Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

The editor sent an article on this subject asking me to respond. I have decided to include two other articles that relate to the same subject, etc. This he did not and cannot do.

First Article

The first article is by Dub McClish, titled “The Use Of The Church Building.” It appeared in Power (June 1994), a publication of the Southhaven, Mississippi congregation On the Memphis area). Brother McClish says “the apostolic church enjoyed common meals called `love feasts’ (2 Pet.2:13; Jude 12).” He purports to know more about these feasts than the Bible tells us, so he goes outside the Bible to prove they were similar to the modem “fellowship meal” conducted in a so-called “fellowship hall” where members conduct birthday parties, anniversary celebrations, baby showers, have bake sales and rummage sales to raise funds for benevolent institutions, eat social meals, etc. Brother McClish has engaged in some wishful thinking. He stretches the imagination beyond the stretching point.

Argument From Scripture. Look at the two verses he gives to see if you can see what he sees.

2 Peter 2:13  “suffering wrong at the hire of wrong doing; men that count it pleasure to revel in the day time, spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceivings while they feast with you.”

Jude 12  “These are they who are hidden rocks in your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed them-selves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.”

First, brother McClish cannot tell from 2 Peter 2:13 whether “reveling in their deceivings while they feast with you” is referring to social eating separate and apart from congregational provisions or whether it is church funded. He would need to know this absolutely “beyond a shadow of a doubt” before he could even make the argument for churches providing a place for parties, pot lucks,

Second, in reference to Jude 12, this book of one chapter is addressed to “them that are called” (v.1). Throughout the chapter individuals are addressed and neither a local congregation nor its treasury are ever mentioned. Thus it is also impossible for him to show authority from his second passage for so-called “fellowship halls.” Read both passages in context and see if you can find congregational action and funds being used to provide such a feast. The very thing needed is missing. Let us itemize some assumptions made by brethren who use Jude 12 to justify their “fellowship halls.”

Assumption #1: That “love feasts” has reference to social meals and would include showers, birth-day parties, etc. Since this is the only occurrence of the phrase “love feasts” in the Bible, surely the verse or context must contain something on which to base such a claim. If social meals are meant, then what is so bad about “feeding yourself’ and doing it “without fear”?

Assumption #2: That “fellowship” in the Bible has reference to parties, showers, social meals, games, etc. “Fellowship” always has a spiritual connotation in Scripture. While one might find “fellowship” in a modem dictionary defined to include social gatherings, entertainment or banqueting, we need to be sure we are using it as it was used in the first century. This is the same mistake denominational folks make when looking into a twentieth century dictionary to find the meaning of “baptism” or “Christian.”

Assumption #3: That it is the work of the Lord’s church to provide social meals and other forms of entertainment for its members. Paul tells us the place for social meals. “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? … If any man is hungry, let him eat at home…” (1 Cor. 11:22,34). I am well aware that Paul had reference to their failure to distinguish between the Lord’s supper and a social meal. Paul could have said, “Let’s go ahead and eat the Lord’s supper and then we can have a banquet after the dismissal prayer!” That is what he needed to say to justify the so-called “fellowship hall.”

Instead, Paul makes a clear distinction between a church function (the Lord’s supper) and a home function (feasting). Social meals for the members and their guests were nowhere authorized as pan of the church’s work. Such a concept is of human origin. Those who originated such a practice may have had great intentions but Paul gives that absolutely no consideration. There are some “wonderful works” that will be condemned on judgment day (Matt. 7:22,23).

Instead of merely telling them to quit abusing the Lord’s supper with a social meal he tells them to sever the social meal from the church altogether. Brother McClish won’t tell people what Paul told them. It would condemn his “fellowship hall” where folks come together in facilities built and maintained from the church treasury to have parties, showers, social meals, etc.

It would be interesting to hear Dub McClish and those who share his position in a debate with a sabbatarian. Sabbatarians believe Acts 20:7 is referring to a social meal, not the Lord’s supper. The only way they could show sabbatarians that it was not a social meal would be to show that Paul condemned the social meal and severed it from the church altogether (1 Cor. 11:22,34). Hmmmm, maybe this is why some institutional brethren no longer believer Acts 20:7 is authority for the Lord’s supper. This would leave Acts 20:7 open to use to justify their “fellowship halls!”

Argument From History. He says, “historians indicate these meals took place immediately be-fore or after worship.” But he never quotes even one of them or tells us who they are. Never mind, uninspired historians are no substitute for Scripture. Besides, Dub confuses what was going on after the apostasy began with what was being practiced in the New Testament.

He Doesn’t Understand The Issue. He charges those who oppose eating in the building with “committing two faults: (1) they view the building rather than the people as the church, (2) they make a law where God has not made one.”

First, the issue is not “eating in the building.” It is whether the church can build banquet halls designed for baby showers, birthday parties, games, common meals, etc. There may be incidental occasions, such as benevolence, when eating in the building would become part of the church’s work. But that is not the is-sue involved in the modern “fellowship hall.” Second, Dub tries to cloud the is-sue with his prejudicial statement that we view the building rather than the people as the church. No one who has really tried to understand the issue would make such a statement. No one has taught more emphatically that the church is people (1 Cor. 12:14). It is the realm of the saved (Eph. 5:23). This distinction between the building and the people is often indicated on buildings where conservative brethren meet  “The church of Christ meets here.” The issue is whether entertainment is the work of local churches. It is brother McClish who won’t face the issue. 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! We don’t believe the building is “holy ground” but it is limited to the work God gave the church. He never gave it the work of entertainment. Third, who is making laws? When brethren like brother McClish say the church can build facilities for social meals, showers, parties, etc., it is they who have made a law where God made none. The word iniquity means “without law” (lawless). His practice is without a law on its behalf, the same as instrumental music in worship (I John 3:4; Matt. 7:22,23).

Who Believes The Building Is Sacred? Dub says “to eat food in a church building does not desecrate it; it is not God’s temple…” I do not say it is sacred or God’s temple. He never quotes any of us who have said this. It is a case of him whipping the “straw man” he invented. He goes out of his way to misunderstand the issue. Interestingly. brethren associated with Power. The Spiritual Sword, and Firm Foundation, are now opposing gymnasiums and family life centers. Why? Sounds like they believe the church building is sacred, doesn’t it? Is it because they view the building rather than the people as the church? How will brother McClish answer pro-gymnasium brethren when they make his argument that “to play basketball in a church building does not desecrate it, it is not God’s temple…” I suspect when they use these arguments on him he will quickly see that the issue is not that the building is sacred. Its work is simply limited to the work God gave the church. Neither banquet halls nor gymnasiums qualify.

Traditions of Men. He charges that we are following the traditions of men. We are no more guilty of this than he is when he insists baptism is only immersion. How-ever, it is the denominations which have traditionally had “fellowship halls.” Probably close to 99% of all denominations believe in or have “fellowship halls” where they conduct parties, social meals, etc. This is the source from which they were borrowed. It does not require Solomon to see who has been influenced by traditions of men.

Priscilla and Aquila “Dilemma”! The most classic argument given by brother McClish is that Paul’s order to “eat at home” would mean that Priscilla and Aquila in whose home the church met would have been both commanded and forbidden to eat in their homes! First, guess who is confusing the building with the people. Second, the house belonged to Priscilla and Aquila. The church (the people) met in their house. It was never a church building erected from funds from the church treasury. Until he can establish that the church paid for their house he has no argument and the problem he sees is imaginary. Third, Priscilla and Aquila having a place to eat in their home would no more authorize the church to fund, build, and maintain a banquet hall than having an instrument in their home would have authorized instrumental music. This is an argument of desperation.

The “Water Fountain” Argument.” Finally, he says,

Paul includes drinking as well as eating (I Cor.1 1:22). Strangely, those who object to eating in the building never object to a water fountain. Yet it is clear that they stand or fall together.

This is a “two wrongs make a right” type argument. Notice Paul indicates what they were drinking: “for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (v.21). It was his own supper (not a drink of water) which caused this effect. A water fountain is designed to facilitate a gathering of worshipers assembled for worship. A “fellowship hall” is designed to facilitate a gathering of people, not for benevolence, but hungry people who have come together to socialize, have a birthday or anniversary party, baby shower, etc. These do not stand or fall together. There is only one authorized meal that God intended local churches to pro-vide and that is the Lord’s supper. It is the only meal we eat which is not designed to satisfy physical hunger. (Incidentally, Barnes Commentary makes a strong argument that “love feasts” were references to the Lord’s supper. I wonder if he read Barnes when he was consulting sources outside the Bible.

Second Article

In a Spiritual Sword article (October 1993) by Wayne Jackson, titled “The Current Crisis,” under the subheading of “The Crisis of Radical Reactionism,” he says:

We have in mind at this point a group of brethren who might best be styled as the “radical right”  for lack of a better appellation. These are those who would make laws where God has not; … Let us reflect upon … this problem.

First, it is “personality” oriented. Like those at Corinth who had their champions (1 Cor.1:10-17), so there are those today who place their allegiance with some prominent preacher, editor, etc. They could not make a decent scriptural argument if their life depended on it, but they know with whom they are aligned. It is probably safe to say that most divisions in the church have resulted from personality influences; the issues came later.

Second, the radical right makes issues out of non-issues. A huge “theological” proposition in recent years has been whether or not it is right to eat a meal in the “church building.” The Pharisees in all their glory were never so ridiculous. 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! .. .

Third, the reactionary right is highly suspicious. With some of this mentality, one is considered guilty until proven innocent. These brethren, as zealous as they are for the body of gospel doctrine, know little of trust, under-standing, or compassion.. .

This piece is unbecoming of a man of brother Jackson’s capabilities. Most of his writing is excellent. The change in attitude and attempts at argumentation suddenly become bizarre and desperate when trying to defend unauthorized practices.

First, no one’s Christianity should be “personality” oriented. But brother Jackson needs to be reminded that it was the eminent B.C. Goodpasture, editor of “The Old Reliable” Gospel Advocate who advocated that brethren who oppose institutionalism be branded with the “Yellow Tag of Quarantine” and to quit using them and their writings. The majority lined up with the venerable editor’s wishes, including those aligned with the paper for which brother Jackson writes. Which came first, the issues or the personality influences?

Second, he says, “They could not make a decent scriptural argument if their life depended on it.” Did you notice brother Jackson made no argument from Scripture? He didn’t even try to make the feeble attempt brother McClish made with 2 Peter 2:13 and Jude 12.

Third, brother Jackson, like brother McClish, wants to make the issue “eating in the church building” rather than churches funding and maintaining facilities for social meals, parties, etc., misnamed “fellowship halls.”

Fourth, he knew a case where brethren were building a meeting place and had lunch in the partially completed structure. “The day they moved into the facility, eating on the premises became a sin.” Notice he does not address using money from the Lord’s treasury to erect kitchens and banquet halls for social meals, birthday and anniversary parties, baby showers, etc. He tries to make the issue merely eating in the building. Now look at some parallels:

Imagine a Christian Church preacher relating the following incident: “This writer knows a case where brethren were involved in building a meeting place. As they would take a break on the premises one of them would play his harmonica. The day they moved into the facility to worship, playing instrumental music became a sin!”

Or, imagine this from a pro-gymnasium brother: “This writer knows a case where brethren were involved in building a meeting place. As they worked, the little boy of one of them dribbled his basketball through the structure. The day they moved into the facility to worship, playing basketball in the church building became a sin!”

Or this: “This writer knows a case where brethren were involved in building a meeting place. As they tested the baptistery, one of their children played in the water. The day they moved into the facility it became wrong for the church to provide a place to swim!”

How would brother Jackson answer such strong arguments? When he strongly opposes instrumental music in worship, church gymnasiums and swimming pools, how does he react when he is accused of knowing “little of trust, understanding, or compassion”? His comments on this are nothing more than attempts to spread his prejudice.

Third Article

This one by Gary Grizzell, titled “Is There Bible Authority For Church Support Of Gymnasiums?” appeared on the front cover of Contending For The Faith (Oct.93). It is an excellent article. I agree with every word. Every argument he makes against gymnasiums is also valid against “fellowship halls.” He says there is no command, example, or necessary implication for gyms. Same for “fellowship halls.” In showing that edification is a work of the church he rightly observes “this edification is a spiritual building up as opposed to a physical building up.” But that applies to feeding the flesh (banquet halls) as well as exercising the flesh (gymnasiums).

Finally, he quotes Dan Jenkins:

There are those who are determined for the church to build gymnasiums and pay for them out of the Lord’s treasury… There are still members . .. who have a great devotion to truth, and for one to announce that a gymnasium is to be built would immediately cause alarm as they remember truths they have heard since their youth. A new label is “Family Life Center.” However, such does not change the truth about these projects, they are still gyms and there is no Biblical authority for them.

Likewise, a new label for banquet halls and party rooms has been discovered. The label is “fellowship halls.” Giving something a “scriptural sounding name” does not make it scriptural. Such does not change the truth about these projects. They are still gyms and banquet halls and there is no Bible authority for them.

Many brethren who oppose gyms but defend banquet halls were among those who pushed for “fellowship halls,” benevolent institutions, and sponsoring churches and can remember when they began to be practiced generally. These brethren are part of the “restructure” and served as “change agents” in this regard. They just don’t want as much restructure as others want and they are trying to put on the brakes. Use of 2 Peter 2:13 and Jude 12 are simply desperate attempts to hold on to that part of the social gospel. It plays well to an audience determined to have their banquet halls at all cost, regardless that it serves to perpetuate division.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 16-19
January 19, 1995

By Richie Thetford

Not long ago my wife Mindy was in the front yard talking with our next door neighbor lady. Looking at her two children playing, she said, “I’m glad I work.” My wife looked at her and asked, “Why do you say that?” She answered, “I’ m just not meant to be a full-time mom.” The neighbor lady explained that when she was at work she could relax and not worry about the children and all the chores that go along with raising them. We also know of Christian women who have stated to us at different-times within the past few years that they have their children in pre-school half days so that they can “get a break.”

During the past several years these same words “I’m just not meant to be a full-time mom” or words expressing the same thought have been echoed at different times. I understand that in some cases the wife must work outside the home to make ends meet, and that’s fine. But the attitude that motivates women to work is the concern. I know of several women who put their children in day-care even on the days that they’re off from work so they can “unwind.”

Brethren, is it any wonder why many of the children growing up today are feeling unappreciated and “in the way.” We are instructed to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Psa. 22:6). How can we if we don’t have them in our home? This kind of attitude toward our children is wrong. We are shirking our responsibilities as parents. We were blessed by the Lord to be able to have children. “Behold children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psa. 127:3). God fully expects us to conduct ourselves as his children and raise our children to be strong obedient Christians, but how can we when we’re not there for them?

Could you imagine God saying to us, “I’m just not meant to be a full-time God!” Never! We expect God to be there for us all the time, anytime we need to call on him  but how can we call on him if he’s not available? Fortunately, that’s not the case because God is always there for us.

As parents we need to wake up and care for our children the way we expect God to care for us. The church will only be as strong as the Christians that are in it. If we don’t accept our responsibilities that God gave us as parents and teach our children “all” the oracles of God, then our children will grow up and look at their children when they play and say those echoing words, “I’m just not meant to be a full-time mom!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 10
January 19, 1995

By Carl McMurray

Gambling is not a new problem with mankind. Like other deceptive works of the world, it has gone through periods of time when people were fooled into accepting (even defending) it and times when it was decried as a great evil. A pendulum that swings through society this way is bound to affect the church. There are always some, it seems, who will be influenced to practice whatever the “nations round about them practice.” Our Father’s admonition to “come out from their midst and be separate” (2 Cor. 6:17), doesn’t seem to have the power that the world’s invitation has when it says, “come join us and have fun,” or “get rich.”

What Is Gambling?

Some fail to understand what gambling is and this leads to foolish statements being made to defend it. The sinful act of gambling consists of three aspects: (1) an uncertain event, usually some type of game that “creates” risk, (2) a stake that is deliberately chanced, and (3) profit at the loss of another. The sinful activity of gambling should not be confused with “risk” or “chance.” Gamblers quibble that “life is a gamble” or “farming is a gamble.” Insurance companies and the stock market are often equated to lotteries as “gambles.” These are all just smoke screens.

Life may indeed involve the “chance” of sickness, accident and death. But a chance is not gambling. Gambling involves “betting” on the “outcome” of the “chance.” We do not wager on (and win or lose) the outcome of accidents and sickness. Life is not gambling.

Farmers face the “risk” of pests, disease, drought, wind, hail, etc. when it comes to their crops and animals. But these are all calculated “risks” that the farmer understands when he goes into business. They are not uncertain ones. These “risks” are not “created” in some game: they are always present, whether one farms or not. Farmers do not seek something for nothing. They engage in productive labor to earn their living. They plow, plant, irrigate, immunize, fertilize and inoculate. In other words, they do all in their power to lower the “risks” as they produce their goods. When they profit, it is not at the expense of others. Farming is not gambling.

Insurance is not gambling. Once again, the risks are not created, they are universal. Death, injury and loss are faced by all, whether you buy insurance or not. Insurance is a method of lessening and distributing the effects of these tragedies. In exchange for monies, the insurance company provides a service protection from major loss. Neither the insurer nor the insured expects something for nothing. A service is being bought.

Likewise, the stock market is not gambling. When one buys stock in a company he is investing in that business. It is his hope that the business will make money and either pay dividends on his investment or his stock will be worth more and he can sell and make a profit. In a free enterprise system, there is always the “chance” of a business loss. That is the result of the company’s ability to merchandise their product and make a good return. It is not a contrived risk and any profit is based upon an exchange of goods or services, not the loss of others. Investing funds and making (or losing) funds in exchange for goods or services is an acceptable, proper and scriptural endeavor. “Chance” or “risk” is always present. but this is not gambling.

Gamblings’ Tainted Past

The Greeks in Homer’s time had knucklebones from sheep and goats that were marked to serve as dice. A gambling board was discovered in Crete that dates back to 1800-1900 B.C. And Tertullian said, “If you say that you are a Christian when you are a dice player, you say what you are not, because you are a partner with the world.” It doesn’t seem that the charge of gambling as worldliness is a new one.

Those who support gambling in the public arena, in the form of lotteries, have tried to point out how “American” they are. We are told that the Continental Congress authorized a lottery to finance the Revolutionary War. We are reminded that three great Americans (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) supported lotteries. Are you impressed yet?

In spite of the above, by 1900, every state had outlawed lotteries because of widespread corruption and crime. Just like Israel in the time of the judges however, a new generation rose up that had not fought those battles. In 1963, New Hampshire became the first state to forget the lessons of history and reinstate a legalized lottery. The pendulum kept swinging. By 1989 thirty-two states and the District of Columbia legalized lotteries.

If history teaches us anything, it is that the pendulum of immorality or vice will continue to swing until great harm and ruin are accomplished before people will start to wake up and take a stand and change things. The Christian how-ever, does not have to wait for the crash to know that there is a problem with lotteries and horse tracks and other forms of gambling. The child of God, who keeps his heart open to God’s instruction, in his word is able to determine that gambling in any form is something to be avoided. He can see that it is wrong for a variety of reasons. For example gambling is wrong because.. .

It Is A Form of Covetousness!

To “covet” is to long for something which belongs to another. Romans 13:9 indicates that coveting under the new covenant is a sinful practice. Ephesians 5:5 teaches that no covetous man “has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” Gambling is built upon and encourages covetousness. For someone to win, a lottery or any other gamble, someone else must lose! Every person in the game is hoping to put everyone else’s money into his bank account. Those winnings don’t drop out of the sky. They are the result of another man’s work and labor, and the gambler wants them.

Someone might respond to the charge of covetousness with, “But that person voluntarily put his money in the pot.” It doesn’t matter. No one is making the charge of “theft.” The point that we are making is that gambling is “covetousness,” i.e. the desire for that which belongs to another. The truth is, when a gambler desires the stakes in a game of chance, he desires what belongs to another. If a man voluntarily requests to be killed, does that make the killer any less a murderer? Likewise, if one man’s greed or covetousness leads him to hazard his good and honest earnings, does that excuse the Christian who “desires” (covets) that man’s money and is willing to take the same chance, so that he might get that money.

Of course, the above would not apply in the case of raffles where the stakes are perhaps donated by local businesses and such like. In those situations the businesses are exchanging merchandise (the stakes) for advertising. Exchange of goods is an honest and acceptable way for property to change hands. The business is paying for advertising with merchandise. The ticket holders are in actuality making donations. No one is taking what belongs to another or desiring something which is out of order. I believe the same would apply to door prizes, free lucky numbers, etc.

Gambling is also sinful however, because . . .

1.It breaks the second greatest commandment. Jesus said to, “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:37-39). This was the second greatest commandment. Most people I know become highly indignant if someone tries to take their money without some exchange of goods or services. Yet, this is exactly what gambling does. There is no exchange, but the gambler’s desire is to take everybody’s money that is in the pot. This plainly violates the “golden rule” that Jesus gave in Matthew 7:12. Once again, doing this with the consent of the other gamblers doesn’t make it right. When we try to take another’s money without giving a fair return in goods or services, we are rejecting our Lord’s words on how to treat our fellow man. This be-comes a serious matter when we consider John 12:48. Jesus says, “the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.” Can a man treat others with contempt and stand guiltless at judgment?

The one involved in will-worship narrows his focus to a specific activity such as instrumental music or sprinkling, so that he doesn’t have to admit that in the larger picture of obeying God or disobeying him, he does not have to face the truth that he is not doing as God has said. He tries to trivialize his “one” specific activity and ignore the graver consequences of his actions. The abortionist narrows his focus to the “rights of the woman.” That is all they will speak about. They refuse to admit the graver consequences of their actions, that innocent children by the millions are dehumanized and slaughtered. By such mental exercises, men strive to live with themselves as they disobey God. The gambler also narrows his focus. He might narrow it to “just one dollar” for a ticket or he might narrow it to “all the good that is done” by lotteries, i.e. funds for education, etc., etc. (Ha!). What he refuses to see is that the million dollar jackpots represent, not money won, but money lost! Money lost from the flow of legitimate business enterprises. Money lost, statistics say, from those who can ill-afford to lose it. The biggest majority of ticket buyers in most lotteries are from the lower income brackets. The gambler doesn’t like to think about the fact that if he wins, he has taken that money from others. Especially is this a heavy burden for the Christian who is aware of his Lord’s teachings on how to treat others. Can the behavior of the gambler harmonize with scriptural admonition?

2. It encourages a love of money. It does not seem possible that you could have the above two situations (i.e. covetousness and profit at another’s loss) without recognizing the “root” problem here. We’re warned in 1 Timothy 6:9-10 about “those who want to get rich” and the “temptations” and “snares” that await them. One of the snares that deceive Christians seems to be the trap that we fall into when we start trying to justify our worldliness. Rather than listen to our Father’s warnings and bringing our attitude and actions into harmony with his word, we ignore Scriptures and convince ourselves that “I am different  that doesn’t apply to me.” As hard as it might be in our materialistic society, we need to defeat this love of money that will make us ignore God’s word and take advantage of our fellow man. Lotteries and other forms of gambling will do this to our heart. The love of money will cause the greatest among us to lose his spirituality.

One preacher that I know used to stand foursquare opposed to the practice of gambling, including the local lottery. He not only preached it to the brethren, he also preached it to his own mother, who liked to spend her meager income on tickets. He had no doubts about it until he was asked what would happen if she won? He already had a few plans of his own for some of that money. As long as nobody was winning, it seems, the conviction was strong. But the chance to actually possess some of those “riches” is a powerful tool to cause any of us to dip his hand in.

We need to be aware of all the schemes that Satan has to take our minds off of spiritual things and get it centered on “all the kingdoms of the world,” as he offered to our Lord. Jesus Christ refused the temptation and so can you and I. We need to live our lives and shape our attitudes toward others by the instructions that God gives in his word.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 6-7
January 19, 1995