In the 1960’s and 1970’s , it became common for new church buildings to include a kitchen and “multi-purpose room” or “fellowship hall” (note – I am not enthusiastic about this last designation because it tends to reduce the idea of fellowship to brethren eating together, at least in some people’s minds.  Biblical fellowship is so much more).  Before this, kitchens were rare in our church buildings.

Controversy ensued.  (1) Those who built buildings with a kitchen in it were labeled “liberals” by some.  (2) Those who opposed kitchens were labeled “antis” by others (note – I do not believe that these labels have been helpful to the discussion.  They have been used as terms of derision.  “Liberal” suggests that those who have a kitchen have gone beyond Biblical authority.  However, the assertion does not demonstrate such.  “Anti” suggests that some are opposed to something.  It might surprise some to know that “anti” was used to label those opposed to mechanical instruments of music in worship.  All are opposed to something. However, the term is frequently used to mean that one is binding something that God has not bound. The assertion does not demonstrate such).

There are two major arguments used to oppose kitchens: (1) 1 Corinthians 11; (2) authority.  I want to consider both of these arguments.

1 Corinthians 11

Paul said, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? (1 Corinthians 11:22a).  Again, “But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (1 Corinthians 11:34a).    These verses are understood by some to forbid eating in the church building.  But do they?

Let’s consider the context.  (1) The issue in context is not the building.  The building is not mentioned.  The church often met in someone’s house (cf. Romans 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-2).  The church could meet under some shade trees.  There is nothing sacred about the location.  (2) The issue is the perversion of the church assembly.  (a) Unity was lacking.  Brethren were being mistreated.  “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk… do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? (1 Corinthians 11:21-22).  It seems that the Lord’s Supper was being offered in the setting of a meal.  Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in the setting of a meal.  The historian, Everett Ferguson writes, “It seems that a meal provided the most convenient context in which the Lord’s supper was observed by early Christians.  At least this was the case at Corinth and provided the occasion for the abuses which developed there” (Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p. 131).  (b) The body of Christ was not being discerned, by some.  “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  For this reason, many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).

What about the words “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in”?  (a) This is sarcasm.  Consider this illustration: Let’s say that you had a family member who always visited your house on Thanksgiving Day, or some holiday.  This one did not seem to be interested in you, or in any others present.  He seemed to be present only for the food.  Therefore, you said to him, “Don’t you have a house you can eat in?”  You did not necessarily mean that he could never eat in your house.  You meant, “When you come over, I wish you came for the right reasons.  I wish you came to visit with me and others, and not just to feed your face.  You can do that at home.”  (b) No one, that I know, believes that one can only eat in a house, not under a tree, or as he walks a path.  This is not assigning the place to eat.  It is about perverting worship. 

Here are some other considerations.  (1) If this forbids eating in the building, does it forbid drinking water in the building?  If not, why not?  (2) If this forbids eating in the building, does it forbid a mother feeding her baby?  If not, why not?  (3) If this forbids eating in the building, does it forbid the preacher from eating or drinking in his office?  If not, why not?  (4) If the church worshipped under a tree, would that mean that no one should eat under that tree?  If not, why not?  (5) If the church met in my house, could anyone ever eat as my guest in my house?  We know that brethren ate together (e.g., Acts 2:46; 16:34; 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12). My experience is that few actually argue that the location is the real issue.

Authority

The contribution is to be used to carry on the work of the church.  The work of the church is evangelism, edification, and benevolence.  It is argued that the spending on money on kitchen’s and “fellowship halls” in which we feed ourselves falls outside the work of the church.  Therefore, it is unauthorized. This is the real issue with many who hold this position. I appreciate very much the desire to do only what is authorized in the Bible.

Here is my response.  I do not think that these things always fall outside the work of the church.  (1) Kitchens may be used to render benevolence.  I have known churches that have housed and fed other members of the church who were refugees from natural disasters.  (2) Kitchens may be used to support evangelism.  I have known churches that have used their kitchens to feed workers in door-knocking campaigns.  (3) Kitchens may be used to preserve grape juice and prepare the Lord’s Supper.  (4) Multi-purpose rooms are just that.  They can be used for many things, including Bible classes.

While it is true that kitchens and multipurpose rooms can be helpful in carrying on the work of the church, I am not sure that this is the reason that most build these facilities.  We do need to stay focused on the work. I once knew a church member who thought that we should spend much money on the kitchen and multi-purpose room because we could make money by renting it out for weddings and special events. This is definitely a case of wrong goals, and poor understanding of the work of the church.

Final Thoughts

1.  Fellowship is precious and should be treated as such.  We are to be “endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3 cf. Colossians 3:14).  One should be very careful in binding personal scruples on others.

2.  Fellowship is precious and should be treated as such.  “Let us pursue the things which make for peace and things by which one may edify another” (Romans 14:19).  Before building a kitchen (or doing anything which might lead to division), we should ask if it is really worth it. This should be thoughtfully considered. Let us remember, “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).

3.  Do not limit fellowship to the fellowship hall.  True fellowship is so much more.  It includes our working together in the kingdom to the glory of God. It includes our worship assemblies. Yes, it also includes our social interaction in the body. However, A friend of mine once expressed his concern to me that while “fellowship halls” may be permissible, they may have actually hindered the fellowship interactions of brethren.  He believed that we have declined in the amount of time spent in each other’s homes and have contented ourselves with eating together at the building. He believed that fellowship for some had been limited to eating together at the building on a monthly or quarterly schedule. We will never truly be a part of each other’s lives if we do not have greater interaction than this. We will never truly be the family that God desires us to be if we limit fellowship to this.

4.  Let us remember that the early church did engage in “love feasts” (Jude 12; 2 Peter 2:13).  Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.) wrote of this: “Agape is truly heavenly food… The meal occurs because of love, not love because of the meal, which is proof of a generous and shared good will” (Everett Ferguson p. 129 quoting Clement of Alexandria, Instructor, book 2, chapter 1).  Brethren need to spend time together.