Some view the church as a place to go to enjoy pleasant activities with pleasant people. In other words, the church is nothing more than a place to go to have a good time, somewhat like a YMCA. The church is not a building; it is a people purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The church has a purpose and that is to please God. It is not designed to cater to the man's pleasures. When asked why we do not have banquet rooms and ball teams, we are often accused of not believing in eating on church property. On March 23, 1996, I received an announcement informing me that I was a participant in a public study of this issue. It said, "We are to discuss specifically 1 Corinthians 11 and related passages to arrive at an answer to the question, "is there New Testament authority for Christians to eat a common meal together in the church building, or on church grounds." This question implies that there is confusion about what the issue really is.
Please consider: THE ISSUE IS NOT: Eating in the church building. Eating in the church building is scriptural, IF it expedites scriptural church functions. THE ISSUE IS: WHAT IS THE WORK OF THE CHURCH? We are agreed that the scriptures teach that the work of the church is evangelism, edification, and benevolence to needy saints. The question proposed in the aforementioned advertisement is incomplete and does not set forth our differences. A more accurate proposition is: "The Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals on church property, namely in the building or on church grounds, when said meal is designed for SOCIAL and/or RECREATIONAL purposes." This is what I DENY!!!
To discuss this proposition, it is necessary that we understand how God's word teaches. I submit that God's word teaches us through direct statements, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences. This is illustrated in the observance of the Lord's Supper. We learn WHAT to do by direct statement, "This do in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). We learn WHEN to do it by the approved apostolic example of the apostle Paul and the saints in Troas, "upon the first day of the week..." (Acts 20:7). We learn the FREQUENCY of observance by necessary inference, i.e., every week has a first day (Cf. Matthew 3:22). In the same way, a review of Acts 15 illustrates God's teaching on the matter of circumcision. Also, there must be strict respect for God's silence (Acts 15:22; Cf. 1 Peter 4:11).
Let us define more specifically the proposition. "The Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals on church property, namely in the building or on church grounds, when said meal is designed for social and/or recreational purposes." By "SOCIAL," I mean what is involved in the noun form of the word: "An informal gathering of people for recreation or amusement; party" (Webster's New World Dictionary). By "RECREATIONAL," I mean "amusement, diversion, entertainment, relaxation, repose, ease, play, sport, frolic, rollick; mirth, jollity, hilarity," (Webster's dictionary of Synonyms, Pg. 686). I deny that it is a work of the church to provide social and/or recreational activities, because there is no direct statement, approved apostolic example, or necessary inference authorizing us to do so.
The issue continues to be: WHAT IS THE WORK OF THE CHURCH? Is it evangelism, benevolence, and edification? OR, may the church provide social and recreational activities?
Please consider a study of the passages involved in this controversy.
Acts 2:42,44,46: I can admit what these verses say and still deny their eating was a common meal for social and recreational purposes. NOTE: Vs. 46 says that while they assembled in the temple, they broke their bread (common meal) "AT HOME." All this passage says is that early Christians ate with one another; there is no evidence to lead us to believe that any kind of congregational action was involved in this meal. Christians where I worship often share a meal, although we do not have a "congregational fellowship meal." Individual Christians eat together in private homes, and in no way is this considered a congregational activity.
Acts 20:7-11: The congregation assembled "to break bread" (i.e., to observe the Lord's Supper). The meeting broke after Eutychus fell from the third-floor window. Knowing that he was to leave early the next morning, Paul ate (common meal) before departing. This passage does not teach that the congregation ate a common meal as a function of the church.
Jude 12; 2 Peter 2:13: It is assumed that these "agape" or "love-feasts" were a work of the church for "social and recreational purposes." We are told that all the historians and all the commentators agree with this conclusion. This statement is not accurate. Remember historians and commentators are uninspired sources and must be used cautiously. However, let us note what some say.
- Thayer says these were "... feasts expressing and fostering mutual love which used to be held by Christians before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and at which the poorer Christians mingled with the wealthier and partook in common with the rest of food provided at the expense of the wealthy." Do you have these feasts in connection with the Lord's Supper? Is it a meal provided by the wealthy for the benefit of the poorer?
- Everett Ferguson, a professor at Abilene Christian College, said in his book: Early Christians Speak, pg. 133, "It is an AGAPE because it benefits the needy; special consideration is shown for the lowly. The sharing of food by the wealthier with the poorer was an important means of charity. The host provided food for those chosen, who sometimes did not eat at his house, but received the food at home or accepted it to take home."
- International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pg. 70 says the AGAPE was "a common table at which the wants of the poor were supplied out of the abundance of the rich (Acts 6:1ff)."
- GUY N. WOODS says "They (agape mg) appear to have had their origin in the practice of wealthier members of the congregation providing food for the poorer ones, and eating with them, in token of their brotherliness" (Commentary on Peter, John, and Jude, p. 395).
- Lenski comments on 1 Corinthians 11:34 saying, "The AGAPE did not take the place of an ordinary meal as do the modern church suppers at which people eat to satisfy hunger."
- Albert Barnes has quite a large discussion of the AGAPE and suggests the Lord's Supper better meets the demands of these two passages.
1 Corinthians 11:20-34: We are told that the church in Corinth was eating a common meal, intending to use the elements of their common meal to observe the Lord's Supper. However, the context indicates they had corrupted the Lord's Supper into a common meal for social and recreational purposes. In doing so, the Corinthians despised the church of God by distorting its divine nature and purpose. Their actions also shamed the poor. Remember Paul said, "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in" (vs. 22), indicating that the Corinthians had a place, other than their homes, where they conducted their congregational assembly. In vs. 34, Paul said meals for social and or recreational purposes are to be eaten at home, as a function of the home, not a work of the church. It is interesting that the only time the scriptures mention such a meal for social and recreational purposes, it is condemned. Paul told them to STOP.
No man has the right to prostitute the energy, strength, zeal, or resources of the Lord's church to serve human aims or purposes. We must allow the church to be distinct as the church, so adorned as to glorify her head--even Christ. God gave His Son for her. The Lord of glory died for her. We must not bring her lofty mission down to serve the outward man; rather, we must keep it pure to serve the heavenly interests for which we strive.
Brother Galloway did an excellent job of discussing this vital issue that continues today, as in the past, to divide brethren. I attended the discussion that brother Galloway mentioned in his article. For more than one year, a group of six noninstitutional preachers and two institutional churches met to discuss our differences. What were these differences? Are fellowship halls and the social gospel part of the church's work? Allow me to summarize briefly the results of these discussions.
Time and time again, we defined the real issue. The issue is not now, nor was it then, whether the building is sacred. My office is in the building. On many occasions, I've eaten lunch in my office. From time to time, we have all-day workdays at the building. Some of the sisters bring drinks and sandwiches to eat, or we buy some fast food and eat on the grounds. Do we sin by eating in the building? No! This is not the issue that divides us. These brethren continually tried to paint us as saying the sin was eating in the building. Such conclusions are wishful thinking by our brethren.
How does this compare to building fellowship halls and having social meals, receptions, and parties, at church expense, in those buildings? Where do we get the money--from the Lord's treasury! We continually asked--where is the BOOK, CHAPTER, and VERSE that authorizes spending the Lord's money on such a facility? What answers did we get? "Where is your authority for the water cooler, restrooms, buildings, public address systems, pews, heating and air conditioners," and a host of other such foolish things. The answer is in the command to assemble. "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." {Hebrews 10:24,25}
Please understand, we don't have to have a building--but we must assemble. Those things help us to carry out that command. We asked how any of those things change the command to assemble. There was no answer. Let us ask the same question--where is the command--concerning the fellowship halls and the social gospel. All of the church's work fits into three areas: evangelism, edification, and benevolence for needy saints. Into which of these areas does the fellowship hall fall? Honesty compels us to answer "NONE!" Our brethren raised many so-called "fellowship passages." There was just one problem--every passage, in context, discussed spiritual, not physical, fellowship. As a matter of fact, not one passage in the entire New Testament ever discusses the church, as an organization, providing this type of fellowship. Individual Christians--not the church--have this responsibility!
Why do brethren make such outlandish arguments? Because they have no scriptural support! Surely, if they had a scripture to support their conduct, they would produce it. Count on it brethren: when they run "out of soap," they run to the argument--we do many things for which we have no authority. In our discussion, we asked for examples. I've already listed their examples. You judge which of us proved his case by the scriptures. (KMG)