|
|
|
|
Hi all, Anyone who knows me well realizes that I spend probably 75 percent of my time at church or going to church. Due to that I was asked by the bell choir director to write a letter to the head honchos at church about why they should not change the Christmas Eve service from my perspective. So I did and thanks to soem help editing from Ron *hugs* This is the final product. Figured I would see what yall thought.
To Whom it May Concern:
Recently, I was informed that people were once again trying to get the Christmas Eve services changed from three services at five o clock, seven o clock, and ten thirty to only two services. Same as last year when people wanted to change the services, I still feel it is not conducive to promote worshipping among the congregation. Three services allow the maximum number of worshippers, as well as allowing the people the flexibility to choose the service best suited to their needs.
Many of my friends are only able to attend a specific service because of other engagements they must meet on Christmas Eve. Having three services allows the people the flexibility to choose the service best suited for their needs (and their needs should be considered first when planning the schedule of services).To mention a few of my friends: Steve, a teenager from out of town, was only able to attend the five o’ clock service because of a Christmas Party he had to attend that evening with relatives. My friend Brenda, who often tries to attend PRC when possible, was only able to come at seven o’ clock because she had to eat a full meal with her family first; then the later service was ruled out because she needed to attend Saint Mary’s Mass for the midnight service.
When I questioned different people about the reasoning behind eliminating one of the services and only having two, I was informed that, "the number of people attending each service was not large enough for us to continue having three." Since I ring with both the Junior Pomptones as well as the Pomptones, I witness all three services each year. The second service was simply overrun with people last year, as well as the year before. The ushers were required to bring in extra folding chairs to accommodate all the people, who then needed to sit in the aisles (and having those folding chairs clogging the aisles and blocking the exits create an enormous fire hazard). Adding more participants to this service, which is the one most would attend, would be disastrous. That many more people would make the service too crowded and distracting for anyone to be able to focus during the service.
The other issue that I realize needs to be addressed (which I have carefully ignored throughout this letter) is "participant endurance". Now, I realize that I do have a slightly biased view of endurance. Since I was in sixth or seventh grade, I have been performing at all three services, only leaving long enough to get some dinner in between the seven o'clock and the ten-thirty services. However, we are now down to only one paid pastor opposed to the two that used to be engaged to lead services. I have noticed, though, that the first service often does not have a true sermon, and that it also has a reduced amount of music, and so it ends quicker. Is there any reason why someone else could not help Pastor Tom out if he wishes for the help? There are many other people with the skill and knowledge to be able to assist on Christmas Eve. As for the endurance of other participants: besides the ringers and Tom, none of the choirs participate at all three services. Most only do one (or possibly two), so they should not feel any strain on themselves during their services.
Many people don't see the reason why three services are still necessary in a church with a congregation the size of ours. The reason is because, on top of all the regular attendees, there are also those who come just because it is the holidays. Whether people like it or not, many church goers are only seen on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday. The purpose of the church and its leadership is to provide services for its congregation to better serve them, and the removal of one service on Christmas Eve would be detrimental to the needs of the congregation. Therefore, the three services should remain, and the time should either remain the same (five o'clock, seven o'clock, and ten-thirty), or the ten-thirty service should be pushed back once again to eleven o'clock (allowing it to end at midnight, the beginning of Christmas Day). Peace be with you.
Sincerely, Andy
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
I agree with you totally. If you want to ring those bells all day on Christmas, you do your thing. People who only go on Christmas Eve at least go. Play those bells and let them feel the joy that you feel when you ring them. You brought up really good points with the crowding and distraction of too many people. I hope they listen to you.
You rock, Andy :):)
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
Looks good. I agree and can certainly relate from just about every perspective.
My family currently attends a Saturday evening service which has small attendance, but many of those there couldn't be there on Sunday or just plain aren't morning people and wouldn't attend as regularly otherwise. I think the pastor enjoys the smaller, more laid-back (come in T-shirts) evening crowd - more like a dress-rehearsal for his Sunday crowd over over 1000 x 2 services.
I suggest you reword the fire hazard part as the blocked exit paths are not a "fire" hazard per se. Minor point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*hugs* glad I could help! Thanks!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Church Buissness GRRRRR 
Excellent Letter 
Re: Church Buissness GRRRRR 
