FELLOWSHIP HALLS? (PART 1)

By Mark Dunagan

Somewhere in the past the idea en­tered the Church of Christ that it would be all right to take the funds collected on the first day of the week and construct a church building which would include such things as a kitchen and a large dining room or "fellowship" hall. These structures weren't built to feed needy Christians, rather they were built to feed and entertain already well-fed mem­bers. Point to Note: I said that such an idea "entered" the Church of Christ, be­cause this concept hadn't always been in the Church. In 1951 (not that long ago) B.C. Goodpasture wrote in the Gospel Ad­vocate Annual Lesson Commentary (note: many of the congregations which now have "fellowship halls" are strong loyal support­ers of the Gospel Advocate): 'It is not the mission of the church to furnish amuse­ment for the world or even for its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons but it is not the business of the church to furnish it...The church was not established to feature athletics...For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission.... Building recreation rooms, and providing and supervising recreational ac­tivities at the expense of the church, is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament…. The church might as well relieve the parents of feeding and disciplining all of the young people at church expense as to take over the job of entertaining and supervising the recreation at church expense.' (p. 229) The Gospel Advocate Quarterly said in 1951 that such is sin. Two observations need to be made in response to this quote: (a) To oppose "fellowship" halls and all the things which go along with church spon­sored recreation, is to hold the "common" view. (b) Since congregations actually did split over this issue, who caused the divi­sion? Who took a "radical" position? Who placed a "fellowship" hall over fellowship with their brethren? Who said that having a kitchen in the building is more important than unity? (Ephesians 4:1-3)

Arguments That Don't Add Up:

A. The Love Feast: 2 Peter 2:13/Jude 12

It is argued that the "feast" mentioned in these two verses were church-funded din­ners or potlucks, very similar to the mod­ern church dinners which are served in a "fellowship" hall, where members conduct birthday parties, anniversary celebrations, baby showers, etc..

Points to Note: The idea that the "love feast" was a social meal connected with, following or before the Lord's Supper is a common denominational view. (1) Such a view contradicts what Paul says about the Lord's Supper. Paul not only separates the Lord's Supper from a social meal, but he commands all such meals to be engaged in "at home" (1 Cor. 11:22, 34). Some con­tend that Paul is simply correcting the Co­rinthians abuse of "fellowship dinners", but that we are not to interpret Paul as saying that all such church sponsored dinners are wrong. In response: (a) Paul is correcting an abuse of the Lord's Supper! (b) When correcting an abuse of something legiti­mate, Paul never completely out-lawed the practice. Rather, he proceeded to regulate it. (1 Corinthians 10:25-33) (c) Paul never regulates "church dinners". He places all such social meals in the private sector. (11:22; 11:34) Notice what Paul didn't say. 'Let's go ahead and eat the Lord's Supper and then we can have a banquet after the dismissal prayer!' (2) Even many denominational commentators argue that the "love feast" wasn't a social meal at all. Rather, it is simply another name for the Lord's Supper. 'When we come to Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) we find that in his account of church worship he does not mention the agape (love feast) at all, but speaks of the Eucharist (Lord's supper) as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scrip­ture, prayers, and exhortation.' (I.S.B.E. revised. 'Agape', p. 66) (3) Someone also pointed out that from simply reading 2 Pe­ter 2:13 or Jude 12 (if this was a social meal) the text says absolutely nothing about where these feasts took place. Did such feasts take place in private homes or were they church funded? (4) A recog­nized method of interpretation is to let the Bible interpret itself. (a) The social meals of the early church in Jerusalem happened in the private homes of the members. (Acts 2:46 'and breaking bread from house to house') (b) Paul places all social meals outside the assembly (1 Corinthians 11:22, 34).

B. The Use of the Word "Fellowship":

It is a common assumption that the word "fellowship" includes social meals. I think many members of the church picked this up from the denominational world. Unfortu­nately, the word "fellowship" as used in the Bible is never used or attached to social meals or a dining hall. I find the word used for sharing in spiritual things. (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 2:1; 1 John 1:3) I also find the word used in reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:16).

Note: If a social meal can be called "fellowship", then it also can be called "communion" for that is one way in which this word can be translated. I even find the word "fellowship" being used of sharing in physical things. But in those instances, the sharing was always to relieve a definite pressing need. (Romans 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; Phil. 1:5; Heb. 13:16; 1 Tim. 6:18)

C. The Church Sponsored Meals of Acts 6:

Points to Note: (1) Such meals were for benevolent purposes. We have clear Scriptural authority for the church to use its funds to house, cloth, feed, etc., members who are in need. (1 Cor. 16:1-2) But modern day church dinners and "fellowship halls" are not for benevolent purposes. (2) Such meals were only for needy Christians. Carefully note that the apostles never started the modern practice of using free food and recreation to draw non-Christians.

(To be continued)