Eating in the Church Building

It may come as a surprise to many that “eating in the church building” is a non-issue. In fact, I have never known nor heard of anyone who opposed eating in the church building. I know of no one who says that it is wrong for a preacher to carry his lunch to work and eat it along with coffee made in the Keurig on his desk. Or a child being fed a cracker during services. Or a maintenance worker eating a snack and drinking a coke as he/she cleans the building. Or even a worker at the church building doing pushups or jogging on the church’s property. After all, the church building/meeting place is not sacred like our Catholic friends generally consider churches (buildings) to be.

The real issue behind the discussion about “eating the church building” is what are the works of local churches and how they are authorized and executed. Most agree that the local church is authorized to do certain things as a church and that the authorization of a thing includes expedients needed to execute it. As examples, authorization for assembling for worship includes facilities to assemble. Authorization for teaching/preaching the gospel includes the facilities to do that. Authorization for relieving poor saints includes the facilities needed. The list could go on.

Without the authorization for any of these things there is no authorization for the facilities. Without the authority for assembly worship there would be no authority for a place of public worship. If the work of the church was to provide social meals, recreational activities, etc., there would be authority for the church to provide the facilities – kitchens, dining halls, gyms, ball fields, etc. Calling them “fellowship” activities does not change their nature.

As noted above, incidental things that might be done on the premises of a facility are not parallel to setting up a new work for the church and providing facilities for it. Referring to us as “our anti eating in the church building” brethren, because we oppose church sponsored social meals, makes about as much sense as calling us “our anti exercise in the church building” brethren, because we oppose churches building gymnasiums.

Much is made of churches, in New Testament days, meeting in private homes. How that after the worship, they would likely have a meal together in the same house, etc. Yes, and some churches today, at least in the beginning, meet in private homes. Nothing wrong with it. When a local church exists, it must have the facilities needed to function as a church. How do they get them? They may be acquired by buying, renting, borrowing, or receiving gratis. Structurally, they may stand alone or they may have adjoining rooms or buildings. Especially those rented and borrowed are often acquired for certain days and hours. On those days and hours, they are under the control of the church. At other times they are under the control of someone else.

A church may borrow or rent a living room, a dining room, a kitchen and a bedroom from a family for Bible classes and assembly worship. Thus, the church is given and receives control of these and uses them to carry out their authorized activities during the time they are rented or borrowed. By the way, the church could not rent or borrow them for social and recreational activities. But, after the church has used them for the time and purpose they rented or borrowed them, the control went back to family. The family then might use them for a meal or other social and recreational activities.

I have done gospel meetings where the church met in a hotel conference room. One that I especially remember was in hotel with a nice dining hall, a state-of-the-art exercise room, swimming pool (no, I didn’t use it because my bathing suit had a hole in the knee) and other amenities. During that meeting, my wife and I ate most of our meals, did our exercises, watched TV and slept under the same roof that I preached the meeting under. The rented conference room was the only room controlled by the church doing that meeting. The church had scriptural authority for everything that was done in that room during the meeting. This scenario does not mean that the church could have rented that room and used it for social and recreational purposes. Why? Simply because that is not the work of the church.

So, if you prefer to label me as being anti certain things, please try to be accurate in reporting what I am against. It is not incidental eating and drinking in the “church building.” Nor is it incidental exercise by someone on church property. It is the church having, as part of its work, social and recreational activities – planned, supervised and carried out by the church. The only possible authorization for a church fellowship hall and gymnasium would be that the things they facilitate be works of the church.