Fellowship: An introduction

Fellowship

Posts in this series: 1 2 3 4 5

If "baptism" is the Biblical concept most misunderstood by the religious world, "fellowship" would have to be the one most misunderstood by the Lord's people.

Many of those of the institutional persuasion have so-called "fellowship halls" built at the church's expense and existing solely for social interaction. However, the "fellowship as socializing" misconception does not only prevail in institutional churches; in my experience, most otherwise faithful Christians have no idea what Biblical fellowship is.

I first began seriously considering the issue of fellowship when I became aware of the "days of Genesis" controversy. It seemed to me that some brethren were being inconsistent when they made proper understanding of the word "day" in Genesis 1 a condition of fellowship. I asked several people who took this position their reasoning, but few would (or perhaps could) answer. The most memorable answer I heard was that if someone misunderstood the first chapter of the Bible, how could they understand the rest correctly? I pointed out that we have several different interpretations of the last book of the Bible, yet never made that a condition of fellowship.

Indeed, I recalled one of the signers of the letter mention that the church he was at accepted premillenial brethren into fellowship (albeit on the condition they not teach that doctrine), something that had been taboo for nearly a century in most churches. When I asked about the difference between Genesis 1 and Revelation of another signatory, he excused the difference by saying that Revelation was a book of signs and mysteries; apparently, to him, whether we parted ways over a difference of understanding depended on how hard something was to understand. This would have, of course, been news to Peter.

So, I began to study the matter of fellowship. During this personal study, I requested articles and/or sermon outlines regarding fellowship on an email list, thinking that might help. Imagine my surprise when each of the 7 or 8 pieces I received advocated a position different in some way from all the others! I taught a class on the epistles of John sometime after that and found at least four distinct opinions among participants on what fellowship is or is not. And not long after, I was handed a flyer for a potluck at one member's house inviting me to come for a "night of fellowship." While this may say as much about my teaching abilities as it does our collective understanding, these experiences also convinced me of one basic fact: We have a fractured concept of fellowship.

Some have the idea it's social interaction, taken from our institutional brothers and reinforced by the non-Biblical term (and idea) of "disfellowship." Almost everyone (incorrectly) believes it's an action and so we (incorrectly) express it as a verb: "The church fellowshipped him." And more than once I've heard the nails-on-the-chalkboard sound of it applied to some doctrine: "I heard he fellowships social drinking."

I'd like to spend a few posts over the next week or so looking at the idea of fellowship from a Biblical perspective. It's not important what I think about fellowship, but it is important to look at what God has said. What is it, with whom do we have it, and with whom do we not have it? What does the Bible say?

Member Comments

Fellowship

Jeff,

I think you know where I stand on things that divide the brotherhood. You know that I would love to see us remove any barriers (as long as it doesn't violate the will of God) that stand between us so that we can be united. I have never really gotten into the "institutional/non-institutional" argument with anyone (nor do I want to "argue" with you). I did have a question for you. You said:

"Many of those of the institutional persuasion have so-called "fellowship halls" built at the church's expense and existing solely for social interaction"

At my congregation we have a building that is sometimes (incorrectly) labeled as a "fellowship hall". It is used every Sunday & Wednesday as a classroom and is large enough to accommodate multiple classes during VBS. That is far and away the intended function of the building - a classroom. However, it does have a tiny kitchen area in it and on occasion is where we assemble to share a meal as a congregation.

Does that change your impression in any way? Would you still say that it is wrong to have such? I have not, in my limited experience, ever been to a congregation that had a so-called "fellowship hall" that was solely for recreational use. Almost every congregation I know of that has one uses it primarily and overwhelmingly for classroom use. Just curious as to your thoughts on that.

Corey

Thanks for your question, Corey. Sorry it's taken me so long to get to it.

To me, the main issue is not the exclusive purpose of a dining hall, it's the activity that takes place in it. Where is the authority for coming together as a church and eating a common meal provided by the church?

The only time in Scripture I find a church eating a common meal as the church, it's condemned (I Corinthians 11:20-22), and they are told that they have houses to eat common meals in. While there is more to that text than just that facet, it illustrates a principle: the work of the church is not eating, drinking, and entertainment. Its purpose is not to be a glorified YMCA.

Fellowship halls have traditionally been justified on the grounds that eating a common meal as a church is "fellowship." However, as this series of posts demonstrates, fellowship isn't social activity or even enjoying each other's company.

Because I can't find from the Bible that such an activity is God's will for a work of the church collective, I can't in good conscience take part in it.

Fellowship

Jeff,

Again, I don't want to argue semantics, but you said:

"Where is the authority for coming together as a church and eating a common meal provided by the church?"

The last part of that sentence seems a bit of an assumption on your part (like saying that "fellowship halls" are "solely for social interaction". Again, I don't know if it makes a difference, but when we come together to eat, each family brings a contribution to share (a pot-luck). One of our elders has a big problem with using the "treasury" to purchase food for the congregation.

You said:

"The only time in Scripture I find a church eating a common meal as the church, it's condemned (I Corinthians 11:20-22), and they are told that they have houses to eat common meals in."

Would you consider the Lord's disciples who followed Him prior to the DBR the church? Or would you go for the more narrow definition of the established church post-Pentecost? If you would accept the former, passages like Matthew 9:10-12, Matthew 14:15-22, even the institution of the Lord's Supper shows the Lord engaging in a common meal with His disciples. I am just curious as to why His example of (even miraculously) feeding those He had just taught (sharing meals with His followers) is not to be followed?

Jesus spent so much time eating with His followers that He was wrongly accused of being a glutton & a drunk! As far as there being no other passages speaking of the church (post-Pentecost) sharing a common meal, there is Jude 1:12.

You know I wouldn't ask you to violate your conscience. I'm just wondering aloud about some things that I've never had the opportunity to discuss. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Corey

Not a problem. I'm glad to discuss it.

Again, the salient point: Is it a work of the church? I don't have a problem eating with other Christians. We have a group that semi-regularly goes out for lunch on Sundays. Many times, someone will invite the rest of the members over to their house for a potluck or party. Some Christian friends and I will occasionally have a "boys' night out" of dinner and a movie. And so on. This is all individual action, the same as that in Acts 2:46-47.

When we make it a work of the church, however, I can't find any authority for it. As I said before, the only text referring to the church coming together as the church to take a common meal is condemnatory.

No, I don't equate Jesus and the disciples with the church. Matthew 16:18 uses the future tense to show that the church universal was not yet in existence; it would be strange if a local church were when the universal church was not yet. At any rate, there is only one meal Jesus enjoins His followers to later take together, and it is the Lord's Supper. As I said, I don't object to sharing meals with other Christians; I just don't find this to be something the church collective is charged with doing.

You mention the "love feast" of Jude 1:12. It is, at best, unclear this is anything like a "fellowship meal." Many Protestant (and especially Methodist) commentators cite early writings as showing this equation, when these (Ignatius, Pliny the Younger, Clement of Alexandria) are to me indistinguishable from the Lord's Supper. Thus, I take the view that Jude refers to the Lord's Supper, when the church assembled and these men would have an opportunity to be "hidden reefs" in their observance.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Enter Your Comment


please enter the characters you see above

your name

your email (this won't be displayed)

subject

comments

September 2010
SMTWRFS
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

Categories

 • Site News [46]

 • Biblical Thoughts [139]

 • Other Sites [68]

 • In the News [70]

 • Technology [32]

 • Commentary [19]

 • Reviews [8]

Series

 • Fellowship [5]

 • Lessons in Trust [3]

 • Philippians [6]

 • Thanksgiving [25]

Recent Comments

 • Gardner on Differing views of the Bible

 • Chris on Monday thought for 3/15

 • Jeff Barnes on What is a "God fearer"?

 • Randy on What is a "God fearer"?

 • Jeff Barnes on What is a "God fearer"?

 • Randy on What is a "God fearer"?

Syndication: