In recent years, I have come across quite a few brethren who contend that kitchens in the church building are sinful. Here are a few of the tactics that I have had them use.

First, they try going to 1 Corinthians 11:22 and saying this verse supports the view that we can’t eat in the church building. But the context forbids such--for Paul was arguing against the abuse that the Corinthians were making of the Lord’s Supper by turning it into a common meal. Also, if one were to take it literally, that you can’t eat at the church building, one should likewise contend (from verse 34) that it would be a sin to eat at a restaurant or cafe on Sunday--since these aren’t "at home."

Second, when their 1 Cor. 11:22 attempt doesn’t work, they use the argument which basically says "we shouldn’t do anything that would cause a brother to violate his conscience." By this, they mean, if you insist on having a kitchen in the church building in spite of a brother who opposes it, then you are sinning by causing him to violate his conscience by worshiping at a building with a kitchen in it. But this argument breaks down when they won’t apply the same reasoning to other things like communion cups. I asked one man who was of the "no-kitchen-in-the-church-building" persuasion if he would start drinking his grape juice each Sunday morning from the same cup as everyone else if there happened to be a brother in the assembly who really believed it sinful to use multiple cups. He said "no." I then told him that for the same reason he wouldn’t change his practice on using multiple cups for the grape juice, we weren’t going to stop having a kitchen in the building. He saw my point, thankfully.

Lastly, when the two former arguments don’t work, I have had them try to argue the case against kitchens in the building by saying, "Kitchens are just not a good use of the Lord’s money." This "argument" is lame at best. I won’t say what it is at worst. The fact of the matter is: church buildings themselves are matters of expediency; and however much an eldership decides to spend on a church building is up to them--that is, God hasn’t spoken on the matter. In the end, though, whatever the eldership does spend on the kitchen, if the kitchen is used to the glory of God (i.e., for potlucks, fellowship meals and spending time together), it is authorized under the realm of expediency.

David Garner--Representing for Vacaville Church of Christ

on the surface - this seems to indicate a *amen/props, unless im just reading this too fast.

The fact of the matter is: church buildings themselves are matters of expediency; and however much an eldership decides to spend on a church building is up to them--that is, God hasn’t spoken on the matter. In the end, though, whatever the eldership does spend on the kitchen, if the kitchen is used to the glory of God (i.e., for potlucks, fellowship meals and spending time together), it is authorized under the realm of expediency.

this tells me that you have a fair and well balanced mind!!

therefore: Amen (or as Paul would have it *Aamen*

Edward wrote:
In recent years, I have come across quite a few brethren who contend that kitchens in the church building are sinful. Here are a few of the tactics that I have had them use.

First, they try going to 1 Corinthians 11:22 and saying this verse supports the view that we can’t eat in the church building. But the context forbids such--for Paul was arguing against the abuse that the Corinthians were making of the Lord’s Supper by turning it into a common meal. Also, if one were to take it literally, that you can’t eat at the church building, one should likewise contend (from verse 34) that it would be a sin to eat at a restaurant or cafe on Sunday--since these aren’t "at home."

Second, when their 1 Cor. 11:22 attempt doesn’t work, they use the argument which basically says "we shouldn’t do anything that would cause a brother to violate his conscience." By this, they mean, if you insist on having a kitchen in the church building in spite of a brother who opposes it, then you are sinning by causing him to violate his conscience by worshiping at a building with a kitchen in it. But this argument breaks down when they won’t apply the same reasoning to other things like communion cups. I asked one man who was of the "no-kitchen-in-the-church-building" persuasion if he would start drinking his grape juice each Sunday morning from the same cup as everyone else if there happened to be a brother in the assembly who really believed it sinful to use multiple cups. He said "no." I then told him that for the same reason he wouldn’t change his practice on using multiple cups for the grape juice, we weren’t going to stop having a kitchen in the building. He saw my point, thankfully.

Lastly, when the two former arguments don’t work, I have had them try to argue the case against kitchens in the building by saying, "Kitchens are just not a good use of the Lord’s money." This "argument" is lame at best. I won’t say what it is at worst. The fact of the matter is: church buildings themselves are matters of expediency; and however much an eldership decides to spend on a church building is up to them--that is, God hasn’t spoken on the matter. In the end, though, whatever the eldership does spend on the kitchen, if the kitchen is used to the glory of God (i.e., for potlucks, fellowship meals and spending time together), it is authorized under the realm of expediency.

David Garner--Representing for Vacaville Church of Christ

Well, I had intended to try to keep from going into this again...But I will try to answer it.

But first the opposition that I have is not to the kitchen per say, but more to do with the work of the church. I believe there are times when a kitchen may m be expedient to the church’s work
Also, I don’t know anyone who opposes eating in the Building. I have done it many times in my office, My son does it most any Sunday and Wednesday (well he used to, but not so much anymore). My wife, a diabetic, sometimes will eat crackers if her sugar is low. No one is opposed to "eating in the Building’
What if, as is the case in some places in the U.S. and in the Philippines, the church meets in a person’s home, are we to rip the kitchen out of some person’s private home? Or what if a church meets in a hotel, do we need to make sure it is a hotel that does not have a kitchen?


My opposition is to the church moving into the realm of social wants, which work does not reside in the scope of the church’s work.


Now Concerning 1 Corinthians 11:
Yes, Paul is dealing very specifically with the brethren’s abuse of the Lord’s supper. But in the context he shows that meals for social purposes reside in the realm of the home. as verse 22 and 34 show. That does not mean in a person’s house, but rather under the authority of the home. (my understanding, and I can elaborate if needed).


I have never met anyone who is opposed to having a kitchen so as not to violate the conscience of his brother. And my opposition to having a church kitchen has nothing to do with the violation of anyone’s conscience.

Nor do I says "it’s not a good use of the Lord’s money" Yes, a building is an expedient.




My opposition for church sponsored social meals (the misnomer often called "fellowship" meals) is the same opposition to the use of Mechanical instruments, there simply is no authority for it. We don’t read of a single church sponsored "pot luck"


But I would be intrested is you showing how it is "authorized under the realm of expediency" But be prepared, because the moment you do, I’ll show you Instruments authroized on the same basis.

rudy wrote:

this tells me that you have a fair and well balanced mind!!

I think so too. As he is a very close friend, and I have known him and his family for several years.

In fact, I was just at his congregation preaching a gospel meeting. ;)

Look at his profile picture carefully, you’ll see the two of us dressed up as Po’ lese Ossifers.

Ya, being silly.

Actually,
let me make one point.

In your discussions with those who oppose it,


either you met some folks who were completely inept at voicing the position.

OR
You have misrepresented those who have voiced the position.



But I will say in general, The opposition is not to Kitchens in the Building, or eating in the building.
But rather to church sponsored meals for social purposes, and church sponsored recreation. (such as Pot lucks, misnomered "fellowship" meals, domino tournaments, old folks banquets, ice cream socials, etc...)

Kurt wrote:
Actually,

let me make one point.



In your discussions with those who oppose it,





either you met some folks who were completely inept at voicing the position.



OR

You have misrepresented those who have voiced the position.







But I will say in general, The opposition is not to Kitchens in the Building, or eating in the building.

But rather to church sponsored meals for social purposes, and church sponsored recreation. (such as Pot lucks, misnomered "fellowship" meals, domino tournaments, old folks banquets, ice cream socials, etc...)

Ok - are you talking about $ coming out of the treasury for church sponsored meals here?

all money belongs to GOD anyways. All the churces money belongs to GOd. Even as individuals. Wheres the problem?

i just think there needs to be some clarification. You are pretty dominant in this area. And you did say that you did not want to get into this. But what did you do? U got right into this. Why? Because you love to debate?

IKD -- Just thinking aloud here. Don’t mean anything by it.

rudy wrote:
i just think there needs to be some clarification. You are pretty dominant in this area. And you did say that you did not want to get into this. But what did you do? U got right into this. Why? Because you love to debate?



IKD -- Just thinking aloud here. Don’t mean anything by it.

There are a number of reasons, my thought was that I had not intended to bring the issue up again, here in this forum, as Carl and I, and me and a few others have had this discussion in other places.

First, the post misses the point of the contention. IT misrepresents what I, and others are opposed to.

Second, not that I love to debate, but I believe their to be an inconsistency in the application of the scriptures regarding the church sponsored social meal.

rudy wrote:
all money belongs to GOD anyways. All the churces money belongs to GOd. Even as individuals. Wheres the problem?

I suppose in a very generic sense "all money belongs to God" But in acts 5 there was a distinction made regarding the money given for the work of the church, and that which was kept.

In the point regarding Ananias and Sapphira. in verses 3 and four the text says " ...Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and keep back a part of the land for yourself? while it remained, was it not your own? and after it was sold, was it not in your own control? why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."


These two were not stricken dead for not giving all, but rather for lying about how much they gave.

There was a time when a portion of it was "In their own control" and they had the choice as to how much they would give.


Further, in our giving we are told to give as we "purpose in our hearts"


So yes, in a very general sense all money belongs to God, but we have charge as to how it is used.

We can use that which is in our control for things the church cannot use it’s collection for.


For instance, I may give a donation to the West Texas A&M alumni association, which is perfectly fine, But the church does not have the same liberty with the collection to give to the association. Why? it is outside of the scope and work of the church.

Kurt Wrote:

My opposition for church sponsored social meals (the misnomer often called "fellowship" meals) is the same opposition to the use of Mechanical instruments, there simply is no authority for it. We don’t read of a single church sponsored "pot luck"


But I would be intrested is you showing how it is "authorized under the realm of expediency" But be prepared, because the moment you do, I’ll show you Instruments authroized on the same basis.

David Writes:

Hello Kurt, nice to meet you. Thanks for the response. I don’t want to seem cavalier or anything, but I don’t believe you could show Instrumental Music (IM) in worship to be authorized to save your life. Be that as it may, I will show you how kitchens are authorized by expediency.

First off, we all know about 1. Necessary Inference; 2. Direct Command; and 3. Approved Example. The other realm of authorization is "expediency." Expediency comes into play when God gives a command WITHOUT giving specific details of how to fulfill said command. But, whatever avenue one chooses to use to fulfill the command, must not violate any other portion of God’s Word.

Some examples: God said "go into all the world" (Mk. 16:15), without giving the specifics of how to go. Therefore, expediency would allow us to take a bus, train, car, or boat--all in an effort to fulfill the command to "go."

Another example: God commands us to take up a collection each 1st Day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). He didn’t tell us specifically what to put the collection in. Therefore, the realm of expediency would authorize us to take up the collection into a trash can, 5-gallon bucket, trash bag or a basket--all in an effort to fulfill the command to take up the collection.

In a similar vein, God has commanded us to meet on the 1st Day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Heb. 1025a), without giving us the specifics of where to meet. Therefore, the realm of expediency would authorize us to meet at any location that doesn’t violate some other command of God (i.e., a bar, strip club, etc.). Since we’re commanded to meet, we must have somewhere to meet.

Whenever you are trying to fulfill a command of God, and it takes money to do so, that is an authorized expenditure of money. So brethren have taken money and purchased buildings. And in the plans of those buildings, they have included a space for "fellowship halls, " "kitchens" or whatever you want to call them. Fellowship meals don’t violate any command of God. Eating itself doesn’t violate any command of God. And so because this space (the kitchen area) can be used to fellowship, encourage others, eat in, have prayer before a meal or even hold a class in the absence of another room, it is authorized.

Now Kurt, you made the claim that there is simply no authority for a church sponsored "fellowship meal." But did you ever think of all the things you do already that are not specifically addressed and authorized in Scripture? Do you read of the 1st century church having songbooks, constructing church buildings, paying to have a parking lot paved, having "collection plates"??? No, you don’t. So why do you do, or rather, why are you involved in a situation where you are part of such an arrangement? There is no authority in scripture for these things, yet you do them?

One last thing, you said: "We don’t read of a single church sponsored potluck" and you are correct about that. But did it ever occur to you that Jesus and his disciples were eating food in the exact same place where He instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mt. 26:26)--which is an place of worship? And have you ever noticed how much Acts 20:11 looks like a church sponsored "social meal?"

Here is what is the strangest thing about your position: You approve of all the pieces of the total situation, but you don’t approve of the total situation. Let me explain. You said that kitchen in the building per say are not sinful; and you agree that it’s not sinful to eat in the building--because you do it and your family does it. So neither of the two elements (kitchens or eating in the building) that are involved in a "social meal" do you oppose. Yet you decide to oppose the "social meal." WHY?

Respectfully,

David

Paul wrote:

rudy wrote:



this tells me that you have a fair and well balanced mind!!

I think so too. As he is a very close friend, and I have known him and his family for several years.



In fact, I was just at his congregation preaching a gospel meeting. ;)



Look at his profile picture carefully, you’ll see the two of us dressed up as Po’ lese Ossifers.



Ya, being silly.

Paul, Don’t be telling too many people that you are a very close friend. I still have to try and keep a good reputation:O) JK.

Thanks for the compliments

David

Kurt wrote:

I suppose in a very generic sense "all money belongs to God" But in acts 5 there was a distinction made regarding the money given for the work of the church, and that which was kept.

I wrote a book on stewardship, and I’m snatching one sections from it that relates to the above.

The Rest of Your Paycheck

Most Christians are well aware of their responsibility to financially support the work of the Church. However, once they have fulfilled that obligation, many assume that the rest of their income is theirs to use as they please. But God is as interested in what Christians do with the money we keep as He is with the money we give away. It is from that perspective that Scripture exhorts us to honor the Lord with our possessions (Prov. 3:9-10).

The ancient Israelites gave to God the “firstfruits”, the firstborn of the flocks and the first crops gathered at harvest time. These were dedicated to God by formally presenting them at the temple on the day of Pentecost (Num. 28:26). Giving to God the first and the best of one’s harvest indicated a recognition that everything belonged to Him.

Including among the possessions that the Israelites owned were the means of production – land, animals, tools, mills, looms, potter’s wheels, carts, boats, and the like. Therefore, honoring the Lord with one’s “possessions” went far beyond a weekly or monthly check in the offering basket or a year-end contribution to a charity. In essence, it meant that all of one’s work was to be dedicated to God.

According to Proverbs, the outcome of such a lifestyle would be prosperity (Prov. 3:10). It is tempting for modern-day Christians to read this as a promise of financial gain in exchange for obedience to God. However, the Proverbs are not so much promises to be claimed as they are observations about the way life tends to work. In the main, people prosper as they honor God in their work and with the income derived from their work.

Kurt wrote:

There was a time when a portion of it was "In their own control" and they had the choice as to how much they would give.

Further, in our giving we are told to give as we "purpose in our hearts"

So yes, in a very general sense all money belongs to God, but we have charge as to how it is used.

We can use that which is in our control for things the church cannot use it’s collection for.

For instance, I may give a donation to the West Texas A&M alumni association, which is perfectly fine, But the church does not have the same liberty with the collection to give to the association. Why? it is outside of the scope and work of the church.

Having a congregation give to the West Texas A&M alumni association in this debate is rather pointless. I do not know of any that would do so. Maybe I am a bit naive, but I don’t think so.

You mention our attitude in giving, and clearly 2 Cor. 9 teaches us with which attitude we should give. Another portion from my book below.

Giving with Compassion and Integrity

Money is powerful. It can bring out the best or the worst in a person. In our drive to gain lots of it or use it for personal comfort and convenience, we can become very cold and manipulative (1 Tim. 6:10). But that should not to be the way for God’s people.

In 1 Cor. 16, we see that Paul was coordinating a fund-raising drive to help some needy Christians. He could have focused on the plight of the recipients. There were Christians in Jerusalem, perhaps suffering from persecution or famine. But instead he concentrated on how the Corinthians should initiate a regular pattern of giving to meet the need (1 Cor. 16:2). Their participation would be an act of loving worship as they met together on the first day of the week.

Paul also pointed out that the transfer of the funds would be carried out by responsible people chosen by the Corinthians themselves. (1 Cor. 16:3). That guaranteed accountability and integrity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothing wrong with Christian people cooking food to bring to the church for a fellowship lunch after worship. There would be no difference in that, or inviting them back to your home, or going out to a restaurant afterward.

I would have a problem if the congregation used money given to the church for buying food, and the ladies preparing it while worship is going on.

Edward wrote:

Paul, Don’t be telling too many people that you are a very close friend. I still have to try and keep a good reputation :O)

Ya, I was worried about that too. :P

rudy wrote:
The fact of the matter is: church buildings themselves are matters of expediency; and however much an eldership decides to spend on a church building is up to them--that is, God hasn’t spoken on the matter. In the end, though, whatever the eldership does spend on the kitchen, if the kitchen is used to the glory of God (i.e., for potlucks, fellowship meals and spending time together), it is authorized under the realm of expediency.



this tells me that you have a fair and well balanced mind!!



therefore: Amen (or as Paul would have it *Aamen*

Here, here! We don’t have a kitchen, We move the back couple of pews forward and make room to set up a few tables. We put the food for potlucks on the tables and then we just find a place to sit somewhere in the building (like on the pews, on the steps of the stage). It is just a building, not holy ground.