, and what he's happy not to change. For example, if I was a minister, I'd be happy to do the Bible readings myself, and I'd also be happy for members of the congregation to do them.

Thank you for that, I never knew there were so many different Presbyterian churches in the USA until this Forum.
You are very knowledgeable about this, are you from Australia?
Just wondering........

 

[Radagast]

Thank you for that, I never knew there were so many different Presbyterian churches in the USA until this Forum.
You are very knowledgeable about this, are you from Australia?
Just wondering........

I am an Australian Presbyterian, who frequently visits Victoria, and who also has many friends in the USA.

 

[Radagast]

I never knew there were so many different Presbyterian churches in the USA until this Forum.

You ain't seen nothing yet. This chart doesn't even list all of them:

 

[Heavenhome]

You ain't seen nothing yet. This chart doesn't even list all of them:

Oh my! Has the Presbyterian church in Australia got anything like that?
My mind boggles! Why does man make everything so complicated?

Why can't there just be the simplicity of the church as in the New Testament? I wish.....

 

[Radagast]

Oh my! Has the Presbyterian church in Australia got anything like that?

Yes, I posted it before:

Why can't there just be the simplicity of the church as in the New Testament? I wish.....

Conservative groups keep splitting off from liberal ones, and there are small differences (do we sing hymns, do we have musical instruments?) that make it hard to join those conservative groups up again. Such unions do happen, though.

In Australia, we also have small conservative Presbyterian denominations with roots in Scotland (most of them), Ireland (Reformed Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian), and the USA (Westminster Presbyterian).

However, small conservative Presbyterian denominations are generally pretty friendly to each other. They often share seminaries, and people often switch between them when they move to another town.

 

[Heavenhome]

Thank you for all that information and my apologies to you as yes, you did post the information before.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Why can't there just be the simplicity of the church as in the New Testament? I wish.....

Great question!

 

[Radagast]

Great question!

Four answers:

1) Christians are forgiven; not perfect.

2) History is complicated.

3) Genuine differences continue to exist between Christians.

4) Even the smallest micro-denomination is at least able to arrange formal unity among its congregations. That's a step in the right direction.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Four answers:

1) Christians are forgiven; not perfect.

2) History is complicated.

3) Genuine differences continue to exist between Christians.

4) Even the smallest micro-denomination is at least able to arrange formal unity among its congregations. That's a step in the right direction.

As I read the NT, there was a spiritual unity among local churches rather than an organizational one.

 

[Radagast]

As I read the NT, there was a spiritual unity among local churches rather than an organizational one.

Organisation was loose, but there was organisational unity in that pastors were exchanged between congregations, there were ecumenical councils (Acts of the Apostles 15), provision for the poor in other congregations (Romans 15:25-26), etc.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Organisation was loose, but there was organisational unity in that pastors were exchanged, there were centralised councils (Acts of the Apostles 15), provision for the poor in other congregations (Romans 15:25-26), etc.

We must remember that the Apostolic era was not perpetuated; eventually there were no more Apostles; what endured was the Apostolic, Biblical doctrine that did not need a geographical organization to uphold it.

 

[Radagast]

We must remember that the Apostolic era was not perpetuated; eventually there were no more Apostles

Those three things I mentioned (exchange of pastors, ecumenical councils as in Acts of the Apostles 15, provision for the poor in other congregations as in Romans 15:25-26) continued.

For example, the Council of Nicaea (the first major council after Roman persecution stopped) resolved a number of issues of both faith and practice.

The Church needs denominations. Among other things, to give a structure for training pastors, and to give a structure for resolving conflicts. My personal belief is that the Presbyterian style of structure is one of the most effective ones.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Those three things I mentioned (exchange of pastors, ecumenical councils as in Acts of the Apostles 15, provision for the poor in other congregations as in Romans 15:25-26) continued.

For example, the Council of Nicaea (the first major council after Roman persecution stopped) resolved a number of issues of both faith and practice.

The Church needs denominations. Among other things, to give a structure for training pastors, and to give a structure for resolving conflicts.

I don't believe that meaning was infused into Scripture at Nicea.

It would be more accurate to say that what was there in Scripture was recognized by people who were there, but that after Nicea - at which there was also a lot politicking - Scripture was no less the self-sufficient court of appeal than it was before.

 

[Radagast]

It would be more accurate to say that what was there in Scripture was recognized by people who were there

True. But what happened was that the large majority of Trinitarian pastors there spoke to the small minority of Arians, and said this is what Scripture teaches. That resolved a very serious issue where some pastors had been teaching the wrong thing.

There were other, more practical, issues resolved and standardised in the discussions at Nicaea:

• could an unmarried pastor have a woman living with him to "keep house"? (yes -- as long as it was his mother, sister, or aunt)
• should the congregation stand or kneel when praying? (stand)
• what was the date of Easter? (the Egyptian church would decide, because they had the best astronomers)

 

[faroukfarouk]

True. But what happened was that the large majority of Trinitarian pastors there spoke to the small minority of Arians, and said this is what Scripture teaches. That resolved a very serious issue where some pastors had been teaching the wrong thing.

There were other, more practical, issues resolved and standardised in the discussions at Nicaea:

• could an unmarried pastor have a woman living with him to "keep house"? (yes -- as long as it was his mother, sister, or aunt)
• should the congregation stand or kneel when praying? (stand)
• what was the date of Easter? (the Egyptian church would decide, because they had the best astronomers)

It depends what you mean by "resolve".

On whose authority? Scripture's?

 

[Radagast]

It depends what you mean by "resolve".

On whose authority? Scripture's?

If you consider the three decisions I picked out:

• could an unmarried pastor have a woman living with him to "keep house"? (yes -- if it was his mother, sister, or aunt)
• should the congregation stand or kneel when praying? (stand)
• what was the date of Easter? (the Egyptian church would decide)

The first decision applies 1 Timothy 3:2 to a specific practical question. The last two decisions were cases where the exact decisions really didn't matter, but where there were benefits (in terms of general unity and in terms of people moving between cities) in having churches do things the same way.

Imagine, for example, if every denomination and every individual non-denominational church celebrated Easter on a different day!

 

[faroukfarouk]

If you consider the three decisions I picked out:

• could an unmarried pastor have a woman living with him to "keep house"? (yes -- if it was his mother, sister, or aunt)
• should the congregation stand or kneel when praying? (stand)
• what was the date of Easter? (the Egyptian church would decide)

The first decision applies 1 Timothy 3:2 to a specific practical question. The last two decisions were cases where the exact decisions really didn't matter, but where there were benefits (in terms of general unity and in terms of people moving between cities) in having churches do things the same way.

Imagine, for example, if every denomination and every individual non-denominational church celebrated Easter on a different day!

You miss my point.

Scripture is the court of appeal for each local church.

What counts about Easter is the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15.57, etc.), not having a superstructure of organization to "celebrate" it.

Though we both profess to be Protestants, probably, and would probably hold to Sola Scriptura, we evidently view the nature of Scripture's authority in profoundly different ways, it would seem.

 

[Radagast]

You miss my point.

No, I don't.

Scripture is the court of appeal for each local church.

And how does that work out in practice? What if the congregation is split on how they interpret Scripture?

And what if the local church is wrong? What if Pastor Bob in Springfield is preaching false teaching? What mechanisms exist for other pastors to take him aside, and say "Hey Bob, you're interpreting Scripture incorrectly?"

What counts about Easter is the Resurrection

Yes, but if you're going to have a special "Resurrection Sunday," it's nice if everybody agrees on what day that should be.

Though we both profess to be Protestants

I'm a (conservative) Presbyterian. You're not. We probably have very little in common, in terms of how we interpret Scripture.

And I'm kind of hazy on why exactly you're in the Presbyterian forum attacking Presbyterian church polity.