social gospel and fellowship halls

[phelps]

I know this is a subject that some are passoniate about. Here are a few questions.

Why do you belive that this is wrong or right for the church to be social?
Excluding Paul fussing at the Corinthians for abusing the Lord's supper, what makes eating with each other after worshiping wrong?
If the church is the people and not the building, why does it matter if the building is used or we meet at Applebee's, Mr. Gatti's, or McDonalds?
I will let this be enough for now. I am trying to answer some other forums I have posted. This is something I am sure we can have a nice conversation about.

[m273p15c]

This is another very good question! It touches on many important points, more than I can discuss fully in one reply. So, please consider this an "introductory" reply.

Why do you belive that this is wrong or right for the church to be social?
Excluding Paul fussing at the Corinthians for abusing the Lord's supper, what makes eating with each other after worshiping wrong?
If the church is the people and not the building, why does it matter if the building is used or we meet at Applebee's, Mr. Gatti's, or McDonalds?

I believe the key points here relate to Bible authority (how to determine what God wants us to do and not do) and the mission of the church (what God wants local churches to do). Plus, we should also revisit the originally referenced passage.

The primary difference between eating together at church or somewhere else is funding and oversight. If a church builds a fellowship hall so that its members can socialize around a common meal, then it is exercising its collective treasury and oversight. The building and the meal therefore become a work of the church. However, if several individuals go to their favorite restaurant(s) after services, then the funding and meal is a work of the individuals - not the church. The social activity has neither funding from the church's treasury nor oversight from the church's elders.

If you do not see the difference between the individual members of the church and the church itself, please let me know. This would be another good question worthy of its own thread. However, for the purpose of this thread, would it be fair to assume they are separate? Having separate treasuries, oversight, responsibilities, and rights? I'll press on with that assumption for now, if you do not mind.

Recognizing this distinction in "ownership" of the meal, this splits our question into two parts: 1) Would it be acceptable for individuals to fund and oversee a social gathering of the church members? 2) Independently, would it be acceptable for a church to fund and oversee a social gathering of the church members?

The first question is pretty easy. Yes, individuals are authorized to socially gather. We have a generic command to exercise "brotherly love", to be "tenderly affectionate to one another", and to be "hospitable to one another" (Romans 12:10-13; I Peter 4:8-9; I Thessalonians 4:9-10; Hebrews 13:1-2; I John 3:11-18). Please note these commands are issued to individuals. We are to love each other, but the church is not commanded to facilitate that love. As an example of the fulfillment of that command, the early Christians frequently gathered for common meals in each other's houses (Acts 2:44-46). Therefore, we conclude that we can meet at Applebee's, Mr. Gatti's, or McDonald's as fulfillment of the generic command issued to individuals, which is to be hospitable and show brotherly love.

Now, on to the second question, "Would it be acceptable for a church to fund and oversee a social gathering of the church members?" This is ultimately a question of Bible authority. In other words, we could ask, "Does the church have authority to facilitate social gatherings (build fellowship halls, sponsor youth leagues, build gym, etc.)?"

The passage that comes closest to directly forbidding such a practice is the one you referenced:

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. ... Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.(I Corinthians 11:17-34)

First, please notice this instruction refers to the assembly ("when you come together as a church"). Admittedly, the Corinthians had multiple problems, as evidenced in this passage. They were not eating together. Some selfishly feasted, while others had very little. The format was all wrong. What was the solution? Among other things, each member was to eat his "own meal" at home! Please notice that the solution was not to share, so as to equalize disparity, and the solution was not to merely eat it together. By asking the rhetorical question, ("Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?"), Paul necessarily implies that the assembly was not the proper place for social meals. And, he designates their homes as just one possible place where social eating could be properly done. Otherwise, why did he send them home for such meals, if the matter could be resolved simply by the rich sharing with the poor? Why did he send them home to eat common meals, if they could have resolved the problem by simply adding the "properly formatted Lord's Supper" to their worship itinerary? No, he relegated their meals to anywhere else, just not the assembly. Their home was just one obvious place they could have used for eating beside the assembly.

Many people have suggested that the problem was really a lack of unity ("each one takes his own supper ahead of other"), a lack of brotherly love ("one is hungry and another is drunk"), or they just had the format wrong ("For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..." I Corinthians 11:23-34). These were definitely problems, but resolving these problems does not allow us to bring the common meal into our assembly. Look at the solution! Paul reminded them of the proper format for the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-29). He told them to wait on one another (I Corinthians 11:33). And, he told them to observe their "own meal" at home ("if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home")! If the other things were the only problem, why did he send them home for social meals?

How many verses does it take to forbid or approve a practice? Well, Jesus and His apostles based conclusions on the tense or plurality of a single word (Matthew 22:32 - "I am" versus "I was"; Galatians 3:16 - "seed" versus "seeds")! If a single word is enough, should not a whole paragraph suffice, like I Corinthians 11:17-34? If one word was good enough for Jesus, then why is one paragraph not good enough for me?

Is this enough Scriptural justification to answer the original question? If the relevance of I Corinthians 11:17-34 is being dismissed, then we probably should discuss this first. However, if someone is satisfied with that, but they want to test the consistency of the given interpretation against the remainder of Scripture, that is certainly understandable.

Ignoring I Corinthians 11:17-34 reduces the question to properly interpreting the silence of the Scriptures. Is the church free to sponsor social meals unless expressly forbidden? If God has specified a mission for the church, are we free to append that directive? Elsewhere we have noted that the Scriptures forbid us adding to God's Word. We must respect His silence, which position I would maintain.

That being said, we might now ask, "What is the mission of the church?" As we peruse the Scriptures we find that the work of the church is primarily spiritual. New Testament churches funded preachers to evangelize (Philippians 4:15-18). They contributed to support needy Christians at other congregations (Acts 11:27-30; I Corinthians 16:1-4; Romans 15:25-27; II Corinthians 8-9), as well as their own (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-5:4; I Timothy 5:3-16). The church is also charged with ensuring the spiritual growth of its own membership (Ephesians 4:6, 11-12; I Peter 5:2). But, where is the social directive? Is there any example of a church gym? How about a fellowship hall? Do we find any command regarding youth sport leagues? I have yet to find anything in Scriptures that support or authorize such activity. Therefore, this is a classic application of Scriptural silence. God said the church was to evangelize the lost, provide for the financial essentials of its own, and provide for the spiritual growth of its own. But, God never said that the church was not to undertake a social mission - He just told us to undertake a spiritual mission. Do we have the right to add to what God said? To speak where He was silent?

As further illustration of the lack of authority, the next time you attend a worship service where these practices are accepted, listen to the announcements. Take notes and record a list of all the mentioned activities. For how many of these activities can you find a passage that commands, exemplifies, or necessarily infers such a practice? Can you find a passage that mentions Paul taking a collection for the Colossians upcoming retreat to Ephesus? How about practice times for the church sponsored athletes, competing in the Olympic preliminary trials? Any commendations regarding Peter's favorite casserole recipe for the next fellowship meal? We can find many Scriptural references to mentioning prayer requests for sick loved ones, collections for needy saints, evangelistic trip reports - but what about these other things?

Finally, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). That is the only divinely expressed means for reaching people. If we use social "lures" to attract people, then we will need social incentives to maintain them. Therefore, it is no surprise that history has provided anecdotal evidence that adopting such practices reduces the church into an almost purely social organization in just a few generations.

You can read more about the work of the church here.

In conclusion, the key points here is not whether or not social meals are conducted in the building. As you noted, there is nothing "magic" about the building. The question is who funds and oversees the social gathering? Once we ascertain the one responsible for a given case, the next question is, "Do they have authority for that work?" "Is it part of their mission?" From the above verses, I do not believe the church has authority for such works, but the individuals are free, even commanded, to be engaged in such expressions of brotherly love.

I know this is a lot to digest. I pray you find it helpful. If you find that I have overlooked some Scripture or logic that refutes what I have presented, you would be a beloved friend for showing me the truth.

[m273p15c]

Quotes from here: viewtopic.php?p=1836#1836

In previous posts, I have made a distinction between the church and its individual members, namely that the church collective cannot do everything that the individual members can do. I believe this is the key to properly understanding all that the Scriptures teach on these points. As proof texts, please recall these excerpts:

What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. ... But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come. (I Corinthians 11:22, 34)

From the above passage, we see that Christians were instructed to eat at home. Whatever the exact reason, all must agree that the first passage evidences that something was permitted in the individual's home but not appropriate for the collective.

Honor widows who are really widows. But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. ... If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows. (I Timothy 5:3-16)

Again, we see the individual was burdened to take care of his parent, while the church was specifically commanded to focus on those true widows, who were without help. Therefore, the collective is not always free to do whatever the individual can do.

Did the church not meet daily to break bread and fellowship with each other? The greek for breaking bread means to 1)partake of the Lord's Supper 2) eat a meal.

So, how does my introduction relate to this question? Just because individuals met in each other's homes and ate common meals, we cannot assume that the church collective is free to sponsor collective meals in a fellowship hall, or anywhere else. Furthermore, the New Testament pattern shows that social gatherings were always sponsored by individuals - never the collective.

"breaking bread" can certainly refer to a common meal, or to partaking of the Lord's Supper; however, its usage must be determined from the context.

Wasn't the church being social by meeting every day? Where did they worship when they were being chased down? In their own homes or caves.

The church was not being "social" by meeting collectively every day. They were being spiritual! Let us examine the context in relation to this point and the previous:

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47)

Now, recalling that "breaking bread" can refer to a common meal, or to the special meal of eating the Lord's Supper, let us look at the context of each of the above usages. For starters, let us consider if the other elements in the list surround each usage are spiritual or social (common):

Acts 2:42:

1. "the apostles' doctrine and fellowship"
2. "the breaking of bread"
3. "prayers"

What are the "neighbors" in this list? Are they spiritual or social? Can we agree that they are all spiritual? (I'll address "fellowship" below...)

Acts 2:44-47:

1. "had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."
2. "continuing daily with one accord in the temple"
3. "breaking bread from house to house"
4. "they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart"
5. "praising God and having favor with all the people"

Please notice they were eating "food", not the Lord's Supper, and they were located in each other's homes, to where the common meal was relegated (I Corinthians 11:22, 34). Does this context suggest a common meal or the Lord's Supper?

Furthermore, the Lord's Supper was supposed to be eaten in an assembly, once all came together - not broken up into small groups, which was contrary to the one of the primary lessons in the Lord's Supper - unity (I Corinthians 10:17; 11:17-21, 33). The immediate context points toward a common meal, and the rest of Scripture points toward it being a common meal. Therefore, I conclude this was a common meal - observed in people's homes.

Therefore, I do not see any authority in this passage authorizing the church collective to provide a collective location for social gatherings. That is a work of the home, not the church. Consequently, I must again ask, "Where is the authority for the local church sponsoring or supporting social occasions?" "Where is the local church given a social mission?" I still contend that all references to social function in the NT are performed by individuals as work of the home. ... Social interaction may occur incidentally in such cases, but no provisions from the collective treasury should be made for such functions, unless it be proven that social growth is a mission of the local church collective.

Footnote #1: Admittedly, Acts 2:44-47 also mentions meeting in the temple with one accord and praising God; consequently, I would concede the passage refers to two types of meetings: 1) At the temple 2) In peoples' homes. However, the verse still places the location for eating the common meal as being in peoples' homes - not at the temple. Therefore, such observation does not really help the case proposed.

Footnote #2: Regarding "fellowship" being a "social" function, I admit it is the common definition today, but a quick perusal through any concordance will show that the context for the church's "sharing", "communication", or "fellowship" (Grk. koinoneo) was always related to sharing in spiritual work, such as evangelism or benevolence. I can find no where in the New Testament where the context suggests that church "fellowship" was primarily social (all occurrences of all forms of koinoneo: Romans 12:13; 15:27; Galatians 6:6; Philippians 4:15; I Timothy 5:22; Hebrews 2:14; I Peter 4:13; II John 1:11).