The June 7th issue of the "Erie Times-News" had an article entitled "Come together with food for soul" (7C) about the virtually universal practice of having church dinners. The writer asserted:

Using food and fellowship harks back to the earliest days of Christianity. In the first century the shared meal was a primary method of outreach, fellowship and evangelization following the crucifixion of Jesus."

In the first place, where do the Scriptures use the word "fellowship" to denote a common meal? "Fellowship" is used to denote communion with God in Christ (1 John 1:3,7), communion with saints in Christ (1 John 1:3), communion with the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16), sharing in suffering for Christ (2 Corinthians 1:6-7), partnership in the work and worship of the Lord in His church (Acts 2:42; 2 Corinthians 8:23), partnership in financing the Lord's work (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 6:18), partnership in the gospel by support of a preacher (Philippians 1:5; 4:15), and distributing to the necessity of the saints (Romans 12:13; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13).

Are some so carnally minded their mouths water when they think of fellowship in Christ? (cf. Romans 14:17; 8:6; Philippians 3:17-21; Colossians 3:1-4). We must use Bible words in scriptural ways (1 Peter 4:11). Common meals are no more fellowship than sprinkling is baptism. Such "language of Ashdod" (Nehemiah 13:23-24) indicates unscriptural, denominational attitudes. To pervert a scriptural word to an unscriptural use to justify one's practice is to teach and practice error.

Furthermore, neither Jesus nor His church employed meals to entice people to come to Him. Jesus miraculously fed five thousand men besides women and children as proof of His claims (John 6:1-14). But when they sought Him for bread the next day, He refused to feed them and exhorted them to seek everlasting life rather than perishable bread (John 6:26-27). The apostle Paul observed, "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14;17). God attracts the lost with spiritual blessings, whereas Satan attracts with carnal things (Romans 8:5-8).

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 contains the fullest discussion in Scripture of the Lord's Supper. Perhaps you didn't realize the inspired apostle Paul presented this information because of an abuse in the church at Corinth. They had turned the Lord's Supper into a common meal. He rebuked them for eating their "own supper" when they should have been eating the "Lord's Supper" (verses 20-22). We eat our "own supper" because we are hungry (verse 34); we eat "the Lord's Supper" to remember His death for us (verse 23-26). The church should come together to eat the Lord's Supper (verses 20-21). Our own supper is a function of the home (verses 22,34). Yes, the apostle was dealing with an abuse of the Lord's Supper, but what did he tell the brethren to do? "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment" (verse 34).

Does this mean it is a sin to eat in the church building? Not at all. There is no proof first century congregations even owned their own meeting places. The Lord taught that where we meet to worship is unimportant (John 4:19-24). The command to assemble to worship authorizes the church to own a building for that purpose (Hebrews 10:24-25). Furthermore, the apostle Paul himself, the author of First Corinthians, ate a common meal in the very place the church at Troas met to worship (Acts 20:6-11).

So how do we tell when it is right or wrong to eat in the church building? The two passages before us contain the answer.

The only way we know that the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 is the Lord's Supper is that the church, with the apostle Paul's implicit approval, came together for the purpose of eating this meal. This could not be a common meal, or Paul would not have participated, and Luke would not have recorded it with approval (Philippians 3:17). If this is not true, we have no way of knowing whether Acts 20:7 is the record of the church eating the Lord's Supper or a common meal, and there is, therefore, no biblical proof the Lord's Supper must be eaten on the first day of the week. Let me emphasize the point: If it is scriptural for the church to come together for the purpose of eating a common meal, no one can prove the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 is the Lord's Supper, and there is no proof the Lord's Supper is restricted to the first day of the week.

Paul ate a common meal while the church was still gathered together (Acts 20:11-12). We know this was a common meal, because he ate it the day after the first day of the week (Acts 20:7-11). The church had not gathered for this purpose. this was to prepare the apostle for his journey onward (Acts 20:13-14)

Thus, the only meal the church can come together for the purpose of eating is the Lord's Supper. But we may eat a common meal in the same place we meet for worship if this is incidental to an authorized activity.

We have drinking fountains in our church buildings as incidentals to our assembling to worship, but we don't assemble for the purpose of drinking water. The restrooms are parallel. We must be able to distinguish between purpose and incidental. If our eating is incidental to our coming together, it is authorized.

Mothers feed their babies at the church building while we are assembled for worship. We don't assemble for the purpose of feeding babies; feeding the babies is incidental to our coming together.

When I teach classes for preachers in Nigeria, poor preachers come from long distances to study. Usually the local church serves us refreshments during the day, since the preachers cannot afford to go to a café. They don't come together for the small meal; it is incidental to our classes.

I used to travel to Shortsville, New York twice a month, and the church assembled in the home of a couple who were members. Several members had traveled rather long distances to worship. We had a 2:00 P.M. class, and to make it easy for all to stay, the couple who graciously hosted the church also hosted a pot luck in the same building, their house, where the church met for worship. The pot luck was not a church function, cost the church nothing, and was incidental to having the afternoon class.

This can easily be abused. For example, if the church assembles for worship three Sundays a month but stays after for a pot luck one Sunday, what condition made their eating necessary or incidental to their coming together?

There is something else to consider. The fact the church does not pay for the food does not keep the pot luck from being a church function. When the church comes together for any purpose, that is the church at work (1 Corinthians 11:18-21). Also, there are explenses related to the meals in addition to the food: lights, heat, upkeep of the building, that the church may shoulder. When the church uses its own resources, which include its building, that is the church at work (Philippians 4:15-16). Common meals are not an authorized church function.

Oddly, a professor at the very liberal University of Chicago that the reporter quoted actually got it right. He observed:

We know that the earliest Christians did not have 'Evangelism Committees' with sub-committees on 'How to atract converts with food' ... they had something better: hospitality as a way of life.