Eating in the Building Revisited

2002050

Subject: fellowship halls

Introduction:

A. Convinced that one of the greatest sources of division among brethren in the west is not with:

1. church sending money to orphanage

2. church sending money to college

3. sponsoring church concept

4. But with eating in the building. Building of fellowship halls & the church providing recreational facilities for people.

B. Congregations in this area… Must have the fellowship hall or die. NOTHING more important. Those who disagree are cut off and regarded as over-sensitive legalists.

1. To the point where the matter is not even discussed.

2. We are the ones charged w/creating the division – so brethren in the area feel justified in not having fellowship w/us.

C. COC’s have not always had a problem in this area.

1. Many will testify that during the 1^st half of the 20^th century – most COC’s had no fellowship hall.

2. During this time, the majority viewed the church as a spiritual institution – and wasted no time trying to satisfy the spiritual needs of brethren.

3. Only after WW2 did we see influx of what has become known as the social gospel.

a) Many set out to prove that the COC was not different than any other church in town.

b) FH’s brought in to “legitimize” the church in the eyes of the world.

c) Now, FH’s and recreational activities are justified on basis of evangelism.

D. From a humble beginning, w/the sincerest of motives – fellowship halls have evolved into churches building:

1. gymnasiums

2. health & workout facilities

3. church league sports – complete w/outdoor sports facilities

4. Public places of meeting.

E. Principle argument: where does it stop? One can justify the gym on the same basis as the fellowship hall.

1. Does the end justify the means?

2. Why are people attending? Motive?

3. Those who promote the membership by offering ice cream; tea; and fried chicken will have members as cold as the ice cream; weak as tea; and dead as the chicken.

F. Let’s take a look at this in-depth from a biblical point of view.

I. What this issue is NOT:

A. We are NOT saying that a person cannot eat something on the grounds of church owned property.

1. Eat in my office daily. Coffee, etc.

2. Many of us have eaten together here on work days, etc.

B. We are NOT saying that it is not good for Christians to eat a common meal together.

1. We need to do this more regularly. Need to interact socially w/each other.

2. We can grow closer to one another & encourage each other.

3. Spend enough time w/worldly people. Need to do whatever it takes to be w/my brethren.

II. Confusion over the role of the church building.

A. Building is an expedient.

1. Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 11:20 – Christians commanded to assemble together.

2. Expedient is a helpful means to carry out a command by God.

B. Some believe the building is an expedient for use in “any honorable or profitable” activity.

1. Remember, expedients are only authorized by the commands themselves.

2. Before the building can be used as an “expedient” or means to have a party – there must first be a command to party.

3. What kind of command to kitchens expedite?

4. None; nothing; not there.

C. Yes…we know the building is not holy. It is made out of steel & wood. Yes…we know the building is not a sanctuary.

1. Conclusion many have is since the building is not sacred and merely an earthly substance – it need not be reserved for sacred purposes only.

2. But…while building is not sacred – it was erected for a sacred purpose!

3. To use it in a different matter is to misuse the funds that purchased the building.

III. Confusion over the word fellowship.

A. Fellowship is defined as “joint participation” or “mutual sharing.”

1. In the NT – fellowship is spiritual not social!

2. In religion, communion & participation is to be in holy & spiritual things. Some would expand the definition of fellowship to include the physical.

B. But…there is no reference in the NT to fellowship referring to a common meal or recreational entertainment. Biblical fellowship is:

1. communion w/deity – 1 John 1:3, 6-7

2. communion w/brethren in Christ – 1 John 1:3

3. communion w/Christ in the LS – 1 Cor. 10:16

4. sharing in Christ’s suffering – Phil. 3:10

5. partnership in the work of the church – Acts 2:42

6. distributing to the needs of saints – Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:16

C. To conclude that fellowship is meant to include anything other than the spiritual is to misunderstand the biblical use of the term.

IV. What about love feasts?

A. LF mentioned in 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12. See also Acts 2:46; 20:11; 1 Cor. 11:17-23.

1. 2^nd century historians argue early churches had regular “love feasts.”

2. What exactly were they?

B. Some claim they were:

1. The Lord’s Supper

2. Social meal associated w/the LS

3. Social meal separate from the LS

4. Benevolent meal as the church feeding the poor among saints.

5. Social meal as a function of the home to which disciples were invited.

6. Benevolent meal as a function of the home for the purpose of feeding poor among saints.

7. How can one prove from the Scriptures that LF specifically referred to a social meal?

C. A closer look:

1. Acts 2:46. A close look will see this passage separates the common meal from the assembly. BTW, where did these meals take place?

2. Acts 20:11 – how does this prove the church needs a fellowship hall? Social meal as a work of the church? “Break bread” is the key term!

a) 20:7 – BB = the LS. How? Saints came together in one place to do it. It was the FD of the week.

b) Had Paul just wanted a common meal – no need to wait until the FD of the week.

c) 20:11 – meal took place after midnight – so 2^nd day of the week.

d) But, Paul the only one said to have eaten here. Not the entire assembly.

3. This passage cannot be used to justify church sponsored social parties.

V. What about the church in Corinth?

A. 1 Cor. 11:20-22

B. Church was engaging in the abuse of an authorized practice.

1. Yes…abuse does not prohibit the thing authorized.

C. What were they abusing? The LS!

1. 1 Cor. 11:20; 22; 34

2. All that was authorized was the proper observation of the LS.

3. No authority here for social meals.

4. Besides,11:22 DESTROYS the argument for social meals as a function of the church!

VI. Here’s why this issue is so important!

A. Hospitality is a function of the home – not the church!

1. Hospitality is a command given to individuals – not the church!

2. Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9

3. Too often, the functions of the home have been incorporated into the church.

B. Mixing social & spiritual things is a recipe for disaster!

1. Rom. 14:17 – eating is not a spiritual work!

2. Danger of bringing a social atmosphere to place of worship is clearly seen in 1 Cor. 11. SOLUTION: eat/drink at home!

3. Social event can become the feature of the service!

a) Never should carnal appetites be elevated over spiritual nourishment.

b) In too many places, people no longer hunger thirst after righteousness – they’re just hungry & thirsty!

C. It boils down to authority.

1. Mt. 28:18 – Jesus left no room for assumptions.

2. If we can respect what He said about baptism – why not the work of the church?

Conclusion:

A. Yes…many of our brethren like what they are doing.

1. They want it & are going to have it!

2. Will not change the mind of the majority!

3. Not negative – just realistic!

B. Close w/two quotes:

1. NB Hardeman: Again I say to you, with caution and thought, that it is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. And yet many churches have drifted into such an effort. They enlarge their basements, put in all kinds of gymnastic apparatus, and make every sort of appeal to the young people of the congregation. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such was part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction.

2. Made in Nashville, circa 1940.

3. Floyd Decker: The Christian church emphasizes society and the physical man by appealing to the carnal nature, with church carnivals; bands; plays; choruses, dramatics; church kitchens; church camps; and elaborate fellowship halls; the church of Christ does not.

4. Made in Why I Left the Christian Church circa 1940.

C. Let’s keep the church the church by doing its work.

D. I N V I T A T I O N



Eating in the Building Revisited 2002050 Subject: fellowship halls Introduction: A. Convinced that one of the greatest sources of division among brethren in the west is not with: 1. church sending money to orphanage 2. church sending money to college 3. sponsoring church concept 4. But with eating in the building. Building of fellowship halls & the church providing recreational facilities for people. B. Congregations in this area… Must have the fellowship hall or die. NOTHING more important. Those who disagree are cut off and regarded as over-sensitive legalists. 1. To the point where the matter is not even discussed. 2. We are the ones charged w/creating the division – so brethren in the area feel justified in not having fellowship w/us. C. COC’s have not always had a problem in this area. 1. Many will testify that during the 1^st half of the 20^th century – most COC’s had no fellowship hall. 2. During this time, the majority viewed the church as a spiritual institution – and wasted no time trying to satisfy the spiritual needs of brethren. 3. Only after WW2 did we see influx of what has become known as the social gospel. a) Many set out to prove that the COC was not different than any other church in town. b) FH’s brought in to “legitimize” the church in the eyes of the world. c) Now, FH’s and recreational activities are justified on basis of evangelism. D. From a humble beginning, w/the sincerest of motives – fellowship halls have evolved into churches building: 1. gymnasiums 2. health & workout facilities 3. church league sports – complete w/outdoor sports facilities 4. Public places of meeting. E. Principle argument: where does it stop? One can justify the gym on the same basis as the fellowship hall. 1. Does the end justify the means? 2. Why are people attending? Motive? 3. Those who promote the membership by offering ice cream; tea; and fried chicken will have members as cold as the ice cream; weak as tea; and dead as the chicken. F. Let’s take a look at this in-depth from a biblical point of view. I. What this issue is NOT: A. We are NOT saying that a person cannot eat something on the grounds of church owned property. 1. Eat in my office daily. Coffee, etc. 2. Many of us have eaten together here on work days, etc. B. We are NOT saying that it is not good for Christians to eat a common meal together. 1. We need to do this more regularly. Need to interact socially w/each other. 2. We can grow closer to one another & encourage each other. 3. Spend enough time w/worldly people. Need to do whatever it takes to be w/my brethren. II. Confusion over the role of the church building. A. Building is an expedient. 1. Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 11:20 – Christians commanded to assemble together. 2. Expedient is a helpful means to carry out a command by God. B. Some believe the building is an expedient for use in “any honorable or profitable” activity. 1. Remember, expedients are only authorized by the commands themselves. 2. Before the building can be used as an “expedient” or means to have a party – there must first be a command to party. 3. What kind of command to kitchens expedite? 4. None; nothing; not there. C. Yes…we know the building is not holy. It is made out of steel & wood. Yes…we know the building is not a sanctuary. 1. Conclusion many have is since the building is not sacred and merely an earthly substance – it need not be reserved for sacred purposes only. 2. But…while building is not sacred – it was erected for a sacred purpose! 3. To use it in a different matter is to misuse the funds that purchased the building. III. Confusion over the word fellowship. A. Fellowship is defined as “joint participation” or “mutual sharing.” 1. In the NT – fellowship is spiritual not social! 2. In religion, communion & participation is to be in holy & spiritual things. Some would expand the definition of fellowship to include the physical. B. But…there is no reference in the NT to fellowship referring to a common meal or recreational entertainment. Biblical fellowship is: 1. communion w/deity – 1 John 1:3, 6-7 2. communion w/brethren in Christ – 1 John 1:3 3. communion w/Christ in the LS – 1 Cor. 10:16 4. sharing in Christ’s suffering – Phil. 3:10 5. partnership in the work of the church – Acts 2:42 6. distributing to the needs of saints – Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:16 C. To conclude that fellowship is meant to include anything other than the spiritual is to misunderstand the biblical use of the term. IV. What about love feasts? A. LF mentioned in 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12. See also Acts 2:46; 20:11; 1 Cor. 11:17-23. 1. 2^nd century historians argue early churches had regular “love feasts.” 2. What exactly were they? B. Some claim they were: 1. The Lord’s Supper 2. Social meal associated w/the LS 3. Social meal separate from the LS 4. Benevolent meal as the church feeding the poor among saints. 5. Social meal as a function of the home to which disciples were invited. 6. Benevolent meal as a function of the home for the purpose of feeding poor among saints. 7. How can one prove from the Scriptures that LF specifically referred to a social meal? C. A closer look: 1. Acts 2:46. A close look will see this passage separates the common meal from the assembly. BTW, where did these meals take place? 2. Acts 20:11 – how does this prove the church needs a fellowship hall? Social meal as a work of the church? “Break bread” is the key term! a) 20:7 – BB = the LS. How? Saints came together in one place to do it. It was the FD of the week. b) Had Paul just wanted a common meal – no need to wait until the FD of the week. c) 20:11 – meal took place after midnight – so 2^nd day of the week. d) But, Paul the only one said to have eaten here. Not the entire assembly. 3. This passage cannot be used to justify church sponsored social parties. V. What about the church in Corinth? A. 1 Cor. 11:20-22 B. Church was engaging in the abuse of an authorized practice. 1. Yes…abuse does not prohibit the thing authorized. C. What were they abusing? The LS! 1. 1 Cor. 11:20; 22; 34 2. All that was authorized was the proper observation of the LS. 3. No authority here for social meals. 4. Besides,11:22 DESTROYS the argument for social meals as a function of the church! VI. Here’s why this issue is so important! A. Hospitality is a function of the home – not the church! 1. Hospitality is a command given to individuals – not the church! 2. Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9 3. Too often, the functions of the home have been incorporated into the church. B. Mixing social & spiritual things is a recipe for disaster! 1. Rom. 14:17 – eating is not a spiritual work! 2. Danger of bringing a social atmosphere to place of worship is clearly seen in 1 Cor. 11. SOLUTION: eat/drink at home! 3. Social event can become the feature of the service! a) Never should carnal appetites be elevated over spiritual nourishment. b) In too many places, people no longer hunger thirst after righteousness – they’re just hungry & thirsty! C. It boils down to authority. 1. Mt. 28:18 – Jesus left no room for assumptions. 2. If we can respect what He said about baptism – why not the work of the church? Conclusion: A. Yes…many of our brethren like what they are doing. 1. They want it & are going to have it! 2. Will not change the mind of the majority! 3. Not negative – just realistic! B. Close w/two quotes: 1. NB Hardeman: Again I say to you, with caution and thought, that it is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. And yet many churches have drifted into such an effort. They enlarge their basements, put in all kinds of gymnastic apparatus, and make every sort of appeal to the young people of the congregation. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such was part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction. 2. Made in Nashville, circa 1940. 3. Floyd Decker: The Christian church emphasizes society and the physical man by appealing to the carnal nature, with church carnivals; bands; plays; choruses, dramatics; church kitchens; church camps; and elaborate fellowship halls; the church of Christ does not. 4. Made in Why I Left the Christian Church circa 1940. C. Let’s keep the church the church by doing its work. D. I N V I T A T I O N