"Holy Meeting Houses"
Brethren who are conversant with the common church member nowadays are acquainted with the fact that his knowledge of the Lord's Word is far inferior to the knowledge of his brother of thirty to fifty years ago. This condition is causing the Lord's people to perish. This condition is causing good people, honest people, to accept and practice unscriptural ways. This lack of knowledge has caused many sincere people to walk with those who foster the idea that recreation and other social activity should be furnished by the church of the Lord.
However, the prime bearers of this shibboleth cannot be classified with those who lack knowledge, but seemingly must be considered as those having lost respect for the authority of God's Word. Under this standard, they lead the less informed to believe that those who oppose their move to make the church responsible for recreation and other social activity must of necessity believe that the meeting house is "holy, sacred." They make the implied allegation this way: "The place where the church meets does not become holy because the church meets there. The `church building' is not sacred." These insinuating assertions fly fast these days, and they prejudice the minds of a lot of good, honest people.
Gentle reader, if there are those who think the material building where the church meets is holy, sacred, it certainly seems to me that at least one of them could be located. Do you know a Christian who believes such? Do you know anyone who knows a Christian who believes the meeting house is holy? That ought to settle it! Somebody is making a lot of noise about nothing! Honesty disposed to act fairly will meet the issue, and, friend, there's no issue about church buildings being holy.
Truth seeker, let's consider the material property for a minute. A group of Christians decide to build a meeting house. They locate lots, and with the money gathered for that purpose they pay for them. The lots are intended for a specific purpose — to build a house on, in which the Lord's church may meet. Then the property doesn't belong to any one of those individuals. It belongs to the church, and it is put in the name of the church, to be used by the church in doing what God authorized the church to do. That's why, good neighbor, there are no taxes to be paid on it! We all recognize that fact, don't we?
Later the meeting house is built on the lots provided for that purpose. The lots aren't holy, nor is the building holy. But the lots were set aside to build the meeting house on, and the building was built for the purpose of "expediting" the activity of the church. The church is commanded to "come together", and inherent in the command is the authority to provide a place. It is thus a lawful "expedient". There is no God-given authority to use the house for anything except that which the church is authorized to do. Where is the Scriptural authority to append to the church's meeting house a "Recreational Rendezvous"? Where is the God-given right to append to it a "Culinary Compartment" to be used by those whose "God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things"?
Therefore, just a few honest conclusions in the light of Holy Writ will cause you to know exactly why we oppose making the Lord's meeting house a banquet hall and recreational center. Those things prostitute the very purpose of the Lord's church. However, a lot of my brethren are seemingly determined to do it, and because they have no higher authority to justify the action, I reckon they will keep prejudicing and deceiving some good and honest church members. Don't let it be you!
A good brother was telling me of the new meeting house they had just built, and they had things "fixed" for the opposers of kitchens in meeting houses. Right along with the construction of the Lord's meeting house, and as a part of the superstructure of it they had included the banquet hall. But they did it scripturally — the brethren "chipped in" and paid for it separate and apart from the payment of the meeting house! All of us know that brethren have the right to "chip in" and furnish many things that are needed and are not wrong in themselves. However, the way they did it, it seems to me, makes them guiltier than those who build such as a "part of the church," because they are hypocritical about it. By their actions they admit it is unscriptural to use what is set aside for the Lord's work for any other purpose. But they had no authority or reason for attaching to the building owned by the church and intended only for the use of the church that which they evidently believed would be wrong for the church to own and operate. And, gentle reader, from that you see, they had just exactly as much right to add such "belly serving" devices of man to the building which is the Lord's as those fellows in Christ's time had who dragged their money changing tables and dove selling booths into the Temple to serve their bellies! I'll declare, the devil and his boys pull some fast ones!
Be it known, friend, all seasoned Christians know the church of apostolic times met from house to house, and that likely there were kitchens in some of the houses. But the same seasoned Christians know the mission of the church. Banquet halls and play-parlors are not required in carrying out the church's mission. The church is to preach the gospel of Christ and thus save the souls who accept it. (Eph. 3:8-11.) The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15.) Every act of the church, worshipful or otherwise, is founded upon teaching, learning, believing and obeying the truth No, the place where the church meets is not holy, gentle reader, but the church can use only those things which assist in fulfilling her holy mission, and today's "church collation" cannot find a place in her holy fellowship.