Sunday Sermons
Use of the Building
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 useof 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”
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). 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.” 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 could not engage in any activity with the unsaved, including work, recreation, or socializing. But this is not 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). 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 cannot 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.
“Not eating in the building is a human tradition”: The truth is that the fellowship hall came from the denominational world, not the New Testament. The vast majority of all human denominations have them, and divine tradition does not 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 with 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? 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).
1 Corinthians 11
In 1 Corinthians 11 I know that Paul is dealing with an abuse, but it is not 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 did not 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). Paul doesn’t offer any solution that allows the Corinthians to keep their social meals in some proximity with the worship services. He does not say, worship God, have a closing prayer, and then eat. Neither does he 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 did not Paul see it as such? Notice, in the eyes of the Apostles, social meals are like any other thing that one might do at home. 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 is not a social meal (1 Corinthians 11:23). 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 could not 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).
Some might argue that we do not 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). Yet 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 (for the Holy Spirit took their actions seriously). 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”).
Going Beyond Even The Corinthians
The Corinthians were simply bringing their own meals to services with them, meals that they had purchased with their own money, and 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). God is saying, “Don’t you have enough places to conduct such common meals, without having to make the 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. Now if simply bringing our meals with us to the assembly brought such condemnation, what would God say about congregations that 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, did not go that far.
The Work of the Church
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 which 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 or schools,), 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).
