Real Questions From Real People

by Micky Galloway

We send out tapes, CDs and our bulletin, “I PRESS,” to those who would like to receive them. Recently, we have sent out requests to update our mailing list for this material. Periodically we receive questions from those who receive the bulletins and the recorded material. The recent update request has prompted such communication. After a lengthy explanation from one who had changed congregations, here is a quote requesting more information.

“The only thing is that some of the people from _______ believe we are doing wrong because there was a fellowship wing built on the building which does have a kitchen. I was raised in the church of Christ in ______ and we didn’t have a kitchen. However, I have studied the Bible on this subject and am not able to find anything to lead me to believe it is wrong. To my understanding there is nothing “Holy” about the building itself. It is nothing more than bricks and mortar. We don’t cook or eat anything during the worship service. We use it for our members and guests to have potlucks after services and get to know one another better. We feel if we keep everyone involved it will be beneficial. We have the congregation divided into about eight groups and each Sunday two different groups meet afterwards for a meal. When you are growing that fast and want to get to know everyone, the Elders felt this was a good way to do this. I can’t disagree. Every church I’ve ever attended never had more than 140 people. It is helping me to get to know others and I would guess it is working for others as well from what I’m hearing. I would like to hear your thought on the subject if you have time.”

THOUGHTS ABOUT “FELLOWSHIP MEALS”

Many attempts have been made to defend the practice of the church providing a place to come together to eat a social meal. Some insist on calling these social meals “fellowship meals” thus the place provided by the church for such meals as “fellowship halls,” and in the above a “fellowship wing” of the building. These assume, without evidence, that it is the mission of the church (collectively) to provide for a common meal together. Evidence is lacking that the N. T. church ever came together “in the church” (collectively – cf I Corinthians 11:18) for the purpose of eating a common meal. One attempt to justify this practice has been an appeal to the biblical reference to “love feasts” in II Peter 2:13 and Jude 12. Other efforts include finding passages where the phrase “breaking of bread” occurs and insisting that these passages refer to a common meal known as the “love-feast.” In this study we shall consider the evidence regarding the “love-feast” and also consider the various passages usually cited to prove that the early church had a love-feast as a part of its public service.

Some have erroneously represented the issue as this: “Is there authority in the New Testament 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 has never been simply eating in the church building or whether the early church ate where they met. THE ISSUE IS: WHAT IS THE WORK OF THE CHURCH? The correct question is: “Do the Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals when the design for these meals is social and/or recreational in purpose?”

This issue exists because of a basic difference in attitude toward Bible authority. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF OUR AUTHORITY FOR ANY PRACTICE? The appeal, “I don’t see anything wrong with it” will not stand. The Scriptures represent the authority of God through Christ and His apostles and prophets. This authority is revealed by 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 anything. The local U.S. Post Office is nothing but brick and mortar, however, you cannot use it for a barbeque for your friends on the fourth of July. It is a building that has a distinct purpose. Likewise, the only way that church kitchens and dining facilities can be justified is by showing that they expedite some scriptural function and mission of the church.

The “love feasts” that are mentioned in Jude 12 seem to offer the hope for those who are determined to practice such things. It is also said that Acts 2:42,44,46; 20:11 and I Corinthians 11:17-23 refer to the practice of “fellowship meals.” Some 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. It is not acceptable to God that our faith should rest in uninspired history or uninspired men (I Corinthians 2:1-5). Denominational commentaries, religious encyclopedias, and other reference works are cited 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 before the Lord's Supper, while others are equally sure that it was done afterwards. Yet, those who cite these as “authorities” do not have their banquets in connection with the Lord's Supper. It must be remembered that much of what these commentators say is based on writings of men describing practices in the second and third century. Realizing that the “mystery of lawlessness” was already working in the days of the apostles (II Thessalonians 2:7) we must limit our practice to what is authorized in scripture itself. Peter said, “If any man speaketh, (speaking) as it were oracles of God” (cf I 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 their eating was 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 this meal, in contrast to the Lord’s Supper referred to in Acts 2:42, was eaten “at home.” All this passage says is that early Christians ate with one another; there is no evidence to lead one to believe that there was any kind of congregational action involved in this meal. Christians today often share a meal although we do not have a “congregational fellowship meal” provided by the church. The eating is done by individual Christians in private homes and is in no way considered a congregational activity.

Acts 20:7-11… The congregation assembled “to break bread” [i.e. to observe the Lord’s Supper, mg]. The meeting was broken up after Eutychus fell out of the third story window. Knowing that he was to leave early the next morning, Paul ate [common meal, mg] before departing. This passage does not teach that a common meal was eaten by the congregation or that it was eaten on church property.

Jude 12; II Peter 2:13 on “agape” or “love feasts.” It is assumed that these “agape” or “love feasts” were held on church property as a work or function of the church for “social and recreational purposes.” We are often told that “all the historians and all the commentators agree with this conclusion.” Remember “historians and commentators” are uninspired sources, but if we are to use them we must use them correctly. Let us consider what the “authorities” have to say. Joseph Henry Thayer describes these as, “… 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, page 4). 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 Christians? Everett Furguson, a professor at Abilene Christian College, said in his book: Early Christians Speak, page 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, page 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, page 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 I Corinthians 11:34 says, “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 (page 397-398) has quite a lengthy discussion of the “agape” and suggests the Lord’s Supper better meets the demands of these two passages. It is on the basis of Tertullian’s description of the “agape” that many denominational commentators interpret Jude 12 and other passages as having reference to another meal provided by the church. Yet, great caution should be exercised in giving a Bible word a third century definition. Apostasy was well under way that resulted in Roman Catholicism by Tertullian’s time.

1 Cor. 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. It was no longer the “Lord’s Supper,” but “in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper” (verses 20-21). In doing so the Corinthians had despised the church of God by distorting its divine nature and purpose. Their actions also shamed those that were poor. The solution is in verses 22 and 34. “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in.” Please note this important point. The Corinthians had some place for conducting their congregational assembly other than one’s home. Yet, 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 the church provided such a meal for social and recreational purposes it is condemned. Paul told them to STOP.

Some attempt to slip social activities in under the guise of spiritual edification. Certainly, this opens the floodgates of apostasy. 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 departed from 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 (II Timothy 3:16-17).

No man has the right to prostitute the energy, strength, zeal or resources of the church of our Lord to serve human aims or purposes. We must let the church be distinct as the church, so adorned as to glorify the 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, but rather we must keep it pure to serve the interest of heaven for which we must strive.