|
 Bro.
Turner:
We
have had numerous discussions about the use of the church
building for weddings, and most of us think this should
not be done because weddings are
a social function. Now, some say there should be no “visiting”
among members, and no talking about anything but the worship,
when we are at the church building. Will you comment on this?
MIF
Reply:
It
figures! “Visiting” in the church building is a “social”
function, so I suppose this had to come.
First,
we should (and I think most disciples do) understand that the
building is NOT sacred — NOT comparable to the Jewish
tabernacle or the temple which Jesus cleansed. Its only
authority for existence is that it is (or seems to be) expedient
to provide a place for the assembling of saints (Heb.
10:25; Acts 20: 7-8; 1 Cor. 11:18-22) On this basis the church
building is a tool, purchased with funds set aside to do the
Lord’s work, and as such is held in trust, to be used for its
intended purpose.
The
building belongs to the declared purpose and intent (cy pres) of
the people who purchased it. although personal identity of the
donors has been lost in collective action. The building does not
“belong to God” in any special sense, except as its
purchasers put it to use in the service of God. There is, of
course, a matter of trust — the moral obligation of subsequent
users, to respect the purpose for which the building was
constructed.
|
|
There
are incidental uses to which a “tool” may be put,
which would not violate the original purpose nor be an
infringement upon its intended use. For example, a “company”
car, intended “for business only,” may serve a dual purpose
if the salesman gives a friend a “lift” as he goes to work.
I see a difference in this and in wear, and expenses, placed
upon the company car so that the salesman may take a long rough
fishing trip. Obviously. some human judgement is involved.
There
are incidental uses, in my judgement, to which the church
building may be put — including weddings. funerals, and “visiting,”
— which impose no additional expense upon the church, nor
constitute any violation of trust as regards the intended
purpose of the facilities. It is easy to see, however, that these
same activities could be pressed to the extent that they
hindered or even obstructed the originally intended purpose for
which the building was obtained. (The “company” car was not
intended as a commuter bus; and if it is marked with the company
name or insigne so as to be easily identified, perverse use
might cast improper reflections upon the company.)
Right
or wrong, a regular place of meeting for the saints, so
designated or understood by the public, places an obligation
upon us to see that its uses are in keeping with its purpose, or
of such an incidental nature as to pose no threat to Bible
teaching by word and example.
The
church has no authority to build a wedding chapel or social
hall.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
