I
don't know how to thank you enough for the opportunity to come and
deliver these lessons on these Sunday afternoons. It has been a very
challenging experience for me, and I hope the lessons have been
challenging to you. To see the number of people who have come each
Sunday afternoon to visit with us, to listen to these lessons, and to
study them and consider them has been an encouragement to me. Thank you
so much for this opportunity.
We
are on our third of these lessons. Two weeks ago we talked about the
question of the orphan's home, what was the issue? And then last
Sunday, the sponsoring church. We included in that study questions
concerning the Herald of Truth and the more recent "One Nation Under
God" campaign. What was the issue?
This
one is a little different in some ways from the other two in that this
one has gained acceptance for the most part in my own lifetime and in my
own memory. There were church-supported orphan's homes when I was
born. There weren't many of them, but there were a few. There were
some sponsoring church arrangements when I was born. They occurred on a
rather small scale, but they existed then. But the general acceptance
of dining areas and kitchens in the buildings owned by churches of
Christ has come, not only within my lifetime, but within my memory.
In
1947, M. Norvel Young, on the lectureship in Abilene, encouraged
churches to build new buildings, to build them in good locations, and to
include in their buildings, among many other things, a large fellowship
room and cooking facilities that would be near this large fellowship
room. He followed that up with some articles in some of the papers that
were circulated, lending his encouragement to the idea of building
fellowship halls and kitchens. Now, that didn't catch on very well. I
remember when I was in high school, one of the churches in the city
where we lived built an addition on their building, and indeed, they put
in it a place for eating. But they felt a little pressure about this
and defensively said, "We're also going to have a Bible class in this
room." That's the way they excused themselves. But they felt pressure
in doing that. And I just couldn't believe that a church of Christ
would do that.
In
1954, I went to school in Montgomery. I attended meetings in churches
all around Montgomery. To my knowledge, there was not a church in
Montgomery in 1954 that had a fellowship hall and kitchen in its
building. Now, such might have existed, but I didn't know it if it
did. For a number of years while I was in college and after I graduated
from college, I would indiscriminately either lead singing in meetings
or preach in meetings for churches that supported institutions. I was
not aware of it if any of these churches had a fellowship hall and
kitchen in its building. Few churches had them in those days. But
toward the end of the '60s and on into the '70s, churches that planned
new buildings would include a fellowship room and kitchen in their
plans. It became an accepted practice. But that is something
relatively new among churches of Christ, and I think many people are not
aware of that.
Now
we raise the question, what was the issue? On what basis did many
object to this practice?
What Was Not The Issue?
Let's first of all ask the question: What was not the issue? The issue
never was whether one could eat something in a building owned by the
church. There were people who said, "Why, if these people are right, a
mother couldn't even give her baby a bottle of milk in the building."
Well, of course we never said anything like that. That was never the
issue.
Second, the issue was not whether or not the building is sacred. Now,
I'm not sure how we are using that word "sacred". The building is
certainly built to be used for spiritual purposes. If it is not to be
used for spiritual purposes, then it has no right to exist in the first
place. But at the same time, if we're talking about the brick and
mortar, the roof, the carpet, and other materials that go into the
building - No, they are not sacred. That was never the issue.
Let
me say again, that when differences arise, and it doesn't matter whether
it's over these things that we've been talking about, or over divorce
and remarriage, or whatever, one of our problems is we don't listen to
one another. We either already have our minds made up, or we are
thinking about what we are going to say next, or how we're going to
answer this person, that we really don't listen. And consequently, a
lot of times, we try to answer an argument before we even know the
argument. We try to answer an issue before we even know what the issue
is. And we make a very sad mistake. I may have been guilty of that.
Any of us may have been. But we need to listen to one another.
What Was The Issue?
What
was the issue? Well, here basically is what the issue was: Is there
New Testament authority for the local church to plan and provide
materially for social activities in its program of work? There's the
issue. Let's read it again. Is there New Testament authority for the
local church to plan and provide materially for social activities in its
program of work? Now there's the issue.
I
want to emphasize what we have emphasized throughout this series of
lessons: Is there New Testament authority? Is there authority for that
institutional board that stands between the churches and their work with
the institutional board taking the oversight of the work for the
churches? That was our question two weeks ago. Is there authority for
one eldership to take the oversight of the work of a thousand churches?
That was our question last week. We keep coming to the question of
authority.
We've quoted all these Sundays 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17: "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good
work." If it is a good work, you're going to find the authority in the
Scriptures. If you cannot find the authority in the Scriptures, it's
not a good work no matter how good it looks to us.
Consider Colossians 3:17, which we have just sung: "And whatever
you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." But you
can't do anything in someone's name unless that person has authorized
it. 2 John, verse 9: "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in
the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine
of Christ has both the Father and the Son." Is it in the doctrine of
Christ? Can we do it in the name of Jesus? Is it authorized by the
Scriptures? Those are the questions that we must constantly ask.
I
have before me a list of activities that brother Franklin T. Puckett
gave in the Arlington meeting concerning what a local church, a local
congregation, ought to do. And I've just borrowed that. I have looked
over it and agree with it, and I don't know of anything else myself that
a local church is to do. Let me just give you some of the things that a
local church is authorized to do.
He
says, first of all, to have an
assembly of the saints. And he gives us a Scripture, Hebrews 10:24
and 25. I might add Acts 20:7. The local church is to
provide an assembly for the saints. Now, in keeping with that, the
Pepper Road church has a comfortable and commodious building. Where is
the authority for this in which we're sitting right here today? Well,
it is in the fact that the church is to arrange for assemblies of
Christians.
Then
he says, number two: In such an
assembly, the saints are to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day
of the week; Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:33. All right, in
keeping with that, the church here has provided a table, bread plates, a
tray with glasses, and buys bread and fruit of the vine. Why? Because
that's one of the things that the church is to do.
Number three: They are to sing
psalms unto the Lord and with spiritual songs teach and admonish one
another; 1 Corinthians 14:23, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.
All right, in keeping with that, the church here has furnished song
books. Where?s the authority for the song books? We answer: One of the
things the church is to do is to arrange for singing. They arrange for
Tony to lead the singing. Where's the authority for that? The church
here is providing for singing.
Number four: They are to pray
together.
Number five: They are to preach and
attend to the teaching of God's word; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 14:26.
In keeping with that, a pulpit is provided and an overhead projector as
an aid for our teaching. There is a board here and a public address
system. What's that for? To enable us to efficiently teach the word.
Over on this other side there are some classrooms with various types of
equipment there to help in the teaching of the word. Where is the
authority for these classrooms? It's in the fact that the church is to
provide for the teaching of the word, and so this church has furnished
an auditorium that is comfortable and commodious and classrooms where
the teaching of the word can take place.
Number six: They are to lay by in store
on the first day of the week as they have been prospered to finance
their collective responsibilities; 1 Corinthians 16:2. I don't
see them, but somewhere around here I guarantee you there's a hat or
something that can be passed around to collect some money. Where's the
authority? It is the command to give of our means.
Number seven: They are to support the
preaching of the gospel. I suspect you've got a treasury, and you not
only support Bruce, you support men in other places. I think I know
some of them that you support. Where's the authority for that? Well,
that's exactly what the church is to be doing.
Number eight: They are to provide
for the fulfillment of needs of certain destitute saints; Acts 4:34,
35, 2 Corinthians, chapters 8, 9 -- we went through all those two
weeks ago. And we made the point two weeks ago that in keeping with the
care of destitute saints, the church, under the oversight of its elders
-- let me emphasize that -- the church under the oversight of its
elders, could buy a house, pay somebody to supervise, buy groceries.
Where would the authority for that be? It is in the command to care for
the destitute saints. Now, they wouldn't send it to a board of
directors, who in turn would take the oversight, but under the oversight
of the elders they could furnish such things. Are you getting the
point? When we see what the Lord has authorized the church to do, then
that gives us the authority for providing whatever is needful for the
efficient carrying out of what God has told the church to do.
Now,
if we could just find the Scripture where the church is to plan and
provide materially for social activities, then, in this building, we
need to provide a room for eating together with a kitchen nearby. How
did Norvel Young say that? A large fellowship room with cooking
facilities near this room in order to facilitate this particular
activity. But if the authority is not there for this activity, then the
authority is not there for building the nice fellowship room and the
kitchen to go with it. There's the problem. So in order to have our
kitchen, and in order to have the large fellowship room, what we've got
to find is the authority for the local church to plan and provide
materially for social activities in its program of work. That's what
we've got to find. The issue is simply this: Do we add a ninth activity
to the eight we have just listed, the ninth being that the local church
is to plan and provide materially for social activities? If so, we have
authority for kitchens and dining areas. If not, there is no authority
for them.
The Water Cooler
Well, somebody says, "Surely somebody came up with some arguments that
would favor that." Yes, that's right. Now let me just say that, as far
as I'm concerned, at least the first argument should never have been
taken seriously. But some tried to compare the fellowship halls and the
kitchens with a water fountain. Those of us who were living back at
that time will remember an article, and it was circulated widely, on
"Willie the Water Cooler". Does anybody remember "Willie the Water
Cooler"? It was a satire type of thing. Willie the Water Cooler in
this article was getting very concerned because Willie had learned that
some of the people thought it was wrong to eat in the church building,
and if some of the people thought it was wrong to eat in the church
building, they might decide it was wrong to drink in the church
building, and therefore Willie the Water Cooler might be moved out of
the church building. That was the argument they made. They missed the
point.
The
point is not whether we can drink some water in the church building.
The point is: Can we plan and provide materially for social activities
as a program of the local church's work? Lynn Headrick, my
brother-in-law, who, of course, passed away a little over a year ago,
made a very astute observation when he said, "When we find the church
planning social activities around the water cooler, then we'll take the
water cooler out." Now that gets right to the issue.
May
I make another point with you: Nothing is right (and let me make sure we
say this right) -- nothing is right because it is consistent with
something we're already doing. A thing is right or wrong on the basis
of whether it agrees with this book. Do you know how churches get into
apostasy? They don't go into apostasy in one giant leap. They take
just a little step, sometimes it's only a half step, in the wrong
direction. And then the first thing you know, they get to thinking,
"Well, I don't see any difference in that and this." And so they take
another step. "And I don't see anything different about this and this."
And they take that step. "Well, what's the difference in this and
this?" And the first thing you know, each thing they do, they justify
on the basis of something they have already been doing. That is not how
you establish authority for anything. Everything we do in the Lord's
work must be established on the basis of what the Scriptures teach, not
on whether it's consistent with something we've already been doing. If
the water cooler argument proves anything, maybe it proves that the
water cooler ought to have gone out. But I don't think it is the
issue. That was not a serious argument.
Love Feasts
Now,
there were at least two serious arguments that were made.
One
had to do with the love feasts that the Bible talks about. If you have
your Bible, turn to 2 Peter, chapter 2. You remember that the
book of 2 Peter is written to a great degree to combat false teaching
that had arisen, and apparently these false teachers were just as
corrupt as men could have possibly been. And in describing them, Peter
says, verse 13 of 2 Peter 2, they "will receive the wages of
unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the
daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own
deceptions while they feast with you." While they feast with you. Now
turn to the book of Jude. The book of Jude is almost a repeat of 2
Peter 2. Look at verse 12. In Jude verse 12, the
writer says, "These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with
you without fear, serving only themselves." Now, some looked at that
and said, "Now, here are love feasts that people had back in the first
century, and that's basically what we have in our fellowship halls, so
here is the authority for it -- it is in the love feasts."
In
the first place, I don't know that anybody knows what these love feasts
were. It's interesting to me that Albert Barnes just says it's the
Lord's Supper. And he makes his argument as to why this just has
reference to the Lord's Supper. I don't know that that's correct.
Others have said that they were dinners that wealthier people in the
church gave for the sake of the poorer people in order to show their
love for those who were poorer in this world's goods. That may be
correct. I don't know what these love feasts were. The one thing I
know is, there is nothing in 2 Peter 2 or Jude that suggests that
they were activities planned by the church. And I seriously question
that they were the same thing that's taking place in the typical
fellowship halls and kitchens of our day. But that is one of the
arguments that was made. One thing is certain: We do not have enough
information concerning love feasts for them to serve as authority for
kitchens and dining rooms in our buildings.
Fellowship
Probably the argument that most of us who are sitting here are wondering
about is simply: "What about fellowship?" Doesn't the Bible teach that
the church is to have fellowship? Indeed!
The
Bible does teach that the church is to have fellowship. But what a lot
of people have overlooked is the fact that the word "fellowship" in the
Scriptures has to do with spiritual activities. I have before me a
photocopy out of a book that I have which contains every Scripture that
uses the Greek word for fellowship, koinonia. An interesting thing
about this is: not one time does it have reference to social
fellowship. Here really we're getting to the basics: fellowship. What
does the word fellowship mean? Sharing, communion, participation in,
joining together. The very definition itself suggests that we have to
decide what we're "joining in", what we're "sharing".
One
interesting thing is the word "fellowship" in the Scriptures -- that is,
the Greek word -- is used for a business partnership. Turn to Luke,
chapter 5. Let me show you this usage. Do you remember the time
that Jesus told Simon to launch out into the deep, and let out the nets
for a catch -- "a draught", I believe the King James version says -- and
they caught so many fish that their nets began to break? Now look at
verse 10 of Luke chapter 5, "and so also were James and John the
sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon.-- Partners. This is the
same word that is translated "fellowship" in other places. Business
partnership. They were having fellowship in the business of fishing.
Now,
another usage of "fellowship" is social fellowship. This is where we
smell the doughnuts and coffee. Friday night a bunch of us got together
and had some elk stew, and I tell you it was all right. We had a good
time together. We socialized together. We shared in the eating of elk
stew and a few other things that some of the people brought. Are you
aware that the Bible never uses the word "fellowship" in reference to
such social activities?
Now,
another use of "fellowship" has to do with spiritual things. Every
time, every time the word is used in regards to the church's activity,
it is always this. And to my knowledge, there is not one Scripture in
the Bible that uses the term "fellowship" in regards to eating elk stew,
or whatever socializing we do together. Not one Scripture that uses the
word "fellowship" like that. Let me show you, for instance, 1
Corinthians 1:9 (We'll not turn to these). We were "called into the
fellowship of His Son." In Philippians 1:5, Paul commends the
Philippians for their "fellowship in the gospel." Fellowship in the
gospel. He says in Philippians 2:1, "if there is any fellowship
in the Spirit..." Philippians 3:10, he wants to know the
"fellowship of the suffering of Christ." Notice none of that has
anything to do with having a good time together. It has everything to
do with our relationship with God and our relationship with one another
as Christians.
1
John, chapter one. I want to turn to that one with you. Look at 1
John, chapter 1. Here is the fellowship that the Bible emphasizes.
If we could ever learn this, then we're going to realize that this term
"fellowship hall" is really a misnomer. It may be for social
fellowship, but it's not for the fellowship that the Bible talks about.
Now, 1 John 1, beginning with verse 1. John says, "That
which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,
concerning the Word of life -- the life was manifested, and we have
seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was
with the Father and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and
heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and
truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."
John says, I am writing these things concerning Jesus Christ that you
might have fellowship with us. I want to tell you, there's not a thing
in the world you can read in 1 John that has anything to do with
doughnuts and coffee and elk stew. It has everything to do with our
sharing together in spiritual things. And then he says our fellowship
is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
What
has happened to us, brethren, when every time we hear the word
"fellowship" we immediately think in terms of fun and games and eating
and drinking together? What has happened to us that we see that, every
time we see the word "fellowship", when it's never even used in the
Bible that way?
No,
you cannot find the authority for a local church, as a part of its
program of work, planning and providing materials for social activities
in the word "fellowship" in the Bible, because it doesn't use the word
"fellowship" for that.
May
I make this point? The church at Pepper Road has a fellowship hall.
Let me say that again. The church at Pepper Road has a fellowship
hall. You're in it. We're in it right now. We are sharing in worship
to God, in the study of His Word. We are learning what John wrote to
us, that we might have fellowship not only among ourselves, but that we
might have fellowship with the apostles. And indeed, our fellowship is
with God and with Jesus Christ. We must learn that this is the kind of
fellowship that the Bible talks about.
May
I make another point? The Pepper Road church has a fellowship meal in
this fellowship hall. It's called the Lord's Supper. Turn to 1
Corinthians, chapter 10. Look at verse 16: "The cup of
blessing which we bless, it is not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body
of Christ?" What is the word communion? Same word. You know,
sometimes we just refer to the Lord's Supper as the "communion". I
don't know how we got started doing that. That's the same thing as
saying "I'm going to go prepare the fellowship for Sunday." That's what
the word communion means. And what that passage is saying is when we
eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine, we are having fellowship,
communion, with the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now, let's read
further, verse 17: "For we, being many, are one bread and one
body; for we all partake of that one bread." Oh, now, that's not just
communion with the body and blood of Christ, but there's communion among
all of us within the one body. And let me tell you, that one body is
not a local church. That one body is God's people. When we partake of
the Lord's Supper, we are having not only communion with the body and
blood of Jesus Christ, but we are having fellowship around a fellowship
meal, if I may use that term, with all of God's people, all over the
world, who can legitimately eat of that bread and drink of that fruit of
the vine. There's one bread and one body, and we all partake of one
bread. You may have five or six pieces of bread. At New Georgia, we
may have four pieces of bread. But there is one bread, one bread, and
all of us partake of that. What a fellowship!
One
of my favorite passages in the Scripture is that passage that talks
about us all sitting together in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph.
2:1-7). It is as though this building were one huge building that
is constantly expanding, and we look over here and we see Paul and Peter
and Stephen and Barnabas and Lydia and Dorcas, and we see faithful
Christians we've known in our lifetimes who've already passed on, and
there are the faithful of our present generation, and all of us are
sitting together. And the central figure with whom we sit is Jesus
Christ. And we have a fellowship meal; it's called the Lord's Supper.
And what a fellowship! And then somebody comes along and every time he
sees the word "fellowship", he thinks in terms of having a good time.
What we have done is just missed the whole principle of Bible
fellowship. But somebody says, "Doesn't the Bible talk about people
eating together and enjoying one another?" Yes. Before the church was
ever established, I remember Jesus went to a feast that Levi gave --
Matthew. A great feast. Publicans and sinners were present. I
remember another time when Jesus went to a feast, and apparently Martha
gave the feast. Lazarus sat at the table, John, chapter 12. You
might want to look at Acts, chapter 2. Here were Christians
eating together. In Acts chapter 2, verse 46, we read concerning
the activities of some of those early Christians. We are told, "So
continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from
house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of
heart." May I pause to say that the term "breaking bread" may sometimes
refer to the Lord's Supper, while sometimes it may refer to eating a
common meal. You have to let the context determine. In this case,
we're talking about a common meal. But notice they broke bread from
house to house, and ate their food with gladness and simplicity of
heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. But nothing
here would imply that it was part of the church's program of work to
provide for that.
Consider also 1 Corinthians, chapter 11. The church at Corinth
was not observing the Lord's Supper as Jesus had instructed. It seems
that there were two problems. First, they had turned the Lord's Supper
into a common meal, and, second, in their divided state, some were
eating while others had nothing to eat. There was total disregard for
the poor among them. In dealing with this problem, Paul writes, "What!
Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the
church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to
you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you." You have
houses to eat and drink in, Paul said. "But Paul is correcting abuses
of the worship", someone may be thinking. That's right. But he did not
say, "You should wait until after the worship for the church to provide
for eating and drinking." He said, "You have houses for these
activities."
Turn
with me to 1 Timothy 5:16. Let's bring all this, hopefully, to a
conclusion. 1 Timothy 5:16: "If any believing man or woman has
widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened,
that it may relieve those who are really widows." Now, I'm going to
take that and enlarge on it. I've got a widowed mother. Now, whose
responsibility is that widowed mother? Well, I'll tell you what, it's
not the church's responsibility. It's my responsibility, and my two
sisters' and Sewell's to take care of my widowed mother. Charlotte has
a widowed mother. Whose responsibility is Charlotte's widowed mother?
Not the church's responsibility. It's the responsibility of me and
Charlotte, and Charlotte's three sisters. Let me do this so the church
won't be burdened.
May
I just enlarge on that a little bit? Suppose that I want my children to
be educated in math and English. Let me provide for the education of my
children. Don't let the church be burdened with that, so the church can
do the wonderful work that God has given the church to do.
Suppose I want my children to have recreation. Suppose there are not
only my children, suppose there are other young people within the group,
and I want them to have good wholesome recreation. Let me provide
recreation for my children. Don't let the church be burdened with that,
so the church can do those things that God has given His church to do.
Is
there a place for social activities? Indeed. I enjoyed that good elk
stew we had the other day. I wouldn't want to eat it every day, but
that was good! But let me provide for hospitality. Let me provide for
social events. And if others want to join with me in that, that's
fine. But let not the church be charged or burdened with providing for
social activities, so the church can do the things God has told His
church to do. It's just that simple. And nowhere in the Scriptures is
there anything to indicate that the church is to provide materially and
plan for social activities. That is the issue. That's where it lies.
Let
me close this series of lessons with this. We are either going to take
this matter of restoration of New Testament Christianity seriously or
we're not. We are either going to take the idea of "speak where the
Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent" seriously or we are not.
If we are not going to take the concept of restoring New Testament
Christianity seriously, then by all means let's quit giving it lip
service. Let's just forget the whole thing and do anything we want to
do, whether we have Bible authority for it or not. But, on the other
hand, if we are really serious about restoring New Testament
Christianity -- if we are really serious about making the local church
according to the pattern given in the New Testament -- then let's rid
ourselves of these things that have been introduced into the church for
which there is no New Testament authority. Let's go back and become
what the Lord intended His church to be. It's one way or the other. We
can't have it both ways, talking about restoring New Testament
Christianity while accepting all kinds of innovations for which there is
no New Testament authority. It just won't work.
You
have listened well. I appreciate it. And I hope you've understood
where the issue lies. That's been our goal. I hope you have been able
to focus on the issue, two weeks ago, last Sunday, and today, to know
what really caused all the divisions that took place in the '50s and
'60s and created so much trouble among families and among churches --
preachers being fired, churches being divided; it was a sad time.
If
there's someone in the audience who's not a Christian, another thing
this church has provided is a baptistery -- a place where you can be
baptized -- and clothes that you can change into so that you can obey
the simple command of baptism. If you have repented of your sins, and
will confess your faith in Christ, and be buried with Him in baptism,
you can be forgiven of sins, and you can go home a Christian rejoicing
in the Lord. Or, if you've fallen back, why not return to the Lord
today as we stand and sing.
Other Articles by Bill Hall
Restudying the Issues of the 50's and 60's (Part
1)