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?

What is fellowship? The English word appears eleven times in the New American Standard Bible and fourteen times in the King James Version. It can be thought of as sharing, community, or joining together. We might call it a partnership; in fact, the Greek word translated "partners" in Luke 5:10 is the same one usually translated "fellowship." What does it mean to have fellowship with someone? It means we're joined together in a partnership. It is a state. It is a relationship. It is mutual participation and sharing.

Furthermore, consider what I John 1:5-7 says about fellowship:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Fellowship begins in heaven. Fellowship with other Christians is the result of each being in fellowship with God. If both are in fellowship with God, they don't have the right to reject each other. If one is not in fellowship with God, the other has no right to accept the other into fellowship.

What is fellowship? It is the relationship two or more Christians share when both have a right relationship with God. Nothing more, nothing less. It is, in essence, what we are in Christ - brothers, sisters, fellow children of God.

As I stated in the last article on fellowship, scriptural fellowship on earth is the result of mutual fellowship with God. With whom am I in fellowship, then?

As we said, fellowship is an active state; it requires joint participation. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to have a partnership with someone who I don't even know exists. If I'm not associating with someone, how can I have fellowship with them? Thus, it's limited first by physical circumstances, to people with whom I come into contact.

It's further limited by that relationship with God. If someone is in fellowship with God, I have no right to deny association with them. If not, I have no right to extend it. It requires both parties be walking in the light.

What separates one from God? Sin. What is sin? Lawlessness (I John 3:4). It is violating God's will and law, either by omission or commission. When God says what He wants, it's our role as submissive servants to obey.

What is the Biblical pattern for the severing of fellowship? Simply put, there isn't one. The concept of "withdrawing fellowship" or "disfellowshipping" is a man-made doctrine. What we do is is "withdrawing ourselves" - which consists of a great deal more than ending spiritual ties. It includes:

• Taking special note of the disobedient (II Thessalonians 3:14; Romans 16:17)
• Refusing to associate with one in sin (I Corinthians 5:9; II Thessalonians 3:14)
• Keeping away from one who is unruly (II Thessalonians 3:6)
• Refusing to even eat with an erring Christian (I Corinthians 5:11)
• Refusing to receive the disobedient into your house (II John 9-10)
• Refusing to even give a greeting to a false teacher (II John 10-11)

We don't share spiritual fellowship with non-Christians, but we can share a meal or a handshake with them. Not so with the unrepentant, erring Christian. He is to be completely cut off, isolated, withdrawn from. Ties of fellowship end, but the scope of isolation is more than even that.

Christ said regarding the unrepentant brother, "... if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17). Yet at the same time, we must remember that, even in disobedience, he is still our brother (II Thessalonians 3:15) and that our goal is to restore him through this shaming of him (II Thessalonians 3:14).

Do we withdraw from someone who is walking disorderly in an instant? I've heard of one example (supposedly true, but could be apocryphal) where a man confronted another over a sin on Sunday morning with his two witnesses waiting in the car, ready to zip away to the meeting place to take it in front of the church minutes later.

When you place Paul's two letters to the Thessalonians side by side, something jumps out. First, look at I Thessalonians 5:14 (emphasis mine):

We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

Now, compare that to II Thessalonians 3:6:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

These passages suggest there is a time to admonish the unruly, but still to be patient with him. How long is it? The Lord doesn't say explicitly. Certainly, there was no more than a year or so between the two letters; this leads me to the inevitable belief such a time period is measured in months, at most, not years or decades as some have said. On the other hand, in I Corinthians 5, we see the congregation was condemned for tolerating the man who had a relationship with his father's wife; this seems to indicate that if our supposed forebearance is instead tolerance for sin, we have lost our way.

Either the erring brother must eventually return to the light or he must be withdrawn from. There's a time for rebuking, encouraging, studying, and teaching the erring - and then there's a time when you must conclude such a person is beyond the reach of such tactics and take action. My personal judgment is that the amount of time that should be allowed varies upon the individual and situation. In some cases of willful sinning, it becomes apparent quickly that the one in sin has no interest in returning to the right or that the presence of such a one ; in this case, I would advise swift action. In others, it may be more a matter of weakness or ignorance that seems to be able to be corrected with patient teaching, suggesting to me a longer period of forbearance.

Most of the divisions of the past century in the church have revolved around things done as a congregation. What about instrumental music? Missionary societies? So-called "fellowship halls" and kitchens at the meeting place? Church cooperation? All these things result from introducing innovations which the Bible does not explicitly forbid, but in which we do not see the first-century church engaging and which are unauthorized by God.

It is God's will we are to accept and follow, not our own, even when we may not understand or think we know of a better way than what we read about in the Scriptures. God has left us His will in the form of the New Testament, and we must take care that we don't go beyond it. He's given us work for the church to do collectively, but this doesn't include socializing, entertainment, and the like; all those are matters left to the individual rather than the church. In the same way, He has spelled out His plan for how the church is to accomplish its work, a plan which does not include pooling of resources, one church having pre-eminence over another, and the like. Substituting our will for God's leads to lawlessness - sin!

The sad thing to me is that even if these things could be shoehorned under "matters of opinion" (where God is indifferent) rather than "matters of faith" (where God cares), they would still be wrong under the principles of I Corinthians 8. In that passage, Paul enjoins the mature to even give up meat if it prevents his brother from stumbling. Surely, if we really love our brother, we won't try to force him into participating in something he regards as sin, will we?

Similarly, Romans 14 is sometimes used by the allegedly "strong" to browbeat the allegedly "weak" into allowing them to do whatever they want; however, they usually skip over the fact that chapter 14 talks explicitly about coercing others into conduct that would violate their conscience - and forbids it! Verse 21 clearly states, "It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles." So, even if such practices could be excused as opinions, they couldn't be excused when they cause division - something which we should remember when matters of communal action (ex: multiple offerings of the communion) come up.

In the end, all these things come down to putting one's own will and/or judgment ahead of God's while lacking love for man and God. Obviously, such divisive behavior should not be part of the Christian's life; sadly, it has been that way since the beginning. The Christian who wishes to be in fellowship with God (and thus with other faithful Christians) must take note and not fall into this trap.