Somewhere in the past
the idea entered the Church of Christ that it would be alright 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 was a sin. Two
observations need to 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)
Understanding why
most denominations have entertainment and recreational facilities, and why many
Churches of Christ have adopted such, requires that we study a little
history. The philosophy labeled the
“Social Gospel” is defined in the following quotation: “The main aim set before Christians (in time
past) was to save souls from eternal woe, to have communion with God now and
hereafter, and to live God-fearing lives.
It was individualistic religion, concentrated on the life to come. Its social effectiveness was largely a
by-product. What, now, would have been
the result if Christianity had placed an equally strong emphasis on the Kingdom
of God, the ideal social order?” (The
Social Principles Of Jesus, Walter Rauschenbush, pp. 73-74). The social
gospel was born among theological liberals.
To the advocates of this view, the Kingdom of God wasn’t the Church (Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:5-6; Colossians
1:13-14), rather, it is the ideal social order, that is, when all the
problems in society are solved. Thus
it became the work of the church to expend its energy and funds in solving
economic problems, labor problems, health problems, and so on. The idea is often expressed that the church
needs to cater to the needs of the whole man.
Thus churches start providing childcare, entertainment, social events,
activities to keep teens off the street, programs to keep us physically
healthy, and financial planning.
The Biblical Perspective
·
The Activities Of The Apostles: One problem with the
above philosophy is that it accuses the Apostles of dropping the ball. The Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit,
never established church-hospitals or church-schools. The New Testament church didn’t spend its resources: Abolishing slavery, mediating between
management and labor, feeding all the poor, building better homes, or teaching
people to read. But I do find the
church engaged in saving souls (1 Timothy
3:15); edifying its own members, which involves training them to spread the
gospel (2 Timothy 2:2; Ephesians
4:11-12); and providing for the poor among its own members (Acts 6:1-7).
·
This Life Will Never Be Heaven: Jesus said, “For the poor you have with you always”
(Matt. 26:11); “In the world you have tribulation” (John 16:33). The parable
of the Tares graphically demonstrates that good and evil will always co-exist
in this life (Matthew 13:30). In reality, the social gospel has the church
putting its energy into the structures of a world that will all be destroyed (2 Peter 3:9-10).
·
Saving Souls Becomes Unpopular: In the beginning
people tried to argue that various social, recreational, and physical benefits
could be used to lure people to Jesus Christ.
But people forgot that many people will “bite” on physical lures, who
have no interest in spiritual things (John
6:26-27). Now it is being argued
that the church can support various activities, which have nothing to do with
saving souls. This argument is being
used for church-supported medical clinics, that such clinics should stand on
their own merits as purely medical facilities.
This is exactly what has happened to many hospitals and colleges
established by the denominations. And
here is what happens: The argument is
first made, “But think of the people we can share the gospel with--while we are
feeding them”. But eventually people
argue that such institutions deserve church support for providing purely secular
and physical services. To be effective in changing the institutions in society,
the gospel must be watered down.
Because the people in society will listen to financial reasons to
change, physical reasons to change, societal reasons to change, but many don’t
want to hear about spiritual and eternal reasons to change. Just recently I observed this truth in a
mailing I received from the Ecumenical Ministries in Portland. This human institution with religious
overtones was recommending how to vote on the various ballot measures. They gave recommendations on light rail and
other issues. But they failed to give
any recommendation on a measure, which would limit obscenity.
· Concentrating
On The Wrong Issue: The social gospel is based on the premise that
if you can change the circumstances, which surround people, then people will
live as they should. But this
experiment has failed time and again. A
very prosperous environment surrounded the church in Corinth, and yet this had
not produced spiritual people (1
Corinthians 6:9-11). The same is
true with the church in Laodicea (Revelation
3:17). The same thing has happened
in this country. When I look at the
prosperity in this country and the peace which we presently enjoy--the ideal
social order should be here--according to the social gospel! We have excellent health care, state of the
art facilities, extensive educational structure, vaccines exist for many
diseases, and most workers have numerous benefits. But has any of this improvement in the institutions in society,
made people more spiritual? And then
think about this: What happens to the
organizations formed to improve societal conditions? Why is it that they become foes of the Bible and not
friends? Labor unions, universities,
and so on, many of which were started by people with good intentions, end up
being just one more opponent which the church faces in her attempt to spread
the gospel and teach the whole counsel of God.
History Of
Fellowship Halls
Prior
to WWII, some church buildings had the typical sink and icebox to wash
communion ware, or keep a baby bottle fresh.
In large cities, and some other areas where people had to drive some
distance, it was suggested that a stove be added in the basement, so some could
remain at the building, warm up their lunch that they had brought along, and
stay over for an evening service. When
the war ended, prosperity hit the nation, and everyone wanted a new
building. By now brethren had become
used to seeing the stove, sink, refrigerator, and cabinets in the
basement. It was argued that those
large pitch in dinners held during gospel meetings down at the park shelter,
could now be held at the building--if we included a kitchen and large hall in
the design for the new building. One
writer said, “At this point few seemed to notice or care that what had been
incidental use of the building and what had been individually planned
and promoted social activity had now become church action. Eventually game rooms were added and this
hall became used for everything from baby showers, and class parties, to
wedding receptions. The next generation
has taken this just a step further.
Naturally following on the heels of the church-kitchen and dining room
came the church-gym and then the church-family life center, a large facility,
often larger than the actual building in which the congregation worships and
teaches, which includes sauna rooms, locker rooms, game rooms, craft rooms, and
a work shop.
The Term
“Fellowship”
The
biblical term rendered “fellowship” in never used by the apostles to describe
social or recreational events. The word
means “communion, sharing in common, joint participation, contribution,
partnership.” One writer noted, “The
conclusion is reached by some, that since ‘fellowship’ is joint participation,
it follows that the church is providing ‘fellowship’ when it sponsors social
activities which involve eating, recreation, and entertainment. What many fail to see is not all joint
participation is fellowship. Jesus ate
with publicans and sinners (Mark 2:16),
but He did not fellowship them” (GOT,
Hoyt H. Houchen, 2-6-86, p. 69).
In addition, we get ourselves into trouble when we abuse the word
“fellowship”. Paul stated, “what
fellowship has light with darkness” (2
Corinthians 6:14). If “fellowship”
applies to all joint activity, especially eating together then we couldn’t
engage in any activity with the unsaved, including work, recreation, or
socializing. But this isn’t true (1 Corinthians 5:9-10; 10:27).
Notice
the uses of the term rendered “Fellowship”: 1.
Partnership in spiritual things (Acts
2:42; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2
Corinthians 6:14; 13:14; Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 3:9; Philippians 2:1; 1John
1:3,6,7) 2. Partnership in helping
relieve the benevolent needs of the saints (Romans
15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13).
3. Partnership in supporting a
preacher (Philippians 1:5). 4.
Partnership in the sufferings of Christ (Philippians 3:10). 5.
The Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians
10:16).
Kitchen “Yes”, Gym, “No”?
One
writer noted, “There are those who are determined for the church to build
gymnasiums and pay for them out of the Lord’s treasury. There are still members who have a great
devotion to truth, and for one to announce that a gymnasium is to be built,
would immediately cause alarm as they remember truths they have heard since
their youth. A new label is “Family
Life Center”, however, such does not change the truth about these projects,
they are still gyms and there is no Biblical authority for them” (Contending For The Faith, 10/93, Dan
Jenkins). The point that he makes
is correct. Unfortunately, those who
oppose the gym or family life center, argue that they have the right to keep
the kitchen and the dining room. But
every argument that could be raised against church-funded gyms is also a valid
argument against a church kitchen or a fellowship hall.
Various Arguments
·
“Paul includes
drinking as well as eating in 1
Corinthians 11:22, therefore the church building can’t have a water
fountain.” If this argument was valid,
then do two wrongs make a right? The
drinking in 1 Corinthians 11:22 is connected with a meal, not a sip at the
water fountain. A water fountain, like
bathrooms or pews are things viewed as expedient when people assemble. A fellowship hall only facilitates a
gathering of people, not for worship, but for socializing. “You believe the building a sacred:” Then
why can’t we build a multipurpose building, which also serves as a gym? If having a kitchen in the building doesn’t
desecrate it, then what are you going to do when someone wants to play
basketball in it? “Not eating in the
building is a human tradition”: But the
fellowship hall came from the denominational world, not the New Testament. The vast majority of all human denominations
have them, and divine tradition doesn’t authorize them--so what does that make
them? (1 Thessalonians 2:15). “According to your view of 1 Corinthians 11, Priscilla and Aquila
would have been unable to eat in their own home, for the church assembled in
their home”: The expression “the church
that is in their house” (Romans 16:5),
more accurately refers to the Christians who were members of their
household. Compare with 16:14 “and the brethren them”; 16:15 “all the saints who are with
them”. One has the right to eat at home
(1 Corinthians 11:34). The argument
actually ends up teaching something very dangerous. If building a church recreational center or kitchen is OK,
because we can do those things at home, then what are we going to do with the
subject of instrumental music in worship?
Can you play an instrument at home?
Can you have a piano in your home?
Can you play secular music at home?
Here is an argument for you:
“According to your view of Ephesians
5:19, Priscilla and Aquila, or their children, would have been unable to
play the flute, for the church assembled in their home”. A perspective from the outside: A Baptist preacher wrote the following: “The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing
than hinting to the Church of Christ that part of her mission is to provide
entertainment for the people with a view to winning them into her ranks. The
rough old cross can be exchanged for a ‘costume’” (Archibald Brown, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock Texas).
Points To Note: 1. In 1 Corinthians
11 know that Paul is dealing with an abuse, but it isn’t an abuse of “potlucks
in the building”, rather Paul sees their social meals as an abuse of the Lord’s
Supper (11:20-21). When Paul corrected
other abuses, he didn’t completely forbid what was being abused, rather Divine
regulations were given (see 1 Corinthians
5; 6:5; 11:25-33; 14:26-35). Paul
will proceed to give Divine regulations concerning the Lord’s Supper, not
church potlucks (11:23ff). When it comes to social meals among
brethren, such are completely excluded from the assembling of themselves
together as a congregation (1 Corinthians
11:22,34). 2. Paul doesn’t offer any
solution that allows the Corinthians to keep their social meals in some
proximity with the worship services.
He doesn’t say, worship God, have a closing prayer, and then eat. He doesn’t say that the church should build
a structure in which to socialize, or that the church should rent a building
for their potlucks. If eating together
on a regular basis is such an important aspect of Christianity, of encouraging
each other and helping other Christians grow, then why didn’t Paul see it as
such? Notice, in the eyes of the
Apostles, social meals are like any other thing, which one might do at home. 3.
In the ancient world it was the regular custom for groups of people to
meet together for common meals. This
was especially true in the various trade guilds and societies among the
Greeks. Therefore, it appears that the
Corinthians were trying to bring another element of their culture into the
church. They wanted to have “meals” at
their assemblies just like all the various other groups in Corinthian
society. God did give the church a
“meal”, but it isn’t a social meal (1
Corinthians 11:23). 4. Some have tried to undermine the teaching of
1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34 by arguing, “if we take these verses literally, or
by the book, then we couldn’t even eat in the park or in a restaurant, for the
verse says, ‘let him eat at home’.”
First of all, there is something wrong when we start looking for
something in the verse, which will completely discount the teaching of the
verse. Other verses tell us that we can
eat in the homes of other people, in fact, even verses in this same letter (1 Corinthians 10:27 “If one of the
unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before
you”). In addition, Paul even ate
on a ship at sea, far away from “home” (Acts
27:35-36). 5. For some reason, many people seem to ignore,
downplay, or almost completely discount Paul’s instruction in these
verses. Can we ignore what he said in
11:23-29? Can we change the order of
the Lord’s Supper, change the elements, or withhold one element from the
members? Can we change the instructions
given in 11:3-4?
Some might argue that
we don’t run into too many people who want to eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8,10) or members who are
abusing real spiritual gifts (1
Corinthians 12-14). But if there is
an issue in the Corinthian letter that is definitely still with us, it is the
insistence of combining the social and the spiritual. We cannot say that this is a non-issue (it wasn’t for Paul), and
especially in light of the fact that probably around 90% of the religious world
which professes to be Christian are ignoring what Paul said in 1 Corinthians
11:22 and 34. Can we ignore the
commands of Scripture with impunity? (1
Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him
recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment”).
The Corinthians were
simply bringing their own meals to services with them, meals that they had
purchased with their own money. And yet
God severely rebuked them, “Or do you
despise the church of God…In this I will not praise you” (1 Corinthians 11:22);
“so that you may not come together for judgment” (11:34). 1.
To use the assembly or the things of God in such a manner, is to despise
such things. God is saying, “Don’t you
have enough places to conduct such common meals, without having to make you’re
gathering together for worship into another opportunity to eat?” When we gather together, it is God’s
gathering, it is for the worship of God, not our own entertainment. 2.
Now if simply bringing our meals with us to the assembly brought such
condemnation, what would God say about congregations which have used the Lord’s
money to provide such meals for the members?
Used the Lord’s money to actually build a kitchen to cook the meals,
building a hall in which to eat the meals, and then build an area to recreate
in after such meals? Even the
Corinthians, with all their problems, didn’t go that far. 3.
Carefully note that God gives only one option: Eating at home. And this
is not simply one suggestion, it is the
only alternative given by God! Paul
doesn’t say, “One way of avoiding such an abuse in the future, is simply to eat
at home first.”
Gene Frost made the
following observations: “The church in
a locality is composed of saints who act together in the execution of the
Lord’s will wherein He directs this collective effort. Collective action is to be distinguished
from individual action. The individual
sustains relationships with include economic, political, domestic, spiritual,
and social responsibilities (Ephesians 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10; Romans 13:1-7; 1
Timothy 5:1-6; Ephesians 5:21; 6:4; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; James 1:27;
Galatians 6:10; Matthew 7:12; Luke 10:30-37).
The church is enjoined with spiritual responsibilities which include
teaching the gospel, worshipping, edifying and ministering to its
membership—the church is not an economic collective (to operate a business),
nor a political collective (to campaign for political interests of its
members), nor a domestic collective (to operate nurseries, schools, etc.), nor
a social collective (to provide welfare or entertainment for the community (1
Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:12). For the
church to furnish entertainment, or facilities for entertainment, is for the
church to assume a role that God never authorized” (Bible Answers, Volume 1,
p. 90).
People don’t realize
what really is at stake concerning this issue.
Responses such as, “What is the real harm, come on you can’t be serious,
aren’t there more important and pressing issues facing the church?” Or, “The Bible doesn’t say one way or the
other”. And even more dangerous
arguments are, “We don’t (supposedly) have authority for a church building, we
aren’t (supposedly) practicing the Holy Kiss, we are already (supposedly) doing
many things for which we lack biblical authority.” We would never make any of the above arguments concerning
instrumental music in worship or other biblical subjects. All such reasoning is the beginning of that
slippery slope, for once we begin to insist that certain practices can exist
without any biblical authority, we start wanting to add other things to such a
category. It is dangerous to create a
category labeled, “We don’t have any Scripture for this practice, but obviously
God wouldn’t have a problem with it.” Or,
“We don’t know one way or the other, therefore we are going to do it” (Romans 14:23; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 4:11). Since when has man achieved the ability to
read the mind of God apart from what is revealed in the Scriptures? (Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 16:25; Isaiah
55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 2:11). I know
that people ridicule the idea of the slippery slope. And yet, how can any serious student of the Bible argue against
it? The whole record of mankind is that
of being almost continually heading down such a slope! From Genesis to Revelation the consistent
example, even among the professed people of God, is that even a good percentage
of the professed people of God have not remained faithful for long (Acts 20:28ff; 2 Timothy 4:2-4).
Whether people accept
it or not, there is a lot at stake with this issue. Of course, the real issue underlying this, and all other issues,
is a respect for Bible Authority. I
stand amazed when individuals defend the church kitchen or fellowship hall, and
yet strongly oppose the church gym.
Gary Grizzel wrote an article entitled, “Is There Bible Authority For
Church Support Of Gymnasiums?” (Contending
For The Faith, October 1993, front cover).
But every argument, which he makes against gymnasiums, is also valid
against “fellowship halls”. He says
there is no command, example, or necessary implication for gyms. Of course the same is true for fellowship
halls or the church kitchen. He argues
that edification is a work of the church, and that this edification is a spiritual
building up as opposed to a physical building up. Which means that he recognizes that the word
biblical word “fellowship” or “edification” cannot be perverted to mean,
“recreation”. But if exercising the
flesh isn’t fellowship, then obviously, neither is feeding the flesh. The truth is, every argument made against
the church gymnasium, or using the building for recreational purposes, could
equally be cited against using the building for social purposes.
It has been argued
that when Jesus fed the multitudes, we are being given a precedent for the
congregation to provide or fund potlucks.
Jesus fed the multitudes, therefore we can eat in the building, build a
kitchen, fellowship hall, and so on. Points To Note: Someone has said, “That which proves too much (or just
about everything) proves nothing at all.”
Jesus also healed people, does that give the Church the authority to go
into the medical field? Is it the work
of the Church to own hospitals, have stock in pharmaceutical companies and so
on? Jesus also made some wine for a
wedding party (John 2:6-9). Is it the work of the Church to be involved
in the catering business, can we building a wedding chapel, or can we own a
processing plant for various beverages?
Seeing that Jesus made wine, can we ‘make’ anything and distribute it,
Church of Christ Natural Fruit Drinks?
To parallel such meals to a church funded meal misses a number of
points. 1. The church wasn’t established as yet (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47). 2. Money collected on the first day of the week
wasn’t used, facilities purchased with the Lord’s money weren’t used
either. How many people are really
prepared to argue that whatever Jesus did as an individual, the funds and
resources of the local congregation can be used for the same thing? 3.
Jesus feeding the multitudes is not a parallel to congregational action,
rather it is a parallel to what an individual Christian might do (of course in
a non-miraculous manner and on a smaller scale). As an individual I have the right to provide meals for neighbors,
friends, and strangers. The obligation
of extending hospitality rests upon the individual Christian (Hebrews 13:2).
It has also been
argued that Paul’s example in Acts 20:11 is a precedent for potlucks in the
building. Points To Note: 1. The text simply says that Paul ate, “he had broken the bread and eaten, he
talked with them a long while” (Acts 20:11).
One writer noted, “The verb says, “He broke the bread.” It is asserted that as this is something
Paul did; it is evidently distinguished from the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper, which was a congregational matter” (Acts,
Gareth L. Reese, p. 738). 2. The Corinthian letter had been written
shortly before these events while Paul was in Ephesus. Are we to assume that Paul contradicted his
clear instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:22?
3. We are told nothing about
where these disciples were meeting, that is, who owned the property. 4.
Hence, this breaking of bread was neither the Lord’s Supper nor a social
congregation meal. Rather, following
his sermon and the events concerning Eutychus, Paul grabbed a bite to eat and
talked with the members. 5. But those who make Acts 20:11 into a
congregational potluck need to reconsider their position. One writer noted, “Sabbatarians believe Acts
20:7 is referring only to social meal, not the Lord’s Supper. The only way they could show Sabbatarians
that it was not a social meal would be to show that Paul condemned the social meal
and severed it from the church altogether (1 Corinthians 11:22,34)” (Dick Blackford, GOT, 1-19-95, p. 49). You see, without 1 Corinthians 11:22,34,
a person couldn’t absolutely prove that Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord’s
Supper, and hence one couldn’t absolutely prove that the First Day of the week
is the only day on which to serve it!
THE LOVE
FEAST: 2 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, and so on.
Points to Note: The idea that the "love feast" was a social meal
connected with, following nor 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" (1 Cor. 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 outlawed the practice. Rather, he proceeded to regulate it. (1 Corinthians 10:25-33). (c) Paul never regulates "church
dinners". He places all such
social meals in the private sector (11:22;11:34). 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 2 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 (1 Corinthians 11:22,34).
THE CHURCH
SPONSORED MEALS OF ACTS 6:1-2
Points to Note: (1)
Such meals were for benevolent purposes. We have clear Scriptural authority for the church to use its
funds to house, clothe, and feed members who are in need. (1 Cor. 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.
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, and gyms, 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" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Nowhere in the Bible do we find church sponsored social meals,
recreation, or "fellowship" halls.
(3) 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 or 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 as 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” (GOT. 'Full Service
Churches', Irvin Himmel, 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 without which people claim the church can't survive, grow, and
minister to the needs of Christians and non-Christians.
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", then 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 that often
hold "dedication services" when they build a new building. That sounds like they believe the building
is sacred!” (GOT. '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 (Heb. 10:24-25) (i.e. worship/bible study/song leading classes),
evangelism (1 Tim. 3:15) (gospel meetings, preaching) and benevolence for
Christians (1 Cor. 16:1-2).
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/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 in which for people
to eat or recreate. 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 for baptizing people, but can also be used for swimming. 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)