Christian Forums

Greetings, all:

Someone in here told me recently that COC congregations sometimes split over various issues, including a fight over whether it is sinful to have a kitchen in the building.

I find this fascinating,  and at the same time very petty. 

What could the reason possibly be?  Do you agree?

Paul said "Don't you have homes to eat in?" 

It is a proven fact that not one of the church buildings mentioned in the New Testament contained a kitchen.  It's amazing the contortions some will go through to avoid believing what the Bible clearly says.  You'd have to try to misunderstand this.

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 06:54:02
It is a proven fact that not one of the church buildings mentioned in the New Testament contained a kitchen. 

Ummmm...

So the first-century church didn't celebrate the Eucharist?  I'm having some trouble following the reasoning here.

From what I understand, the first-century church didn't have  their own buildings at all...

But even if I'm mistaken about this, every COC meeting place that I have seen, has a parking lot, electric lights, indoor plumbing, carpeting, and amplified sound, and the preacher wears a suit and tie. 

You're having trouble following the reasoning because it's unreasonable.

Here's an Al Maxey article that might help.  I'd say more, but I'm headed out the door soon.

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx118.htm

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 02:27:56
Greetings, all:

Someone in here told me recently that COC congregations sometimes split over various issues, including a fight over whether it is sinful to have a kitchen in the building.

I find this fascinating,  and at the same time very petty. 

What could the reason possibly be?  Do you agree?

The reason is the concept of specific "authorization" being necessary.

The problem with which is the lack of a specific authorization to demand specific authorization on all matters.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 08:59:49
The problem with which is the lack of a specific authorization to demand specific authorization on all matters.

From which springs the concept of "generic authority."

Quote from: Gary on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 08:58:08
The reason is the concept of specific "authorization" being necessary.

Yes, I get that.

Hence, my comments about a parking lot, electric lights, indoor plumbing, carpeting, and amplified sound, and the preacher wearing a suit and tie.  And for that matter, a church building in general.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:15:27

Quote from: Gary on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 08:58:08
The reason is the concept of specific "authorization" being necessary.

Yes, I get that.

Hence, my comments about a parking lot, electric lights, indoor plumbing, carpeting, and amplified sound, and the preacher wearing a suit and tie.  And for that matter, a church building in general.

Those would be covered under "generic authority."

I see a whole new world has been opened for Steve.  

Remember this acronym:

CENI

Commands, Examples, Necessary Inferences

There's a certain philosophy at work here on how to establish "Biblical authority" for any given thing as to whether it is "authorized" or "unauthorized."

The church must do only what it is authorized to do according to direct commands given to the churches, examples of what the churches were recorded as doing under apostolic direction, and what we can "necessarily infer"... and, all this must be taken from the New Testament record.

Then, there is sort of an exception clause that some call "expediencies"... which is frequently where the rub is.  An expediency is any kind of aid not "specifically" addressed in the NT, but it is allowed under "generic authority" if it aids that which is commanded.  This is where people disagree.  One man's "expediency" is another man's "unauthorized innovation."

Thanks, DCR.  Yes, I know about CENI.

It simply puzzles me that (for some, at least) a microphone is allowed but a stove isn't.     Almost sounds like you've got two different religions going on here.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:28:23
Thanks, DCR.  Yes, I know about CENI.

Does the ICOC teach CENI?

Just out of curiosity...

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:28:23
Thanks, DCR.  Yes, I know about CENI.

It simply puzzles me that (for some, at least) a microphone is allowed but a stove isn't.     Almost sounds like you've got two different religions going on here.

We are not commanded to eat during a worship service, hence no good reason under generic authority to have a stove, but we are to sing, and have someone give a sermon, and to assemble, hence generic authority allows us to have microphones and songbooks and buildings.  See?

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:29:29
Does the ICOC teach CENI?

Just out of curiosity...

Generally speaking, yes.

Very interesting... thanks.

Quote from: Gary on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:30:49
but we are to sing, and have someone give a sermon, and to assemble, hence generic authority allows us to have microphones and songbooks and buildings.  See?

Interesting take there, Gary.

But in the early church, the Eucharist was more than the customary wine (or juice) and bread that most of us use today.  Something closer to a meal.  Hence, a reasonable need for a place to prepare it.

Steve, just to satisfy my own ignorance...

Does your church use instrumental music in worship?

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:35:22
Does your church use instrumental music in worship?

Occasionally, but it's rare.  Under the new order, there's no "central authority" to enforce it one way or another.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:37:52

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:35:22
Does your church use instrumental music in worship?

Occasionally, but it's rare.  Under the new order, there's no "central authority" to enforce it one way or another.

So, ICOCs are primarily still a cappella or non-instrumental.  I was just curious to know what commonalities the split-off group and kept and didn't keep.  Thanks.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:40:09
So, ICOCs are primarily still a cappella or non-instrumental.  I was just curious to know what commonalities the split-off group and kept and didn't keep.  Thanks.

Generally speaking, we do agree with "mainline" COC that (for example) it could be irreverent to have a brass band that overwhelms the voices of the congregation.  Hence, where we do have music, it's generally something simple like a piano or a guitar.

The Los Angeles church has a ministry called AMS, or Arts, Media, and Sports.  This is a specific outreach to professional athletes, entertainers, and other showbiz/broadcasting types.  They've been quite successful in reaching these people.  I am none of those things, hence, I've never been involved with it.  But from what I hear, they sometimes have meetings (apart from the Sunday worship) where they gather to play music and network for gigs. 

Who better to reach the Greeks, than the Greeks?

Ah, now I'm just wandering.  All for now.

The difference between a microphone and a kitchen is that eating in a church building is specifically forbidden, while speaking is not.  Unless you're a woman, and then it's okay as long as it isn't between prayers.


_________

The sad thing about it is that this argument against having a kitchen makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.  It's not a really terrible argument, even though there were no church buildings when Paul wrote the letter.  The problem is that a church building as such has become such a part of our experience--no, make that the center of our experience--that it's hard for us to see around it to the original meaning of the passage.

The same is true in a lot of other areas.  Thus my aversion to "what the Bible plainly says" statements that are intended to stifle discussion.

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:56:58
The difference between a microphone and a kitchen is that eating in a church building is specifically forbidden, while speaking is not. 

Um, I do believe that it was selfish gluttony -- and during the corporate worship -- that Paul rebuked in his letter.     They still observed the Eucharist, yes?  You know, physically consuming edible folodstuffs?

And again, as I understand it, there was no such thing as a "church building" in the first century, so how can we say that the early church had rules about it?   

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:56:58
The difference between a microphone and a kitchen is that eating in a church building is specifically forbidden, while speaking is not.  Unless you're a woman, and then it's okay as long as it isn't between prayers.

And, if you're a woman, it's okay to speak between the prayers if your speaking happens to follow a scripted tune (singing)... provided you're not the only one singing, of course... or that you're not up front standing and facing in the wrong direction while you're singing.

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:59:28

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:56:58
The difference between a microphone and a kitchen is that eating in a church building is specifically forbidden, while speaking is not. 

Um, I do believe that it was selfish gluttony that Paul rebuked in his letter.     They still observed the Eucharist, yes?

I've added to the post.  Steve, you should have figured out by now that I often say the opposite of what I mean.

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 10:01:45
I've added to the post.  Steve, you should have figured out by now that I often say the opposite of what I mean.

Quote from: marc on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 09:56:58
The problem is that a church building as such has become such a part of our experience--no, make that the center of our experience--that it's hard for us to see around it to the original meaning of the passage.

Well-stated. Marc.     I just might plagiarize this paragraph for my next book.

It seems distinctly ANTI-restoration movement to sell such books or promote men like Al Maxey who loves to CONFLATE all churches of Christ by non-institutional "proof texts."  Using RACA words specificially directed at the ANTI-instrumental churches is distinctly anti-Christian.

Wikipedia notes:

This fellowship is estimated at about 120,000 members,[2] accounting for around 9% of the members of Churches of Christ

Many outside of these churches sometimes conflate them with other Churches of Christ which serve the Lord's Supper using a single cup and/or which refrain from having divided, age-distinct Bible classes ("Sunday School").

The label "non-institutional" refers to a distinct fellowship within the Churches of Christ who do not agree with the support of church or para-church organizations (colleges, orphans' homes, etc.) by local congregations. They contend that the New Testament includes no authority for churches' support of such institutions. These churches became separated from "mainline" (pro-institutional) Churches of Christ because of these viewpoints, developing into a distinct segment of congregations by the 1960s.

Objection to a church kitchen or "fellowship hall," as well as other forms of church-sponsored social activity. Again making the distinction
     between the work of the church and that of individuals,
those within non-institutional churches hold that social activity was an individual practice.

      Thus, using CHURCH funds to build a kitchen and eating facility is considered unscriptural,

while members are encouraged to spend time together in eating and other activities at their own expense. In addition, they point to the language of 1 Corinthians 11:22-34 as forbidding the eating of a common meal as a work of the church.

I think a minimally honest review would recognize that the "kitchen" was an innovation in all groups as the SHOT GLASS introduction was an innovation in ALL churches.  Why not attack the Catholics as ONE CUPPERS?

Secondly, one of the RESTORATIONS was that  a church HAS NO MONEY to build kitchens: If you decide that EVERYONE obey the Law of Giving to build a kitchen the objection is over money rather than PATTERNISM.

Thirdly, the church has Pastor-Teachers commanded to "teach that which has been taught." There is no money to pay a person for "gitting up sermons" or spending all of his time preaching hate by CONFLATING all of the ANTI-instrumental churches with the non-institutional.  As I remember it, Al Maxey was trained by an instrumental college: he has no authorized ROLE and no FUNDING so maybe someone can "git up" a definition of such a person.

"Concerning budgets--it is now a mark of the identity of a scriptural church to have or not to have certain benevolent programs and missionary projects in the budget; but the time was when churches had no such problems, for there were no budgets. The apportionment of the contributions into a pre-arranged budget is comparatively new, and it met with opposition for the early writers of both the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation, perhaps for the foreseen reason of what is happening now--an an issue develops on what may or may not be scripturally included in the budget, and the budget becomes a sacramental thing, the depository for the 'Lord's Money.'" (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Gospel for Today, p 552)

I would not expect CONFLATERS to grasp the difference between:

    "No PATTERNISM and therefore a sin" and
    "No PATTERNISM to lie about the Law of Giving to force everyone to support their favorite program."

Quote from: stevehut on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 02:27:56
Greetings, all:

Someone in here told me recently that COC congregations sometimes split over various issues, including a fight over whether it is sinful to have a kitchen in the building.

I find this fascinating,  and at the same time very petty. 

What could the reason possibly be?  Do you agree?

Unfortunately you have run aground on a topic with which we are neither logical nor consistent. There is always an out to the general rule of "The Bible didn't say...." and that is the wonderful concept of "expediencies." We allow ourselves the options of adding any expediency we think we might want, and reserve the right to denigrate others' logic and faithfulness when they choose different ones.

Once you've been in the milieu for a while, it all becomes somewhat "logical" in its own right. Which simply demonstrates that there is a sort of logic even in an asylum run by inmates.

Blituri, 

Who tried to sell books in here?

Who was arguing about cups or Sunday school or money?

I think you're just arguing with yourself here.     Please go pick a fight somewhere else.

Quote from: HRoberson on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 10:15:12
Once you've been in the milieu for a while, it all becomes somewhat "logical" in its own right. Which simply demonstrates that there is a sort of logic even in an asylum run by inmates.

Does the WE intend to CONFLATE or RACAate?

"If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land  which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks" (Deut. 15:7, 8-11).

    H5670 abat aw-bat' A primitive root; to pawn; causatively to lend (on security); figuratively to entangle:borrow, break [ranks], fetch [a pledge], lend, X surely.

Lay by HIM means "Lay by yourself and save up to the DESTITUTE ONLY."

Alfred Edershiem notes of one of the tithes:

Thus 'no man might go on the Temple Mount with his staff,' as if on business or pleasure;
nor yet 'with shoes on his feet'--sandals only being allowed;
nor 'with the dust upon his feet';
nor 'with his scrip,' nor 'with money tied to him in his purse.'

    Whatever he might wish to contribute either to the Temple, or for offerings,

or for the poor must be carried by each 'in his hand,' possibly to indicate that the money about him was exclusively for an immediate sacred purpose.

It was probably for similar reasons that Jesus transferred these very ordinances to the disciples when engaged in the service of the real Temple.

The direction, 'Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves,' must mean, GO OUT in the same spirit and manner as you would to the Temple services, and fear not--'for the workman is worthy of his meat' (Matthew 10:9,10). In other words: Let this new Temple service be your only thought, undertaking and care.

Quote from: blituri on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 10:18:51
Does the WE intend to CONFLATE or RACAate?

It intends to INCLUDE.

How'd I do on the color? 

Didn't Priscilla and Aquila have a church in their house? (Romans 16:3-5)

Wouldn't they have had a kitchen area in their house?

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Oct 02, 2008 - 10:36:10
Didn't Priscilla and Aquila have a church in their house? (Romans 16:3-5)

Wouldn't they have had a kitchen area in their house?

Now Charles, don't go using any deductions!