Somewhere in the past the idea entered
the Church of Christ that it would be all right to take the funds
collected on the first day of the week and construct a church
building which would include such things as a kitchen and a large
dining room or "fellowship" hall. These structures weren't built to
feed needy Christians, rather they were built to feed and entertain
already well-fed members.
Point to Note: I said that such
an idea "entered" the Church of Christ, because this concept hadn't
always been in the Church. In 1951 (not that long ago) B.C.
Goodpasture wrote in the Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary
(note: many of the congregations which now have "fellowship halls"
are strong loyal supporters of the Gospel Advocate): 'It is not the
mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for
its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its
place in the life of all normal persons but it is not the business
of the church to furnish it...The church was not established to
feature athletics...For the church to turn aside from its divine
work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission.
It is to degrade its mission.... Building recreation rooms, and
providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of
the church, is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed
in the New Testament…. The church might as well relieve the parents
of feeding and disciplining all of the young people at church
expense as to take over the job of entertaining and supervising the
recreation at church expense.' (p. 229) The Gospel Advocate
Quarterly said in 1951 that such is sin. Two observations need to be
made in response to this quote:
(a) To oppose "fellowship" halls and all
the things which go along with church sponsored recreation, is to
hold the "common" view.
(b) Since congregations actually did
split over this issue, who caused the division? Who took a "radical"
position? Who placed a "fellowship" hall over fellowship with their
brethren? Who said that having a kitchen in the building is more
important than unity? (Ephesians 4:1-3)
Arguments That Don't Add Up:
A. The Love
Feast: II Peter 2:13/Jude 12
It is argued that the "feast" mentioned
in these two verses were church-funded dinners or potlucks, very
similar to the modern church dinners which are served in a
"fellowship" hall, where members conduct birthday parties,
anniversary celebrations, baby showers, etc..
Points to Note: The idea that the
"love feast" was a social meal connected with, following or before
the Lord's Supper is a common denominational view.
(1) Such a view contradicts what Paul
says about the Lord's Supper. Paul not only separates the Lord's
Supper from a social meal, but he commands all such meals to be
engaged in "at home" (I Corinthians 11:22, 34). Some contend
that Paul is simply correcting the Corinthians abuse of "fellowship
dinners", but that we are not to interpret Paul as saying that all
such church sponsored dinners are wrong. In response:
(a) Paul is correcting an abuse of the
Lord's Supper!
(b) When correcting an abuse of
something legitimate, Paul never completely out-lawed the practice.
Rather, he proceeded to regulate it. (I Corinthians 10:25-33)
(c) Paul never regulates "church
dinners". He places all such social meals in the private sector.
(I Corinthians 11:22, 34)
Notice what Paul didn't say. 'Let's go
ahead and eat the Lord's Supper and then we can have a banquet after
the dismissal prayer!'
(2) Even many denominational
commentators argue that the "love feast" wasn't a social meal at
all. Rather, it is simply another name for the Lord's Supper. 'When
we come to Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) we find that in his account
of church worship he does not mention the agape (love feast) at all,
but speaks of the Eucharist (Lord's supper) as following a service
which consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayers, and
exhortation.' (I.S.B.E. revised. 'Agape', p. 66)
(3) Someone also pointed out that from
simply reading II Peter 2:13 or Jude 12 (if this was a social
meal) the text says absolutely nothing about where these feasts took
place. Did such feasts take place in private homes or were they
church funded?
(4) A recognized method of
interpretation is to let the Bible interpret itself. (a) The social
meals of the early church in Jerusalem happened in the private homes
of the members. (Acts 2:46 'and breaking bread from house to
house')
(b) Paul places all social meals outside
the assembly (I Corinthians 11:22, 34).
B. The Use of the Word
"Fellowship":
It is a common assumption that the word
"fellowship" includes social meals. I think many members of the
church picked this up from the denominational world. Unfortunately,
the word "fellowship" as used in the Bible is never used or attached
to social meals or a dining hall. I find the word used for sharing
in spiritual things. (Acts 2:42; I Corinthians 1:9; Philippians
2:1; I John 1:3) I also find the word used in reference to the
Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 10:16).
Note: If a social meal can be called
"fellowship", then it also can be called "communion" for that is one
way in which this word can be translated. I even find the word
"fellowship" being used of sharing in physical things. But in those
instances, the sharing was always to relieve a definite pressing
need. (Romans 15:26; II Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:5;
Hebrews 13:16; I Timothy 6:18)
C. The Church Sponsored Meals of Acts 6:
Points to Note:
(1) Such meals were for benevolent
purposes. We have clear scriptural authority for the church to use
its funds to house, cloth, feed, etc., members who are in need.
(I Corinthians 16:1-2) But modern day church dinners and
"fellowship halls" are not for benevolent purposes.
(2) Such meals were only for needy
Christians. Carefully note that the apostles never started the
modern practice of using free food and recreation to draw
non-Christians.
D. But It Is A 'Good
Work':
Often you will hear the following in the
attempt to justify church sponsored social meals:
(1) 'But churches that build kitchens,
dining rooms, gyms, etc., GROW!' But a certain kind a growth means
that you are on the wrong road. (Matthew 7:13) In addition,
churches that teach Premillennialism, Calvinism and the direct
operation of the Holy Spirit, also grow. In fact, such churches grow
faster and bigger than the ones who merely opt for "fellowship"
halls.
(2) The Bible defines what is a "good
work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). Nowhere in the Bible do we find
church sponsored social meals, recreation or "fellowship" halls.
(3) And to me here is the real "rub" of
the social gospel or liberalism. According to certain people church
dinners and "fellowship" halls are mandatory for church growth,
evangelism and maintaining unity in the congregation. Lest anyone
object that I used the word "mandatory", let me point out that
congregations and individuals, who advocated such innovations,
thought they were so needful that they divided the church over them.
The argument that they were just a "method" or an option doesn't fly
because you don't divide the church over an "option." Advocating
even a matter of moral or doctrinal indifference to the point of
division is a sin. (Romans 14:15-16; 19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9-12;
10:31-33) But the problem is, the apostles didn't view such
things are necessary. The social gospel casts the apostles and the
first century Christians into an "unspiritual" light. Listen to the
following statement: 'The Jerusalem church ... had no youth
minister, no family-life center, no activities director, no day-care
center, no choir, no band, no orchestra, no music minister; it had
no soccer field nor gymnasium; it had no marriage counselor, no
senior's minister, and no chariot ministry.' (Guardian of Truth,
'Full Service Churches', Irvin Hummel, 4-2-92, p. 24) You see, the
social gospel or liberalism makes the first century churches look
like they weren't on the cutting edge. It makes the apostles look
apathetic, unspiritual and "lacking vision", for they never
advocated such ideas. Liberalism is forced to condemn the
Christianity practiced in the first century, for it was completely
void of all the things that people claim the church can't survive,
grow and minister to the needs of Christians and non-Christians
without.
E. The Building Isn't Sacred:
Points to Note:
(1) You would be hard pressed to find a
group of people who have spent more time and effort in trying to
teach people that the "building" isn't the "church", than
conservative brethren. Many of us even phrase our signs, 'The church
of Christ meets here'.
(2) Listen to the following: 'He accuses
us of believing in the sacredness of the building, yet it is
institutional churches who often hold "dedication services" when
they build a new building. That sounds like they believe the
building is sacred!' (Guardian of Truth. 'Fellowship Halls', Dick
Blackford, 1-19-95, p. 17)
(3) While the building isn't "holy
ground" at the same time it must be recognized that since it was
purchased with first day of the week funds, it can only be used for
those things outlined as the work of the church in the New
Testament. That is, the building can be used for edification
(Hebrews 10:24-25) (i.e. worship/bible study/song leading
classes, etc.), evangelism (I Timothy 3:15) (gospel meetings,
preaching, etc.) and benevolence for Christians. (I Corinthians
16:1-2)
F. The Claim That We
Contradict Ourselves:
A huge "theological" proposition in
recent years has been whether or not it is right to eat a meal in
the "church building" ... This writer knows of a case where brethren
were involved in building a new meeting place. As they worked each
week, they had lunch in the partially completed structure. The day
they moved into the facility to worship, eating on the premises
became a sin…' (The Spiritual Sword, 'The Crisis of Radical
Reactionism.' Wayne Jackson. 10-93) First of all I want to point out
that Wayne Jackson has written some excellent material.
Unfortunately, on this issue he has found himself defending
something that can't be defended. And when you place yourself in
such a position, you are forced to make an argument which will come
back to haunt you.
Using the above argument others could
just as easily contend: This writer knows a case where brethren were
involved in building a meeting place. As they worked some of them
listened to music on the radio. The day they moved into the
facility, rock and instrumental music in the worship services became
a sin! Or, what if one of the brothers had instructed another in
some aspect of construction while the building was in progress? Can
the church then use the building to teach classes on electrical
wiring or plumbing? 'The day they moved in the facility to worship,
teaching drywall classes on the premises became a sin.' Or, what if
while installing and testing the baptistery for leaks, one of the
members laid back and relaxed in the cool waters to get relief from
the heat? 'The day they moved into the facility it became wrong for
the church to provide a place to swim!' You see brethren, the issue
has never been can the church have a drinking fountain, can the
preacher eat his lunch in the building while studying, can the
members bring a drink or snack into the building while working on a
classroom room, copying off materials, cleaning the building, etc…
Anyone can see that such things are vastly different from purposely
designing a room for people to eat or recreate in.
But in this whole discussion a REAL
CONTRADICTION is often overlooked. Think about this one: If a church
can build an auditorium which will function as not only the place in
which to hold worship services, but will then easily convert into a
gym or dining hall after services. Then why can't the same
congregation build a large baptistery, which will not only be used
to baptize people in, but can also be used to swim in. Hey, if
people accept the argument that eating together is necessary for
real spiritual growth, then why can't we equally argue that a
"Church of Christ hot tub" is necessary for congregational harmony?
As we close the reader should note that
many who embrace "fellowship" halls and church kitchens are in
opposition to church gyms. But such a position is contradictory.
Calling a church dining room a "fellowship" hall doesn't make it any
more Scriptural than calling a church gym, a "Family Life Center".
Biblical authority can't be cited for either. The above arguments
are desperate attempts to hold on to an unscriptural practice. 'It
plays well to an audience determined to have their banquet halls at
ALL COST, regardless that it serves to perpetuate division.' (Dick
Blackford, p. 19)
|
For Past Auburn Beacons go to:
www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm
|
Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send
your request to:
larryrouse@aubeacon.com |
Other Articles
Don't Ask Fellowship
Déjà Vu ... Déjà Vu
Goats Among Sheep
Reactionary Apostasy
God Said Sing
Take Heed to Yourself
The New Testament Pattern of Giving
Aid or Addition - What is the
Difference?
Babble in Bible Classes, Piffle and
Pablum from Pulpits
Exposing Error
