A Comparison/Review of Service Styles Between 3 Wildly Different Churches (Josiah Fong)

DISCLAIMER: ALL VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE PURELY THAT OF THE AUTHOR, AND DO NOT REFLECT THAT OF THE STEP PROGRAMME AND ITS ORGANISING COMMITTEE OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS, OR THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN SINGAPORE AND ITS MEMBER CHURCHES.

A Comparison/Review of Service Styles Between 3 Wildly Different Churches

Throughout STEP, we were given the opportunity to visit several Presbyterian churches throughout Singapore. We were also given the chance to attend Mass at a Catholic church, and Sunday service at a megachurch. Having grown up in a Presbyterian church, attending those two services were truly eye opening and allowed me to see just how different church services can be. Having attended those two services only once each, I am certainly unqualified to make a judgment on whose service is “the best”, whatever that means. So, rather than trying to see which style of service is “the best”, my aim is to analyze those two services and see what we can learn from them.

Presbyterian Church

Establishing a baseline for comparison, this is how Sunday service at my church usually goes: Service starts with a short piano prelude and a call to worship by the worship leader. 3-4 worship songs are then sung, with musical accompaniment from a pianist, bassist and drummer, followed by a prayer of confession and then a call for offerings. The scripture passage for the sermon is read aloud, then the sermon is given, discussing takeaways from the passage, usually with accompanying slides to help the congregation follow along. After the sermon, a responsive hymn is sung, then Holy Communion is held if it is the first Sunday of the month. The pastor gives a benediction, then an elder comes up to make announcements before dismissing the service. A simple and efficient service, and is what I grew up with.

Catholic Church

We visited this particular church on a Thursday and attended their Lunchtime Mass. I was struck by the beautiful architecture of the building and the minimalist design of the main service hall; I would later find out that each design choice was done purposefully, such as the lack of decoration in the sanctuary meant to focus worshippers’ attentions to centerpieces: the altar, and the crucifix which hung down over the altar, the crucifix’s position being a representation of Jesus coming to this Earth. The crucifix itself was carefully designed, immaculately sculpted with meanings behind every design choice, such as Jesus’ face looking pained from one angle, but smiling from another angle to show his suffering for us that we may smile together with Him in heaven. Even their choice to use clear glass in their main hall rather than stained glass, stemming from their Fransiscan belief that all creation is good, thus there is no need for stained glass to filter out the sin of the world. Such immense attention to detail and symbolism in every aspect of the building is something to be lauded.  While not every church will have the resources to do this, it does create a good conversation starter for newcomers to the church, which will easily lead into the gospel.

Mass started with the entrance of the priest, followed by a series of call-and-responses between the priest and the worshippers. Throughout the service, there were many occasions of call-and-response, with some of them having a melody to it. Having done virtually no research on Catholic liturgy, I can only assume that this is the Catholic form of worship: choosing simple responses with occasional acapella singing to really focus the worshippers on God and never the music, because there is none. This means that the worship “segment” is really spread throughout the full service: a good reminder that worship is not limited to songs sung during a short 15 minute window, but rather any response that glorifies God, no matter where or when we are.

This led to the scripture readings: a passage from Acts, a responsive Psalm, and a passage from John. The confusing part for me was that the person reading the passages never specified which verses the passage was from, only saying which book the passages were from before reading them. I think that this makes it harder for worshippers to follow along in their Bibles. Although, it could be said that this is done on purpose so that worshippers have to listen especially attentively to the readings, and have their focus solely on God’s Word, giving it the respect it deserves.

This was followed by the message. Now while the service up to this point had felt very formal, with all sorts of ritualistic actions and responses, the tone of the message was starkly informal in contrast, with the priest attempting to crack jokes and engage the worshippers. Perhaps this was an exceptional day. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. The message was delivered auditorily, with no Powerpoint Presentation behind him to support him, which was what I was used to. As a visual learner, I was unable to follow and catch the gist of the message. The choice to deliver the message purely auditorily was probably also done on purpose, to focus the worshippers’ attention to the preachings of the priest and not some slides behind him, but I can’t help but wonder if this method is truly the most effective way to preach. With slides, the congregation has a visual aid to help follow along with the message, but arguably draws attention away from the word-of-mouth preachings of the Word of God, which seems to be regarded very highly in the Catholic church.

Next was Holy Communion. I was surprised with how they went about this, particularly because of the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. While I personally don’t agree with this teaching, the whole process did impress me: it was taken with the deep respect and reverence that I imagine I would give if I believed that I was going to consume the literal body and blood of the Saviour who died for me. Mass ended soon after this, concluding with some announcements and the exiting of the priest.

While I disagree with some of the Catholic teachings, I do believe we can still learn from their great fear and reverence of God, and how they worship God in all that they do, even in their building architecture.

Megachurch

Skipping my own church service just to see this church’s service in person, the experience was unlike anything I had experienced before. Even before the service started, I was struck by the hospitality of the ushers. The ushers were incredibly welcoming, greeting everyone with “Welcome to church!” and also helping to manage the crowd that had come for service. The bread and wine for Holy Communion were distributed near the entrance to the hall to solve the logistical problem of having to distribute Communion to the hundreds of attendees. Upon entering the hall and taking our seats, I noticed that the screen was cycling through information slides, providing information about upcoming events and talks by the church, as well as an invitation for newcomers to connect with the church. I thought this was a good way to fill time before service started, and is helpful to both longtime church members as well as newcomers.

Service started with 4 songs of praise and worship, performed by a large live band consisting 3 main singers, several guitarists and bassists, 1 drummer, 1 keyboardist and several others. The lighting work was cool to see, albeit a bit distracting at times, and the sound mixing had the bass drum amplified, making each kick something you could literally feel in your body; I felt that this could either really immerse you in the worship or take you completely out of it, depending on your preference. The camera work was also impressive, with the screen also displaying the song lyrics, perfectly synced with the singers, who were fully engrossed in their roles. You could tell that the worship team had put in a lot of effort and practice for this, and were giving their all throughout. The songs all largely focussed on the power, providence and presence of God, barely touching on the topic of our sin and brokenness. This was a running theme throughout the service that became apparent as it went on.

Holy Communion was next. I was shocked by how lightly it was treated here, in complete opposition to that of the Catholic church. The pastor carrying out Communion spoke of how coming to the Lord’s Table could get you blessings, how it was better than any “3-star Michelin restaurant”, relegating the significance of the bread and wine to a short sentence before partaking in each of them respectively. I felt that this severely downplayed the suffering and torture Jesus went through before his cruxificion, glossing over the fact that it was because of our sins that Jesus had to go through all that pain and the whole reason why He gave us the Holy Communion to remember Him by in the first place.

This was followed by a call for members’ offerings and then a sharing of 3 testimonies. All 3 testimonies followed the format of “I was ill (physically or mentally), but after listening to the pastor’s sermon, I felt called out and so I prayed to God for healing. Soon after, I was healed. Thanks be to the pastor and his sermon!” While the sharing of testimonies is itself not wrong, I felt that the way they shared them placed greater focus on the pastor and his skills rather than God’s healing power. In addition, since it was not the recipient of the miracle testifying, we had no way of knowing whether the testimonies were true or not. It would be helpful and indeed beneficial to everyone if exact details of the supposed miracles were given, or at least an avenue to obtain those details is provided. That way, if we can verify that a miracle has indeed taken place, we can give even greater glory to God.

Next, the sermon, delivered through video recording of the morning service’s sermon. Though I understand it’s tiring for the pastor to speak live for every service, it did feel a bit impersonal to me. The sermon was again delivered auditorily, though this time the verses being quoted at that time were displayed on the screen. I imagine the lack of a scripture reading segment is because the pastor drew from everywhere in the Bible, not focusing on any one passage but rather choosing verses to fit his message. A cynic might argue that by not announcing the verses used beforehand and having them only be shown on the screen as they are used, the pastor can control what the attendees see, reducing the chance that they would take out their Bibles and read the verses in context, which would reveal the pastor for the false teacher that they are. I will not make judgments on this.

The message of the hour long sermon was to understand how having wisdom from God would enable us to make wise decisions. However, I felt that several verses were taken out of context or just plain misused. For example, the pastor quoted Mark 5: 6-8 which says that the teachers of the law were “thinking to themselves” while Jesus “knew in his spirit”, then went to explain the original Greek words used (dialogizomai and dianoia respectively), then argued that we should be like Jesus and trust in our dianoia, that even though God gave us logic and reasoning (dialogizomai), we should listen to the Spirit over all. Everything else that we hear should confirm what God has already said in our spirit/heart. I believe this is dangerous teaching, using verses to support a point that wasn’t even trying to be made by the original author (as far as I know), and then leading to a point which was essentially “follow your heart”, which is definitely not biblical. What the pastor failed to mention is that God gives wisdom and speaks to us through His Word, the Bible, not through sudden feelings of the heart.

The sermon ended with a call for attendees to believe in Jesus and the cross. This was surprising, given that Jesus was barely mentioned throughout the past hour, much less his crucifixion and resurrection. The focus was again on how believing in Jesus could lead to abundant blessings from the Lord, rather than salvation from eternal punishment. This should not be the reason to believe in Jesus. Believing in Jesus must be a result of us recognising our totally depraved and sinful nature, and thus realising the need for the Saviour, who died on the cross for our sins and was raised back to life 3 days later to prove His power over death. I can only pray that those who accepted the call at that service might come to truly know the Lord later in life, not as a free ticket to riches in this life, but as an undeserved gift to eternal life.

After the sermon was a surprise birthday celebration for the pastor, complete with a song-and-dance routine by the other church leaders done to the tune of Stayin’ Alive by the Bee Gees and a large birthday cake. While it’s not wrong to celebrate your pastor’s birthday, I thought that it was so extravagant to the point where it felt to me like the congregation was worshiping him rather than God, going against the first of the Ten Commandments which says “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Ex 20:3)

While the overall service is attractive, I felt that the fundamental teachings were wrong, making light of Jesus’ work on the cross and taking verses out of context to give wrong impressions of the Lord, such as one who will definitely bless us in life as long as we believe in Him. I believe these teachings are not what the Bible teaches and that they are dangerous to anyone who accepts them. If the teachings were more in line with the Bible, I believe this megachurch and others like it could be an extremely effective platform to advance the Gospel especially among youths, however this would inevitably result in many members leaving, having joined primarily for the promise of great blessings from God and unable to accept their sinful selves and their need for The Saviour.

Conclusion

Through STEP, I have now experienced 3 services with such different styles of service that it would be unfair to conclude which one was “the best”: My own church with its simple, efficient service, the Catholic church with its great reverence and fear for God showing through its traditionalistic Mass, or the megachurch with all its attractive glamour and so much potential for good. Perhaps then, what is most important is that the church is firmly rooted in the Word of God. The leaders of the church must be grounded on the Truth, and from there the rest of the service will follow suit. The exact liturgies may differ between churches, but the Bible is never changing. As long as the leaders preach according to the Bible and its teachings, and carry out the sacraments accordingly, I believe God will be well pleased, regardless of denomination. Because we all believe in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:5-6)