Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
August 29, 1957
NUMBER 17, PAGE 4-5a

"Christian Fellowship" - - No. II.

Editorial

George T. Jones, San Antonio, Texas

This is the second and final installment in a review of an article by Maurice Meredith appearing in the Gospel Advocate of July 4. The reader is urged to read brother Meredith's article in that paper and our first installment in an earlier issue of the Gospel Guardian. We have undertaken this review because of the vital nature of the matters under consideration and because we believe brother Meredith's position is in great error. It is our firm conviction that it is not the work of the church to engage in recreational or social activities. It is believed that an attempt by brethren to commit the church to the support of ball teams, encampments, social affairs, etc.; and, to have the church provide facilities for the carrying out of these activities is a perversion of the mission of the church as well as subversive of her very nature. We also regard brother Meredith's attempt to justify such practices under the guise of "Christian fellowship" as a devious effort to prostitute the church of God.

He has written under various sub-headings and we are replying to each of these. The next one is:

Eating In The Church Building

"It is not sinful to eat in the church building" has become an old and boresome refrain. This writer cannot remember how many times he has heard brethren repeat it to justify these practices under discussion. It does seem that the advocates of putting the church in the business of entertainment could come up with something better than the threadbare refrain, "It is not wrong to eat in the church building!" Who ever said that it was? This is not the issue. It is but an effort to shift attention from what is the issue. The issue is not whether it is sinful to eat on church property; but whether it is scriptural for the church to use money contributed into the treasury for entertainment and social purposes as it does for preaching and caring for the needy. This is the issue and some of us will insist upon its being the point of discussion.

Bro. Meredith says, "There are many good brethren who believe that such fellowship and recreation are all right, but it is wrong to have any such in the church building. In a study of most of what is said, one is led to the conclusion that most of these brethren feel there is something so sacred about the building that it should not be used for this purpose. Most of them admit it is a matter of judgment. However, a few go so far as to say the church building is the "house of God." We have never been guilty of saying the church building is the house of God and cannot, therefore, "confess a woeful ignorance of the scriptural definition of the church." Although the church building is not the "house of God," we are either justified in having meetinghouses in which to assemble for worship or there is no justification for them. This writer believes the justification for them lies in their expediting God's commands; i. e., the command to assemble necessitates a place to assemble. When a church house ceases to expedite the commands of God, there is no justification for it. Now it will not be difficult to find New Testament authority for the church to assemble, hence, the necessity of a place to assemble. But let someone point out the authority for the church engaging in these activities. Our brother has said, "Fellowship includes those things done in the social realm, just as much as it does those things that are the work and worship of the church." Let him prove it! He did not do so in that part of his article which we have already reviewed. His assertion is not enough. No use of the word "fellowship" in the New Testament has the application these brethren make of it. Just here, we should like to ask, would it be scriptural for the church to provide a baseball diamond so the members might have "Christian baseball fellowship?" Some of us might be more interested in this kind of "fellowship" than "coffee and doughnuts fellowship."

Just at this point, and also later on, he accuses us who insist that the church is not in the recreation business and has no scriptural warrant for providing kitchens, dining rooms, etc., for entertainment of imitating the Catholics. He declares it to be an idea "that we borrowed from the Catholics." It would be fine if the brethren who are promoting all of the innovations could stick to the facts without misrepresenting their brethren who disagree with them. He says we are like the Catholics in attaching sacredness to the church building. Verily, it is brother Meredith and those who agree with him who imitate the Catholics in this matter. The Catholics have a "sanctuary" regarded by them as sacred. But they also have additional facilities where their parties and entertainment are carried on. Now, who among "us" practices this? Why, brother Meredith and those who agree with him. These brethren do not pull their shenanigans in the auditorium (sanctuary). They provide a "fellowship hall" just as the Catholics do!

While we are discussing the meetinghouse, we shall notice his reference to restrooms. We should prefer to think that any adult member of the church knows the difference between the function of a restroom as expediting the assembly and the function of a banquet hall, dining room or kitchen for the entertainment of members and their friends. This much of the subject, it seems, should not have to be carried on in public among adults.

"Have Ye Not Houses To Eat In?"

He says this is one of the most oft-repeated objections to his practice. And quotes Paul's question, "Or despise ye the church of God?" (I Cor. 11:22.) In this matter, as usual, he misses the point. Corinth was despising the church of God by making a drunken feast of the Lord's supper (I Cor. 11:20-22). The word "despise" in this passage means to treat with contempt, to scorn or belittle. It also means to think amiss or misconstrue. How was the church at Corinth guilty of this? By perverting the worship. Anytime men pervert the divine pattern of the church, they are guilty of despising the church. And, here, again is the issue: just where does God's pattern for the church authorize her to be an entertaining institution? Bro. Meredith can show the pattern for her to be a preaching institution. He can show the pattern for her as God's benevolent institution. But where is the pattern for the church being an entertaining, social institution? These brethren are thinking amiss concerning the church. They are despising the church of God.

"Love Feasts"

His final appeal is to the love feasts of the early church. This means that brother Meredith thinks these church-sponsored activities we have been discussing are authorized by the love feasts characteristic of the early church. Since he says. "The apostolic church met and enjoyed common meals in their places of worship," he is applying them as activities of the church and not of individuals. Furthermore, since he adduces this activity of the early church as proof for his practice, it will be clear to the reader that he regards his practice as the activity of the church and not of the individual.

He continues, "These received a formal name and were called love-feasts (agapai), and are mentioned by Peter (2 Pet. 2:13), and Jude (verse 12). History is abundant to prove these, and no informed scholar can easily dismiss this stubborn fact." We know of none who wants to deny the love feasts; especially no scholar. Neither do we know of any scholar as voluble as brother Meredith is in telling just what these love feasts were. He quotes from Bingham's Antiquities and Thayer's Lexicon regarding these. We are going to quote from the same authorities, using the same quotations he did. Here is the quotation from Bingham: "For when all the faithful met together, and had heard the sermon and prayers, and received the communion, they did not immediately return home upon the breaking up of the assembly, but the rich and wealthy brought meat and food from their own houses, and called the poor, and made a common table, a common dinner, a common banquet in the church. And so from this fellowship in eating, and the reverence of the place, they were all strictly united in love one with another, and much pleasure and profit arose thence to them all: for the poor were comforted, and the rich reaped the fruits of their benevolence both from those whom they fed and from God." (Emphasis mine, GTJ).

Now, Thayer's statement: "love-feasts, 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." (Emphasis mine, GTJ.)

Also, we want to give our readers and brother Meredith the benefit of a quotation from Benson, who is quoted by MacKnight in his comment on Jude 12: "They were called love-feasts or suppers, because the richer Christians brought in a variety of provisions to feed the poor."

Now, brethren, is that the kind of love-feasts "we" are having today? Are these banquets, parties and "fellowship dinners" to feed the poor saints? Is that why a church spends over $50,000 for a high school youth center? Is that why churches have recreation centers equipped with ping pong, horse shoes and volley balls? Is this the way the early church "called the poor, and made a common table?" Do we have all these "because the richer Christians brought in a variety of provisions to feed the poor?" Yes, my brethren, "history is abundant to prove these, and no informed scholar can dismiss this stubborn fact."

In all our preaching experience, we have never seen one good, substantial argument offered to sustain these recreational and social activities conducted by the church. It is an attempt to change the church — to make of it something God did not intend or authorize it to be. The same advice of brother C. R. Nichol needs to be applied here, when he said, "Let the church be the church." If brethren will content themselves with allowing the church to be the church, she will not be committed to any other work than edifying the saved, preaching to the lost and providing for her needy.