To eat or not to eat – that is not the question
By Timothy Glover
Many problems related to the church building and its use exists today. Of course, there were no church buildings owned by churches in the New Testament. The church often met in houses of church members (Acts 12:12; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15, Philemon 2). We don’t know if they were rented or borrowed/loaned. Since they did not buy these houses owned by members, they probably did not rent the houses, either. The best guess is that they were loaned but even this cannot be proved.
Building Not Sacred; People Are
One common statement is that the building is not sacred. I thought that nobody thought that it was sacred. No one would think it appropriate to use the building for just any purpose. However, some brethren who may be carrying some denominational baggage with them, equate the church with the building and perceive it as being holy.
Paul said that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 7:47-48; 17:24). Though the tabernacle and the temple were God’s house, the people of God are his house today (1 Cor. 3:9-11, 1 Pet 2:5). We know that the Lord’s house is not the building like the temple that Solomon built for the Lord. Instead, the people are his house (2 Cor. 3:9-11; Eph. 2:20-, 1 Pet. 2:5).
Jesus and the Passover
The church “building” is just a place for the church to meet. The command to assemble to worship God necessitates a place just as the Jews’ observing the Passover required a place. Jesus and his disciples prepared a place for the Passover – “a large furnished room” (Luke 22:7-13). This place was a guest-chamber (v. 11) designed to accommodate visitors during the feast days. Nothing is said about Jesus having Judas pay the owner for rent. Yet, John 13:29 indicates that it would not have been unusual for the Lord to have Judas buy things necessary for the Passover feast. It seems that the upper room was probably free. Still, the Lord’s instructions indicate the need to prepare for the Passover. The using of this room and its facilities for the stated purpose does not mean that the room became “holy” or that it could only be used for Passover meals.
Incidentals are involved in any setting when actions are performed that have nothing to do with the purpose. Suppose I came over to study the Bible in your home and asked if I may use your restroom. Going to the restroom is “incidental” to the purpose of the visit.
Similarly, incidental to their purpose but included in their activities was the washing of feet (John 13). They did not assemble to wash feet. They assembled to eat the Passover (Luke 22:8). The use of the basin, the water, and the towel would not justify a feet washing service complete with a storage hall for basins and towels. It was not the purpose for the assembly. They were only incidentals. It is difficult to imagine the Lord putting a sign outside the upper room advertising “free feet washing” to draw people into the assembly so that his true purpose could be realized when he taught them. In the first place, his purpose was to eat the Passover with his disciples rather than having an open invitation for others to come. Secondly, if he did have designs to teach, he would not have used carnal appeals to have a following. He did not use such tactics. He had already stated the day after feeding the 5,000 that people had followed him because they were filled (John 6:26) and warns them to not follow perishable things like food (v. 26). He does not feed them that day but preaches on the bread of life and the living water. Afterward, many left him (6:60-68). He could have kept these people if he had just fed them, again. Yet, if he had, he would have had to continue to feed them and change his purpose. If not, he would have had people follow him for the wrong purpose and under pretense. Since the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Rom. 14:17) and Jesus would not change his purpose, he did not oblige the crowd and be untrue to his purpose.
Thus, when Jesus met in the upper room to eat the Passover with his disciples, he did not alter the purpose and loose all focus by emphasizing an incidental action like washing feet and the disciples clearly understood it. In fact, the disciples were so focused on what they had come together for that they had neglected to use the basin, towel and water that was available and expected to be used.
Similarly, the building, being a public facility, is built to code and designed with certain accommodations that characterize a public facility. Such things are either incidental to or necessary for the performance of what is required. For example, church buildings are equipped with water. Water is a good example because it is both necessary for and incidental to the required service. In the baptistery, water is an expedient means to carry out the command of the great commission that enjoins baptism as a requirement in disciple-making. It is not necessary that we have a baptistery because we could use other means to bury a subject in water. But, “water” is necessary in order to baptize and baptizing people is a command; thus, a baptistery is an authorized expedient (like song books expediting singing, PA system expediting teaching). However, water in bathrooms or drinking fountains are incidentals to the purpose for which we come together just as a basin of water and a towel to wash feet was incidental to the purpose for Jesus preparing the upper room – eating the Passover.
Some argue that if we can have a fountain or bathroom in the building, we can have a kitchen or “fellowship hall.” Jesus did not arrange for his disciples to meet in the upper room to wash feet any more than we meet at 5:00 tonight to drink at the water fountain or go to the rest rooms. I can imagine how crazy it would sound to make an announcement that we will be building a new room or refurbishing an existing room with water fountains and call it “fellowship fountain.” Again, imagine someone announcing that after services this morning, we are going to have a “fellowship” in the bathrooms and call it “bathroom ballroom.” These things have no place in the work of the church because they expedite no work that God gave the church to do. They are only incidental to our coming together in one place.
Further, actions done individually are witnessed when a church assembles but gives no justification for the church to be so engaged. A baby may be fed; a member may be nodding off to sleep, while another is filing nails. These things are a category of their own because they are not expedients used to carry out the work of the church and the church makes no provision for them.
Of course, the Lord did not own the upper room and others had previously used it for other things and would in the future. Today, most churches do no borrow an auditorium for the purpose of worship. Most do not rent or borrow a room. Most churches buy or build a building. Therefore, the church owns and maintains property.
Justification for a Building
Upon what basis is the ownership of a church building justified? Some say that we don’t need authority. They argue that we have no authority for church buildings and therefore can do other things for which there is no authority. This implies that we can do ______________ (whatever you want to fill in the blank) even though it is not authorized because we do many things without authority. In the first place, two wrongs do not make a right. Second, according to Col. 3:17, everything we do must Be in the name of Jesus. We must have authority for all that we do!
Furthermore, there is scriptural justification for church buildings just as there is for a baptistery, as has already been noted. When God instructs us to do something, there are means and methods that must be employed to carry out those instructions. The authority to assemble (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 11:17-33; 16:1-2) implies a place in which to meet. It is a means to an end. We conclude that (1) the meeting is “required.” (2) The place is “necessarily implied.” (3) Human beings judge the building as an “expedient means” in providing a “place.”
Use of a Church Building
The use of the building must be determined by considering the purpose for which it was built. It is illogical and shifty to build the building for one purpose (scriptural purpose of expediting the requirement to assemble together), justify its existence on that ground and then proceed to use it as we please. I do not know anyone who thinks the building is “holy.” No one objects to eating in the building if it is an incidental to the purpose for coming together or in some way expedites the work that God gave the church to do. Let’s not build straw men, intentionally distort the claims of others, and misrepresent others’ words. No one objects to eating in the building or anywhere else. The objection is to changing the mission and work of the Lord’s church. When we build a building to carry out the work of a local church, we need to know what that work is and be consistent in the use of lawful expediencies that aid us in discharging that work. The building cannot be used for anything for which the Lord’s money cannot be used. It cannot be used for anything that cannot be classified as a work of the church.
Work of the Church
1. Evangelism: If it is the work of the church to support evangelism, then it can do whatever is necessary or incidental to accomplishing that work. This would include bank account, checks, books, filing or accounting system, lights in the room, desk, chair(s), calendar and/or scheduler to send the support in a timely fashion, radio program, etc.
2. Edification: If is the work of the church to edify its members, it can provide whatever is necessary or incidental to accomplishing it. This may include bibles, papers, books, projectors, or any teaching aid whether the teaching is written or spoken.
3. Benevolence: If this is a work of the church, then it should do whatever is necessary or incidental to accomplishing this work. This may include a storage room for supplies and food just as it may include a bank account to store money. It may include a place for the needy saints to have shelter and a place to feed them. Some daily arrangement was made for the Grecian widows in Acts 6. It may include the work of sending letters or messengers to inform brethren and collect from them. The multitude of them that believed in Acts 4 did not lack because those who possessed lands and houses sold them (brethren acting individually- these houses were not owned by the church) so distribution could be made to every man that had need (Acts 4:32-35), disciples sent relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea (Acts 11:29), Paul’s ministry to the saints in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25) was made possible because brethren in Macedonia and Achaia made a contribution for the poor saints (15:26; cf. 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8-9).
Notice these passages describe an emergency need. If the church had such a famine, catastrophe, or depression that left brethren homeless or without food, then in keeping with the work of benevolence, it is consistent for the building to be used for emergency lodging and where the needy would most naturally eat. If brethren really needed to provide a place where we fed starving brethren and shared our clothes and other possessions to fill that need, then the building could be an aid to accomplishing that work. But, church kitchens and “fellowship halls” are not used for needy saints. They are not aids to carrying out the work of benevolence. They are aids to the satisfaction of the flesh and for the enjoyment of good company and laughter. The right of brethren to eat in the church building can be defended only on the basis of fulfilling its work of evangelism, edification, or benevolence. Eating is not the issue; adding to the work of the church is the issue. If you cannot add to the worship of the church by using a piano played in worship designed to improve the aesthetic value, then you cannot add to the work of the church by providing kitchens and fellowship halls designed to have a good time. Dillard Thurman wrote, “The kingdom of God is far more than a social institution. With today’s accent on youth centers, coffee suppers, and ladies’ night out, one could be led to believe that these things pertained to Christianity. The kingdom is far more than provisions for social entertainment. When the accent is shifted to these forms of entertainment, the spiritual aspect of the kingdom of God is completely overlooked and forgotten” (Vindicator, 7/1956). Paul wrote it this way, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
Pleasure of Companionship, Fun, and Frolic
If it’s the work of the church to provide entertainment, social meals and recreation, then it can provide whatever is necessary or incidental to accomplishing those things. A kitchen would be an aid to eating and a gym an aid to playing. In all seriousness, are these things the work of the church? The above examples that describe a benevolent need are rarely seen in America because our poverty level is low compared to other countries. In America, if we have members who were needy, it would involve a few rather than a universal massive tragedy that required emergency measures. To whatever extent the need, it is clear that the use of a building owned by the church to meet an emergency need in the area of benevolence, to feed starving brethren, clothe their nakedness and provide shelter from the harsh elements outside is very different than the church providing a room where we can eat together with brethren in a social, recreational atmosphere, joke, laugh, play and eat for our own pleasure.
We earlier stated that you couldn’t justify the existence of a building on one ground and then use it for other things. Similarly, you can’t justify eating in the church building for social and recreational purposes by referring to examples of benevolence. While eating may both occur, the purpose for eating is different. This is why “eating” is not the issue.
The issue is identifying the work of the church. We have just as much authority to provide a few sleeping quarters for brethren that just got off the night shift and had a hard time staying awake during services? Why not add a basketball court or swimming pool for our kids to play together, pool tables, shuffleboard courts, and sports equipment, a stage production for proper entertainment (puppet shows, talent shows). We have as much authority for any of these things as we do a “fellowship hall” and kitchen to accommodate it. The authority to assemble, teach, and relieve poor saints authorizes the church to provide whatever is involved in accomplishing them. It must be proven that the church can provide social meals and recreation. If it can, then it can provide whatever is necessary to accomplishing those works. If it cannot, I beg of you to discontinue its use.
Arguments in Favor of “Fellowship Halls”
Some want to bring up babies being fed, children running in the building or a member going to sleep as proof that we can have our fellowship halls. Feeding Cheerios to a baby does not authorize the church to provide meals. Again, these are incidentals and or individual circumstances that are inherent in a public meeting. If babies eating authorize fellowship halls as a room to eat, then sleeping brethren would authorize a motel room. We could announce a “nap time” for sleepy saints. The same could be said of the water fountain. It is an incidental as no one expects an announcement of the elders stating an hour fellowship around the water fountain. Similarly, talking about politics in the foyer of the building after the worship period is over does not authorize the church to host a political campaign in it. These are not the same. One is incidental; the other is not.
Some argue that if churches met in homes and homes had kitchens, then its permissible for churches to provide kitchens. The consequence of this argument would allow congregations to build dens, ping-pong tables, television, coke machines, bathtubs, Jacuzzi, showers, bedrooms, and laundry rooms. If the home has kitchens and the church can have kitchens because they met in homes, then they can have anything else that is in the home. Churches have met in school buildings, too. Should the church provide school houses equipped with laboratories, cheer leaders and pom-poms, football equipment, etc .
Churches have met in conference rooms located in motels. Since Motels sleeping quarters, restaurants, Laundromat, and swimming pools, can the church provide for all of those things, too? If the church were to ever meet in a garage, could they then provide tools to fix, repair, and maintain your automobiles?
Others say the church can have a kitchen to prepare the Lord’s Supper. If so, it would have to be used exclusively for the Lord’s Supper. Who does that? The majority of people that use this argument use it to defend churches that have fellowship halls. In response to the observation that it is not the work of the church to own a bakery, one could reply, “What if the church only made unleavened bread for their own use.” This would be an abnormal use of a bakery. However, if the use of the bakery were confined to the preparation of the Lord’s Supper, it would be scriptural. It certainly would not be good stewardship to buy a bakery equipped with commercial grade equipment to bake bread when any sister could do the same in her kitchen. No church would do that, of course. They reason that if we can get the kitchen in by appealing to the need to prepare for the Lord’s Supper, then we can use it for other things. When we begin to see pies, cakes, dinner rolls, and pastries on the racks of the church bakery, it looks suspicious. As Bob West wrote, “The kitchen with its stove and refrigerator is about as incidental to preparing the Lord’s Supper as an Olympic size church swimming pool is to baptism.”
Others say that eating is a method of fellowship and offer the “love feasts” of Jude 12 as proof. It would be difficult to prove that love feasts were not acts of benevolence but were originally designed for social purposes. In fact, I would encourage you to read the entire context of 1 Corinthians 11 and study verse 22 in that context. Is Paul discussing an abuse of the Lord’s Supper in which they turned it into a meal or was it a corruption of the Lord’s Supper and an abuse of the “love feasts”? The difficulty lies in the fact that we have very little information about the “love feasts.” From the early chapters of Acts to 1 Cor. 11:22, it seems reasonable to conclude that wealthier brethren were in the practice of sharing with the poor (see also James 1:9-10, 2:1-6). Some were hungry because some were taking before others their own supper and shaming the poor that did not have a supper to eat. Their low station caused the wealthier to “despise” those who had not, that is, who had not houses to eat in and came to the feasts (perhaps daily) to be fed. With such an attitude, one cannot possibly observe the Lord’s Supper (11:20). Many commentaries suggest that they were making the public assembly a place for a “festival entertainment” (Albert Barnes), “common meals” (H.A.W. Meyer). Henry Alford states, “At home is the place to satiate your appetite, not the assembly of the brethren.” Clark comments, “They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, come together in the church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.”
Acts 2:46 is used to prove that churches may build kitchens and fellowship halls because it says that they ate their food from house to house. If anything, it proves the opposite and is an excellent summary for our study. A contrast is made between continuing daily in the temple and “breaking bread from house to house” (v. 46). Verse 42 explains “they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, in fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” The breaking of bread in v. 42 is probably the Lords Supper seeing that the list included those things that the apostles taught. “Continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (v. 46) correlates with continuing in the apostles’ doctrine (v. 42). One is in the temple; the other is from “house to house” (individual’s sharing). Eating from house to house is not wrong but is obviously recommended. But, we must not make it a part of the work of the church unless they are acts of benevolence!
