FELLOWSHIP HALLS? (PART 2)

By Mark Dunagan

D. But It Is A 'Good Work':

Often you will hear the following in the attempt to justify church sponsored social meals: (1) 'But churches that build kitch­ens, dining rooms, gyms, etc., GROW!' But a certain kind a growth means that you are on the wrong road. (Matthew 7:13) In ad­dition, churches that teach Premillennial­ism, Calvinism and the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, also grow. In fact, such churches grow faster and bigger than the ones who merely opt for "fellowship" halls. (2) The Bible defines what is a "good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Nowhere in the Bible do we find church sponsored social meals, recreation or "fellowship" halls. (3) And to me here is the real "rub" of the so­cial gospel or liberalism. According to cer­tain people church dinners and "fellowship" halls are mandatory for church growth, evangelism and maintaining unity in the congregation. Lest anyone object that I used the word "mandatory", let me point out that congregations and/or individuals, who advocated such innovations, thought they were so needful that they divided the church over them. The argument that they were just a "method" or an option doesn't fly because you don't divide the church over an "option." Advocating even a matter of moral or doctrinal indifference to the point of division is a sin. (Romans 14:15-16; 19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9-12; 10:31-33) But the problem is, the apostles didn't view such things are necessary. The social gos­pel casts the apostles and the first century Christians into an "unspiritual" light. Listen to the following statement: 'The Jerusalem church ... had no youth minister, no family-life center, no activities director, no day-care center, no choir, no band, no orches­tra, no music minister; it had no soccer field nor gymnasium; it had no marriage counselor, no senior's minister, and no chariot ministry.' (GOT, 'Full Service Churches', Irvin Hummel, 4-2-92, p. 24) You see, the social gospel or liberalism makes the first century churches look like they weren't on the cutting edge. It makes the apostles look apathetic, unspiritual and "lacking vision", for they never advocated such ideas. Liberalism is forced to con­demn the Christianity practiced in the first century, for it was completely void of all the things that people claim the church can't survive, grow and minister to the needs of Christians and non-Christians without.

E. The Building Isn't Sacred:

Points to Note: (1) You would be hard pressed to find a group of people who have spent more time and effort in trying to teach people that the "building" isn't the "church", than conservative brethren. Many of us even phrase our signs, 'The church of Christ meets here'. (2) Listen to the following: 'He accuses us of believing in the sacredness of the building, yet it is institutional churches who often hold "dedication services" when they build a new building. That sounds like they believe the building is sacred!' (GOT. 'Fellowship Halls', Dick Blackford, 1-19-95, p. 17) (3) While the building isn't "holy ground" at the same time it must be recognized that since it was purchased with first day of the week funds, it can only be used for those things outlined as the work of the church in the New Testament. That is, the building can be used for edification (Heb. 10:24-25) (i.e. worship/bible study/song leading classes, etc.), evangelism (1 Tim. 3:15) (gospel meetings, preaching, etc.) and benevo­lence for Christians. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

F. The Claim That We Contradict Ourselves:

A huge "theological" proposition in recent years has been whether or not it is right to eat a meal in the "church building"...This writer knows of a case where brethren were involved in building a new meeting place. As they worked each week, they had lunch in the partially completed structure. The day they moved into the facility to worship, eating on the premises became a sin…' (The Spiritual Sword, 'The Crisis of Radical Reactionism.' Wayne Jack­son. 10-93) First of all I want to point out that Wayne Jackson has written some excel­lent material. Unfortunately, on this issue he has found himself defending something that can't be defended. And when you place yourself in such a position, you are forced to make an argument which will come back to haunt you. Using the above argument others could just as easily con­tend: This writer knows a case where brethren were involved in building a meet­ing place. As they worked some of them listened to music on the radio. The day they moved into the facility, rock/instrumental music in the worship services became a sin! Or, what if one of the broth­ers had instructed another in some aspect of construction while the building was in progress? Can the church then use the building to teach classes on electrical wir­ing or plumbing? 'The day they moved in the facility to worship, teaching drywall classes on the premises became a sin.' Or, what if while installing and testing the bap­tistery for leaks, one of the members laid back and relaxed in the cool waters to get relief from the heat? 'The day they moved into the facility it became wrong for the church to provide a place to swim!' You see brethren, the issue has never been can the church have a drinking fountain, can the preacher eat his lunch in the building while studying, can the members bring a drink or snack into the building while working on a classroom room, copying off materials, cleaning the building, etc… Anyone can see that such things are vastly different from purposely designing a room for peo­ple to eat or recreate in. But in this whole discus­sion a REAL CONTRADICTION is often over­looked. Think about this one: If a church can build an auditorium which will function as not only the place in which to hold wor­ship services, but will then easily convert into a gym or dining hall after ser­vices. Then why can't the same congrega­tion build a large baptistery, which will not only be used to baptize people in, but can also be used to swim in. Hey, if people ac­cept the argument that eating together is nec­essary for real spiritual growth, then why can't we equally argue that a "Church of Christ hot tub" is necessary for con­gregational harmony? As we close the reader should note that many who em­brace "fellowship" halls and church kitch­ens are in opposition to church gyms. But such a position is contradictory. Calling a church dining room a "fellowship" hall doesn't make it any more Scriptural than calling a church gym, a "Family Life Cen­ter". Biblical authority can't be cited for ei­ther. The above arguments are desperate attempts to hold on to an unscriptural practice. 'It plays well to an audience de­termined to have their banquet halls at ALL COST, re­gardless that it serves to perpetu­ate divi­sion.' (Dick Blackford, p. 19) &

2-5-95 / Beaverton Church of Christ