(There are two articles on this page)
What Are We Doing?
by Micky Galloway
Some view the church as a place to go to enjoy pleasant activities with pleasant people. In other words the church is nothing more than a place to go to have a good time, something like a YMCA. The church is not a building, but a people purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The church has a purpose and that is to please God. It is not designed to cater to the pleasures of man. When asked why we do not have banquet rooms and ball teams the accusation is often given, “You don’t believe in eating on church property …” On March 23, 1996, I received an announcement informing me that I was a participant in a public study of this issue. It said, “We are to discuss specifically in reference to I Corinthians 11 and related passages to answer the question, ‘is there authority in the New Testament for Christians eating a common meal together in the church building or on church grounds?’” This question implies that there is confusion about what the issue really is.
Please consider: THE ISSUE IS NOT: (1) Eating in the church building. Eating in the church building is scriptural IF it expedites the scriptural church functions. THE ISSUE IS: WHAT IS THE WORK OF THE CHURCH? We are agreed that the scriptures teach that the work of the church is Evangelism, Edification, and Benevolence to needy saints. The question that is proposed on the afore mentioned advertisement is incomplete and does not set forth where we differ. A more accurate proposition is: “The Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals on church property, namely in the building or on church grounds when said meal is designed for SOCIAL and/or RECREATIONAL purposes.” This is what I DENY.
To discuss this proposition it is necessary that we understand how God's word teaches. I submit that God’s word teaches us through direct statements, approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences. This is illustrated in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. We learn WHAT to do by direct statement, “This do in remembrance of me” (I Corinthians 11:24-25). We learn WHEN to do it by the approved apostolic example of what the apostle Paul did with the saints in Troas, “upon the first day of the week …” (Acts 20:7). We learn the FREQUENCY of observance by necessary inference, i.e. every week has a first day (Cf. Matthew 3:22). A review of Acts 15 illustrates God’s teaching on the matter of circumcision in this very way. Also, a strict respect for God’s silence must be noted (Acts 15:22; Cf. I Peter 4:11).
Let us define more specifically the proposition. “The Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals on church property, namely in the building or on church grounds when said meal is designed for social and/or recreational purposes.” By “SOCIAL” I mean what is involved in the noun form of the word: “An informal gathering of people for recreation or amusement; party” (Webster's New World Dictionary). By “RECREATIONAL” I mean “Amusement, diversion, entertainment, relaxation, repose, ease, play, sport, frolic, rollic; mirth, jollity, hilarity,” (Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, Pg. 686). I deny that it is a work of the church to provide social and/or recreation activities, because there is no direct statement, approved apostolic example or necessary inference authorizing it to do so.
The issue continues to be: WHAT IS THE WORK OF THE CHURCH? Is it evangelism, benevolence, and edification … OR may the church provide social and recreational activities?
Please consider a study of the passages involved in this controversy.
Acts 2:42,44,46 – I can admit what these verses say and still deny their eating was a common meal for social and recreational purposes. NOTE: Verse 46 says that while they assembled in the temple, they broke their bread (common meal) “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 where I worship often share a meal although we do not have a “congregational fellowship meal.” 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). The meeting was broken up after Eutychus fell out of the third floor window. Knowing that he was to leave early the next morning, Paul ate (common meal) before departing. This passage does not teach that a common meal was eaten by the congregation as a function of the church.
Jude 12; II Peter 2:13 – It is assumed that these “agape” or “love-feasts” were a work of the church for “social and recreational purposes.” We are told that all the historians and all the commentators agree with this conclusion. This statement is not accurate. Remember, historians and commentators are uninspired sources and must be used cautiously. However, let us note some historians and commentators. Thayer says these were “… 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.” 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 Ferguson, 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.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pg. 70, says the AGAPE was “a common table at which the wants of the poor were supplied out of the abundance of the rich (Acts 6:1ff).” GUY N. WOODS says “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” (Commentary on Peter, John and Jude, p. 395). Lenski comments on I Corinthians 11:34 saying, “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 has quite a large discussion of the AGAPE and suggests the Lord's Supper better meets the demands of these two passages.
I Corinthians 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. In doing so the Corinthians had despised the church of God by distorting its divine nature and purpose. Their actions also shamed them that were poor. Remember Paul said, “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in” (Verse 22), indicating that the Corinthians had some place for conducting their congregational assembly other than one's home. In verse 34 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 such a meal for social and recreational purposes is mentioned in the scriptures it is condemned. Paul told them to STOP.
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.
Some will say, “Preacher, preach on, I am opposed to these unscriptural practices also.” Yet, these same folks support churches that practice these very things by their presence, contribution and influence. “Consistency, thou art a jewel.” The Scriptures teach, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into (your) house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works … and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (II John 9-11; Ephesians 5:12). Brethren, stop and ask, “What are we doing?”
Law, Liberties, And Apostolic Examples
by John C. Robertson
The Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 and John’s statements in Revelation 2:14, 20 exposed the sinfulness of eating meats sacrificed to idols. When one reads I Corinthians 8 and 10 it would appear that Paul has contradicted the clear teaching of Jesus Christ on this issue. Romans 14:23 seems to be the connecting link to understanding the relationship between Acts 15, Revelation 2 and I Corinthians 8 and 10. It reads, “But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Clearly the matter of eating meats sacrificed to idols was an issue of indifference. Paul said, “But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better” (I Corinthians 8:7). Whether one eats meats, sets aside a special day of the week for study or is circumcised really does not affect the soul (cf. Romans 14:1-5; I Corinthians 7:19). These areas are termed “liberties” (I Corinthians 8:9). Yet, if one were to violate his conscience by eating meats sacrificed to idols, to him it would be sin. Many Gentiles were raised in pagan societies that habitually worshiped various deities and thereby it was a way of life until they obeyed the gospel. Removing the falsehood of lesser deities from their hearts was a slow process. The stronger brother may also find himself in sin by pressing his liberties to the point of causing the weak brother to stumble in sin. Such activity displays a lack of love for a brother. Paul had previously said, “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient” (I Corinthians 6:12). He again makes the same statement in I Corinthians 10:23. The point is that in some cases wisdom, judgment and love for brethren must dictate whether or not I exercise a certain liberty.
One must not confuse a liberty with a matter of “the faith” (Jude 3). Liberties do not affect the soul unless one is “brought under the power” of the activity (I Corinthians 6:12). Whether or not one “keeps the commandments of God” does affect the soul (cf. I Corinthians 7:19). We may hear a brother tell us that we ought not name false teachers from the pulpit because it causes others to stumble. Again, some are saying we ought not talk about New Testament watchmen because the term causes some brethren to stumble. Such remarks illustrate a lack of spiritual understanding. Such a brother has failed to differentiate between a liberty and matters of the faith. We are to hold fast to doctrine and be willing to contend for it (Jude 3). A stumbling block refers to one inducing another to sin. How can one lead another to sin when the doctrine of Christ is taught and practiced (cf. II John 9)? Jesus taught that it would be so because the truth hardens some and makes disciples of others (cf. Parable of the Sower at Matthew 13:13-15).
When the apostles called the names of false teachers and identified their erring doctrines we have what is termed apostolic example (cf. I Corinthians 11:1 etc.). Paul said that he was not guilty of the blood of any man and thereby proved himself to be a watchman of brethren’s souls. Here again we have apostolic example (cf. Acts 18:6; 20:26 compared to Ezekiel 3:18-19; 33:8-9). When the apostle Paul said, “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you,” he gave a command (cf. I Corinthians 14:37). Such a statement makes apostolic example binding and authoritative. “These things do” is a direct command! Some brethren want to follow only “partial” apostolic examples such as partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the weak. When names of beloved false teachers are called they want to opine “stumbling block.”
To give a spiritually immature brother his way by setting aside matters of doctrinal differences is to accentuate and promote unity in diversity. When such a brother presses us with such human reasoning, may God give us the strength of the apostle Paul and “give place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:5).