Recently I read in a church bulletin two paragraphs about losing our young people; the statement was made that various religious denominations were the first “to use recreation, banquets, and games to try to retain their young people.” Probably that statement is true; one might as well add that denominations were first to hire youth ministers in order to keep their young people. But the question should be asked, “Is there anything unscriptural about any one of these things?” Is it wrong, in other words, for young people to enjoy recreational activities together, such as bowling or miniature golf? Does having a banquet violate a Scriptural principle? (Adults have been known to have Sweetheart Banquets in February; are we trying to save our older members when such an event occurs?) What sin is it if young people play board games or Taboo together? Can a congregation not choose to ask someone to work predominantly with the young people?
The only thing that would be wrong with these activities would be if they received the main or an equal emphasis to such spiritual concerns as Bible study, service, and evangelism. Two of the main purposes of the church are evangelism and edification. We ought to be involved in whatever causes growth. Surely brethren recognize that playing basketball will not achieve that end. Eating meals together will not necessarily bring spiritual growth, either, but it does furnish an opportunity to talk about spiritual matters and to be together.
For approximately four years South Seminole hosted youth meetings every Saturday evening. For various reasons, they are now more frequent during the holidays and the summer than throughout the school year. Each meeting was about two hours. We shared a meal, had a 20 to 30-minute message, sang for half an hour, and if there was time, we played a game. Members often provided the food. Although occasionally we met in someone’s home (or a park), we usually met at the building.
Of all of those who attended regularly, we have only lost one (temporarily). One was our youth leader the past three summers. Two others are attending a Christian university, and the remainder are attending college locally and are still a valuable part of the congregation here. Although there were obviously some social elements involved, the primary emphasis has always been a spiritual one. At the current time, on some Sunday or Wednesday evenings, the young people, after worship, remove themselves to a room and sing hymns for 20 minutes or so. They do this on their own.
In other words, a congregation of the Lord’s church can combine a few social aspects of their lives with the predominantly spiritual ones in such a way that all profit. However, if the social activities replace or minimize the spiritual, such programs will usually fail. The original criticism, therefore, of “recreation, banquets, and games” does not appear to be valid.
A Second Criticism
The first criticism was followed by a second one, in which it was lamented that brethren borrowed other things from denominations: “fellowship halls, banquet rooms, gymnasiums, and kitchens.” A banquet room sounds more appropriate to the description of a hotel rather than a church building. Not many congregations can afford such an extravagance. Usually a fellowship hall serves as a “banquet room”; so the two refer to the same thing. Admittedly, a gymnasium appears to have no spiritual emphasis and is designed solely for social activities. Brethren ought to wonder what the value of such a huge expenditure is. Ostensibly, the purpose for sporting activities is to serve as a way to draw non-Christians. Undoubtedly, a few have actually been converted, but it was not from playing volleyball. Who would like to assert that a gymnasium has brought dozens, let alone hundreds, to the Lord? The whole design is social rather than spiritual.
But what about the kitchen and the (usually-adjoin-ing) fellowship hall? Each congregation must determine whether they can justify the expense for these. But the same can be said for the purchasing or construction of any building. The authors of Pagan Christianity (reviewed previously) claimed that any church building was not worth the expense. One could quibble that offices, a copy machine, or a secretary are frivolous expenses. How about spending several thousand dollars a year on insurance and several more on maintenance? Besides maintaining a parking lot, air conditioners are expensive to replace. Plumbing and electrical problems will also cut into the budget. It would be just as valid to complain about all of these as it is to accuse a congregation of being wasteful for having a kitchen and fellowship hall.
In other words, how one congregation chooses to spend the contributions received is a matter of judgment—not necessarily Scriptural. The difference in cost between having a building or not is far greater than whether to include two rooms within a building being constructed. Raising the “expense” objection might have registered with some 50 years ago, but a realistic look at what churches spend on various items these days renders it invalid. If a congregation chooses to construct a new building today, they are not obligated to include a kitchen or a fellowship hall—or heating and air conditioning. But they should not criticize those who do, since it is a matter of judgment and autonomy.
Let us further consider, however, is a fellowship hall a wasteful expense? It would be difficult to make such a case, since it is frequently one of the most used parts of the building. The main room in which the church as-sembles is used, perhaps, three to four hours a week. The classrooms are used even less. The office area is the most used part of the building (40 to 50 hours a week).
The fellowship hall serves as a multi-purpose room, which includes being a place where we have potlucks. This congregation schedules several of them each year. When a missionary comes to speak, we often have a potluck afterward so that brethren can visit with him and his family. Visitors are invited to stay and share a meal with us on other occasions. Group meetings such as men’s breakfasts occur there, as well as various Ladies’ programs. The seniors meet once a month on a Thursday evening for a meal. The college students stay after worship on certain Sunday evenings. And the youth meetings also take place there. At funerals or memorial services, the families are often grateful that we are able to provide food for those who come to support the family.
The room also serves as a meeting place for non-eating events. We are able to conduct two major classes at one time during Vacation Bible School—prior to the room being used for lunch. We hold special men’s and women’s classes in it, and it provides ample space for our monthly bulletin mail-outs.
Despite all of the practical value that this room possesses, someone might still say, “Well, I still think it’s a frivolous expense, and I’m not in favor of it.” Fine; then don’t build a building with such a room in it. But have the graciousness to allow others to do so if they wish without condemning them for doing so. We can all agree to disagree on matters of judgment without it affecting our fellowship. On matters of doctrine, we must all remain firm. But having a fellowship hall or a kitchen in a place where we meet for worship is not a matter of doctrine, since in the first century brethren did not appear to even own buildings.
Eating in the Church Building
Someone might voice the objection that they feel uncomfortable about eating in the same locale as where they just offered up worship to God. Certainly, brethren would not encourage anyone to violate their conscience, but some important facts ought to be considered. In the New Testament, Paul himself ate food in the same place where worship had just been conducted (Acts 20:7-11). Jesus fed the multitude in the same location He had just taught them for three days (Mark 8:1-9). Even those who oppose eating in a church building, when they meet for worship in their house, eat meals in the same location. For more information on this subject, please read the next article.
The décor, seating arrangements, style of, how many rooms there will be, and what they will be used for in buildings that are constructed for us to meet in for worship are all matters of judgment. Eating a meal in the place where we meet does not qualify as a sin or violate any principle of authority—unless a common meal is confused with the Lord’s supper. Therefore, in such matters of judgment liberty ought to prevail.
EATING IN THE CHURCH BUILDING
Dub McClish (Denton, Texas)
The apostolic church enjoyed common meals in their places of worship, and these meals were formally designated by the term, “love feasts” (or agapais in the Greek language). Jude 12 and 2 Peter 2:13 refer to these feasts. In describing them, one church historian has given to us the following account:
For when all the faithful met together and had heard the sermon and prayers, and received the communion, they did not immediately return home upon breaking up of the assembly, but the rich and wealthy brought meat and food from their own houses, and called the poor, and made a common table, a common dinner, a common banquet in the church [building]. And so from this fellowship in eating, and the reverence of the place, they were all strictly united in love one with another, and much pleasure and their benevolence both from those whom they fed and from God (The Antiquities of the Christian Church Bingham, Vol. 11, Book IV).
With the advance of Roman Catholicism and its borrowing of Old Testament and pagan concepts and practices, it embraced the idea of sacred sites, buildings, and temples. By A.D. 397 the sacred-site approach was fully integrated into the thinking of the Romanist hierarchy. In that year the Council of Laodicea, in its 28th cannon, forbade any to eat or spread tables “in the house of God,” meaning, of course, the church building. The law of Moses perished as God’s authority in religion with Jesus’ death on Calvary (Col. 2:14), and paganism is abominable idolatry.
Those today who oppose the use of the church building for basket dinners and fellowship meals usually think they are imitating the apostolic church. What they need to see is that in reality they are following the apostate church and its councils. Those who hold such a view commit at least two faults: First, they confuse the church with a building of brick and mortar, boards or nails where the church meets. Second, they make laws for others where God has not made them.
The first of these is likely a result of failure to comprehend what the church really is. The church is those persons who have been baptized for forgiveness of their sins, upon the confession of their faith in Jesus as the Christ and upon repentance of their sins (Acts 2: 37-47). One might look upon it as God’s “depository” of those who are saved. Jesus purchased the church, not a church building, with His blood (20:28).
Jesus gave Himself up for the church, not for a church building (Eph. 5:25). To view the church building as a “holy place” consistently leads one to the decision of the Laodicean Council of 397.
The second fault results in a brazen attempt to usurp the dominion of the Lord by making a decree He has not made. It forbids that which He allows. Those who hold this view are governed by a human, rather than by a Divine law. Those who are determined to govern others by this position have only the authority of men for their dogma and their practice in doing so. This practice is a fine example of what Jesus condemned in principle when He said, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Mat. 15:9).
But why devote so much space to a matter that is really only an indifferent point anyway? Because ignorance of what the church really is and binding a tradition on brethren are both very serious matters. Can we not see that “the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands” (Acts 7:48-50)? To use the church building for a common meal is not going to desecrate it, since it is not God’s temple to begin with. The concept of “sacred” buildings is rooted in the defunct law of Moses and/or paganism rather than in the law of Christ. He demands consecrated minds, hearts, and bodies (Luke 10:27; Rom. 12:1-3). To misuse these, not eating in a church building, is to defile or destroy God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20).
What are we to make of the language of 1 Corinthi-ans 11:22 and 34? Do they not say that one should eat and drink in his house or eat “at home” if he is hungry? They indeed do. However, these cannot be fairly construed as a general condemnation of eating a meal in the same premises where worship is offered to God. We have already the historical description of the “love feast” of Jude 12 and 2 Peter 2:13, which was held immediately after worship in the same facility.
Further, one must consider the fact that brethren in various places used their homes for meeting places. Paul sent greetings to “Prisca and Aquila…and salute the church that is in their house” (Rom. 16:3-5, ASV). The church in Laodicea met in the home of Nymphas (Col. 4:15). Archippus’ house was where the church in Colossae met (Phm. 2). Surely the brethren who owned these houses also ate their meals in them.
Moreover, if we are going to ignore the true context of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, the passage would forbid one to ever eat anywhere else except in his own house. One other point on this passage: Paul’s statement includes drinking as well as eating (11:22). Yet we have never heard those who decry eating in the church building ever raise one word of opposition to the drinking fountain in each of their own church buildings. However, what applies to one applies to both in this passage.
What is the major thrust of 1 Corinthians 11? It is not the right or wrong use of a building, for there is no record of any first century church even owning a building. Rather, the apostle condemns the Corinthians’ profaning of the Lord’s supper, not of His building in this important chapter. They were combining the Lord’s supper with an ordinary meal. Additionally, those who had more were eating too much and not sharing it with those who had little and who then went away embarrassed and hungry (11:21-22). They could call this the “Lord’s supper,” but it was impossible for it to be so by the Lord’s reckoning (11:20). Paul then reminded them in very strong terms of the sacred, memorial purpose of the supper and the risk to their souls in failing to thus reverently observe it (11:23-29).
To duplicate the error of the Corinthian church described in this passage we would have to combine a fellowship meal with the observance of the Lord’s supper (which some liberal brethren have actually been promoting in recent years, incidentally).
Then those who have more food would have to refuse to share their abundance with those who have much less. Paul does not address eating or not eating a physical meal in the church building in this passage. He addresses combining a fellowship meal with the Lord’s supper, thus corrupting the spiritual feast. Read verses 20 through 34 again and you cannot miss it.
[NOTE: I am indebted to Elvis Huffard for assembling some of the historical notes I have used in the foregoing article—DM.]