We send out tapes, CDs, and our bulletin, I PRESS, to those who wish to receive them. Recently, we sent out requests for updates to our mailing list for these materials. Periodically, we receive questions from those who receive the bulletins and the recorded material. The recent update request prompted such communication. One person gave a lengthy explanation of why he/she had changed congregations, followed by a request for more information. Following is a quote from that request:.

Thoughts About Fellowship Meals

Many have attempted to defend the practice of the churches that provide a place for the members to come together to eat a social meal. Some insist on calling these social meals fellowship meals. Thus, the place the church provides for such meals is a fellowship hall, or as in the above paragraph, a fellowship wing of the building. These defenders assume without evidence that it is the church's (collective) mission to make provision for its members to share a meal together. There is no evidence that the N. T. church ever came together in the church building (collectively cf. 1 Corinthians 11:18) for the purpose of eating a common meal.

One attempt to justify this practice has been an appeal to the biblical references to love feasts in 2 Peter 2:13 and Jude 12. Other efforts have included locating the passages where the phrase "breaking of bread" occurs and insisting that these passages refer to a common meal, otherwise known as a love feast. In this study, we will consider the evidence regarding the love feast, as well as the various passages usually cited to prove that love feasts were part of the early church's public service.

Some have erroneously represented the issue as: "Is there New-Testament authority for Christians eating a common meal together in the church building or on church grounds?"

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE! The issue is not, and never has been, simply eating in the church building or whether the early church ate where they met. The issue is: WHAT WORK DID GOD GIVE THE CHURCH? The correct question is: "Do the Scriptures teach that it is the church's work to provide for common meals that are designed for social and/or recreational purposes?"

This issue exists because of a basic difference in attitude toward Bible authority. WHAT IS OUR SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR ANY PRACTICE? The appeal, "I don't see anything wrong with it." does not stand. The Scriptures represent God's authority through Christ and His apostles and prophets. The Holy Spirit revealed this authority in direct statements or commands, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences. Brethren concerned with Scriptural authority realize that the only justification for a church building is that it expedites the command to assemble for worship and teaching (Hebrews 10:25). Indeed, the building itself is nothing more than brick and mortar, but it is erroneous to conclude that it can be used for just any purpose. The local U.S. Post Office building is nothing but brick and mortar; however, you cannot use it to host a fourth-of-July barbeque for your friends. The Post Office building has a distinct purpose. Likewise, the only way to justify church kitchens and dining facilities is to show that they expedite one of the church's Scriptural functions or missions.

The love feasts mentioned in Jude 12 seem to offer hope for those who are determined to practice such things. These also say that Acts 2:42, 44, 46; 20:11 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-23 refer to fellowship meals. Such people expect us to accept for our faith and practice, not only what uninspired historians say, but also what they tell us historians say about the matter. Perhaps this is part of our problem. God doesn't want our faith to rest in uninspired history or uninspired men (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

People cite denominational commentaries, religious encyclopedias, and other reference works to support the idea that early churches had common meals in connection with their assemblies. Some commentators agree that this was done in connection with the Lord's Supper. Some declare with certainty that the love feast was eaten before the Lord's Supper, while others are equally sure that it happened afterward. Yet, those who cite these authorities do not have their banquets in connection with the Lord's Supper. We must remember that these commentators base much of what they say on men's writings that describe second- and third-century practices. Realizing that the "mystery of lawlessness" was already working in the days of the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:7), we must limit our practice to what Scripture itself authorizes. Peter said, "If any man speaketh, (speaking) as it were oracles of God ..." (cf. 1 Peter 4:11).

Let us study the passages involved in this controversy. Be sure to read the text.

Acts 2:42, 44, 46: I can admit all these verses say and still deny that these Christians ate a common meal for social and recreational purposes. Verse 46 says that while they assembled in the temple, they broke bread (common meal, mg) "at home." Notice that they ate this meal, in contrast to the Lord's Supper referred to in Acts 2:42, at home. What this passage says is that early Christians ate with one another; there is no evidence to lead us to believe that the meal involved any kind of congregational action. Christians today often share a meal, although we do not have a congregational fellowship meal provided by the church. Individual Christians eat together in private homes; and in no way does anyone consider this meal-sharing to be a congregational activity.

Acts 20:7-11: The congregation assembled "to break bread" (i.e., to observe the Lord's Supper, mg). The meeting broke up after Eutychus fell from the third-story window. Knowing that he would be leaving in a few hours, Paul ate (common meal, mg) before departing. This passage does not teach that the congregation shared a common meal or that those who did eat ate on property owned or rented by the church.

Jude 12; 2 Peter 2:13 regarding agape (love) feasts. People assume that early Christians held these agape (love) feasts on church property and that they were a church work, or function, held for social and recreational purposes. These people often say, "All the historians and all the commentators agree with this conclusion." Remember, historians and commentators are uninspired sources, but if we use them, we must use them correctly. Let us consider what some authorities have to say.

• Joseph Henry Thayer describes these feasts: "... 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." (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. p.4).
  
  Do you have a love feast in connection with the Lord's Supper? Is it a meal that wealthy Christians provide for the benefit of their poorer brothers and sisters?
  
  
• Everett Furguson, 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 that the agape was "a common table at which the wants of the poor were supplied out of the abundance of the rich."
  
  
• Guy N. Woods comments in his Commentary on Peter, John, and Jude, pg. 395: "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."
  
  
• Lenski, in his comments on 1 Corinthians 11:34 wrote: "The AGAPE did not take the place of an ordinary meal as the modern church suppers do at which people eat to satisfy hunger..."
  
  
• Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Jude 12 (p. 397-398), gives a lengthy discussion of the agape and suggests the Lord's Supper better meets the demands of these two passages.
  
  
• On the basis of Tertullian's description of the agape, many denominational commentators interpret Jude 12 and other passages as having reference to another meal provided by the church. We should exercise great caution in giving a Bible word a third-century definition. Apostasy that resulted in Roman Catholicism was well under way by Tertullian's time.
  
  

1 Corinthians 11:20-34: Some say 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 by making it into a common meal, for social and recreational purposes. It was no longer the Lord's Supper. Paul wrote, "In your eating each one taketh before another his own supper..." (vs. 20-21). In doing this, the Corinthians despised the church of God by distorting its divine nature and purpose. Their actions also shamed those who were poor. Verses 22 and 34 contain the solution. "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" Please note this important point.

The Corinthians conducted their congregational assemblies some place other than their homes. Yet, Paul told them to eat meals for social and or recreational purposes at home, as a function of the home--not a work of the church. It is interesting to note that every time the Scriptures mention the church's provision of such a meal for social and recreational purposes, they condemn it. Paul told the Corinthian church to STOP.

Some attempt to slip social activities in under the guise of spiritual edification. Certainly, this opens the apostasy floodgates. While some enjoy suppers and parties, others enjoy gyms, golfing, fishing, hunting, etc. Besides common meals, what other social and/or recreational activities may the church provide? As the apostle Paul left the Ephesian elders, he told them, "And now I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified." (Acts 20:32) God's word is adequate for spiritual edification (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

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 its Head, even Christ. God gave His Son for it. The Lord of glory died for it. We must not bring its lofty mission down to serve the outward man; rather, we must keep it pure to serve the interests of heaven for which we all strive.

---

Brother Galloway has done an excellent job of discussing a subject that has, for decades, divided our brethren. Please note his article's references to denominational commentaries, religious encyclopedias, and other reference works. Why would one have to use secular opinions to defend any practice if God's word authorizes the practice under scrutiny? Whenever liberal and conservative brethren discuss this subject the liberal brethren offer these references as proof texts/authority. They (the liberal brethren) even ask if we're, "opposed to eating with our brethren." This is not the issue-they're merely throwing up a smokescreen!

During the time I lived and worked in Las Vegas, brother Galloway and four other gospel preachers held a six-month study with some of the liberal brethren, preachers, and elders in California." I remember one of the comments made following one of brother Galloway's speeches on the church's work: "I agree with 95% of what Micky has said." That doesn't prove a thing? We need to agree on the other 5%!

Some of the arguments offered illustrate the length to which men will go to justify what the Scriptures do not. "You brethren do many things that you have no authority from God's word to use. Where is your authority for a building? A water fountain? Restrooms? Public address systems? Songbooks? Wherever you go to scripturally justify those things, we can go to justify fellowship halls." Wrong! The command to assemble with the saints (Hebrews 10:24,25) provides the authority for all the things listed. They aid us in carrying out the command to assemble. We have no command to eat a social meal as part of our worship.

I recently sent a preacher in West Virginia a proposition to debate this subject. Sadly, following some written exchanges, he has chosen not to debate. If God's word authorizes an activity, shouldn't we be willing to defend it in open discussion. Could it be that there are no Scripture passages to defend the practice in question? (KMG)