Many pastors nowadays will wear suits for funerals--which are, definitionally, commemorative services for fellow human beings who have died--but go about the busniess of conducting regular Sunday services, where the object is the worship of and fellowship surrounding the living God Himself, in business casual attire at best. Does that seem at least a bit off to you as well?

Speaking of worship, as in praise & worship songs, I wish I could find a clip of the old Comedy Central cartoon series Dr. Katz Professional Therapis tto illustrate it., One of Jonathan Katz' (Katz's?!) character's comedian cilents went on about how he was bothered by rock & roll bands who sing songs about rocking and rolling; the comic's ponit is that the band has the instruments, etc. to rock and/or roll, so they ought to do it instead of singing about doing it. Similarly, praise & worship songs about how I/we as a congregation are going to engage in praising and worshiping the Lord bother me (rarely, if ever, have I seen such lyrics in public domain hymns). We're here to do it, so let's do without going on about doing it! Have I a point with which you agree (or might were you Christian and regularly attending church)?

I've heard in a kind of second-hand manner that preacher I like made the point that churches that hold more than one service per weekend effectively host multiple churches in one building. I see his point, in so far as each service being comprised of regular attendees who form their own network of relationships and other factors of social ecology. Per the regular admonmition of a a tv & radio host to whom I regularly listen, a law shouldn't be declared where none exists in Scripture, but, to my mind, the ideal would be for all members of a church should come together for one service every Sunday morning or afternoon as they're able; I can understand the convenience of Saturday services for those with large enough flocks and enough adherents who might be working or otherwise unavailable on Sundays, but, I'd not call that part of the ideal either. Do the preacher I paraphrase and I make a valid argument to you?

Children's church apart from a main Sunday service? Let';s just not, I say. Though I know at least one man who's a dedicated worker in his church's kiddie service(s?; it's one of those places with more than one Sunday service), for which I'd not want the time he and the young'uns to whom he ministers spend there to not do any godly good, I see such segregation of children from adults counterproductive. Biblically, it's parents' duty to raise their offspring in the faith. If a minor's old enough to sit through a whole service, which s/he could be taught to do in the majority of cases, I'd say it should be incumbent on the parents to have the kid sit with them and explain after service whatever the child didn't understand. Besides, what I've seen of children's curriculum for evangelical Protestant churches is too often drivel that condescends regarding concepts adults should give younger people credit for being able to understand. Agreed?

Since I broached the e-word--evangelical--in my previous question, that's become a sore spot for me, too. The word in its original meaning in regards to a Christian congregation or individual isn't problematic, and,, at one time, was probably helpful as a descriptor of a faith intended to be shared and proselytized in order to make the good news/gospel of saving faith in Christ Jesus known. However, whether one's on the right or left politically, "evangelical" has come to be a term loaded with baggage. Lefties seem wont to believe evangelicalism is a draconian far right cabal, while righties, or the well-informed ones, know of their faith's infiltration for at least a century by leftist forces intended to undermine sound interpretation of the Bible, its authority and basis of worldview for those who believe it. Perhaps any term would, in time, become usurped and corrupted, but I suggest, for now,. hanging up "evangelical" and picking up the hopefully more specific "Biblicist" or "Bible-believing." Does that seem reasonable to you?