The Road to San Antonio: Have We Forgotten the Meaning of Fellowship?

The Southern Baptist Convention will meet in San Antonio, TX, June 11-13. With the move in Southern Baptist life against those who believe that a private prayer language (PPL) is what is being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14, I have heard opponents of PPL say that they do not want to make the fact that they are excluding those who speak in tongues (PPL) from leadership and missionary service a test of fellowship. Their basic argument is that people who speak in tongues privately are welcome to stay in the SBC and send money to our Cooperative Program, but they cannot lead, serve, or participate in denominational life and missions. In other words, they are saying that they do not want to break fellowship, but they will not cooperate with them in ministry, planting churches, mission work, etc.

Here's a question: Is it possible to be in Biblical fellowship with people that you cannot cooperate with to do ministry? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Fellowship and cooperation go hand in hand. I wrote post about this a while back that I thought was generally one of the best posts ever written (judge for yourself HERE). It got a whopping four comments, so obviously, I was alone in my generous assessment. :)  Anyway, my basic point was that true Biblical fellowship costs us something. Look at Acts 2:42-48:

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The picture that we get here is that people were living life together and cooperating in everything. The English basis for the word fellowship comes from the idea of villagers putting in for half shares in a cow. If you own a cow together, I would say that you are cooperating on a pretty intense level, wouldn't you? The Old Testament perspective on fellowship is most notably seen through the idea of fellowship offerings before the Lord. We bring something to sacrifice to God to celebrate our close communion with Him.

In other words, fellowship costs us something. It happens when believers journey together toward a common goal. It happens because we are one in Christ and Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that He was sent by God (John 17:20-23). Our fellowship with one another occurs because we have fellowship with God through the shed blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Bringing us into fellowship with God and one another cost Jesus His life. How can we denigrate it over petty differences and interpretations?

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology has an article on fellowship on Crosswalk.com.  It describes koinonia, the Greek word from which we derive fellowship. Consider this:

General Background. In the colloquial Greek of the New Testament period, koinonia [koinwniva] was used in several ways. It was used of a business partnership, where two or more persons share the same business and are thus closely connected in work. Also it was used of marriage, of the shared life of two persons, a man and a woman, together. Further, it was sometimes used of a perceived relatedness to a god, such as Zeus. Finally, it was used to refer to the spirit of generous sharing in contrast to the spirit of selfish acquiring.

Much of the use of the word group? koinonia [koinwniva], koinonein [koinwnevw], and koinonos [koinwnov"] ?in the New Testament corresponds to general Greek usage. Thus the fellowship and sharing are religious or specifically Christian only if the context requires this meaning. For example, in ac 2:42 we encounter the word Koinonia [koinwniva] and read that the new converts continued in "the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship." Here it is a normal meaning adapted to Christian usage. Then the verb, koinonein [koinwnevw], is found in Hebrews 2:14 with an ordinary, general meaning: "children share flesh and blood." Likewise, koinonos [koinwnov"] occurs with the meaning of "partner" in Luke 5:10?" [James and John] ? Simon's partners. "

However, it is especially, but not solely, in the writings of the apostle Paul that the theological dimension of koinonia, [koinwniva] "fellowship/sharing/participation" is developed and clearly presented. Here the normal meanings of the words are transformed in service of the kingdom of God and as they identify a sharing in the communion of the blessed and Holy Trinity. That is, they point specifically to the supernatural life of God given to and shared with humankind through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. The emphasis of the New Testament is also on participation in something that is an objective reality rather than on an association with someone.

Theological Use. Perhaps the clearest theological use of koinonia [koinwniva] is in 1 John 1:3-6, where we read that when we walk in the light truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ and that this relation of grace has profound implications for daily living. For if we say that we have fellowship with God and walk in darkness, we lie! Here the basic meaning of "fellowship" is a real and practical sharing in eternal life with the Father and the Son.

Fellowship, sharing, marriage, and business partnerships go hand in hand. It implies cost and a joining of our lives together to move in the direction that God has called us. This type of closeness is what God had in mind when He brought us into fellowship with Himself and with one another. If we are one in Christ and we agree on the essentials of the faith, how can we say that agreement on non-essentials is NOT a test of FELLOWSHIP in one breath, and in the other breath say that we will NOT COOPERATE in fulfilling the Great Commission with those who do not agree with us on those non-essentials?

To be in fellowship means that we cooperate in God's mission. There are no second class Christians who are allowed to be in churches and give their money, yet are not allowed to participate in mission with the other believers if they are following God. That idea is foreign to the New Testament. Those who are wanting to exclude those who practice, believe in, or advocate a PPL from cooperation in missions and church planting must make their case that those people are heretics or are in deep, unrepentant sin and should be disfellowshiped. Anything less than that is not consistent and shows a lack of understanding of what biblical fellowship means. According to Scripture, the only thing that can bring disfellowship upon someone is blatant, unrepentant sin, or heresy. Other than that, we are expected to forgive one another, major on the majors, and work things out in love. In doing this, we show Jesus to be sent by God and we show the world that we are different and there is a supernatural power at work in us. The world believes that Jesus is real when believers who disagree on some issues, can put those issues aside to work together to accomplish God's purposes.

That is why I believe that the division that we are seeing over PPL is entirely unbiblical. It is why I believe that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 is a brilliant confession of faith in it's silence on this issue. Let's keep tertiary doctrines on the margins of our walk with the Lord and maintain the fellowship that Jesus died for. Let's continue to work together, even though we have some differences in minor points of theology and let's allow love to rule over all.

Why are we unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ? I call upon those who are proposing these restrictive requirements to at least be honest about the division that they are causing and the breaking of fellowship that they advocate. For, without cooperation in mission, fellowship is reduced to sipping punch in the "fellowship" hall. I believe that Jesus died for far more than that.

I pray that the convention in San Antonio from June 11-13 brings some clarity on where our true fellowship lies: In Christ alone. Will you pray with me?

Comments

[Guy Muse]

Very interesting post.

You write, "Here's a question: Is it possible to be in Biblical fellowship with people that you cannot cooperate with to do ministry? Isn't that a contradiction of terms?"

Recently we have addressed this issue amongst fellow missionaries serving in various countries in South America. While the whole ppl is not really that big of an issue with us, there are other doctrinal issues that are! I personally find it difficult to say out of one side of my mouth I am in fellowship with brothers in Christ from different denominational backgrounds, and yet out of the other side of my mouth refuse to work alongside them in ministry. How can we be part of the same family of God and yet refuse to cooperate in His Kingdom just because we have different views and convictions about debatable doctrinal issues. I could go on and on about this, but suffice it to say, I too find this kind of attitude quite contrary to my understanding of Biblical unity in Christ and the fellowship that must exist within the Body of Christ.

[Keith Lucas]

Alan,

I pray God will continue to give you a keen insight into the workings of the Holy Spirit. I admire your resolve and your heart for others. I cannot begin to understand all that God has done for me and will yet do for me so how can I not accept that He is able to do anything He desires in the lives of others. It is not up to me to decide but to believe in faith of the One who shows me grace and mercy and love. Nothing I deserve but He freely gives. Keep the faith and above all stay focused on Christ. He is the center. Thanks again for another excellant post that I believe is inspired by the Spirit. I love you brother.

[David Rogers]

Alan,

As much as I have been in agreement with what you have written on this topic up till now, I now, with a bit of trepidation, must say I see this particular side-issue from a bit different of an angle than that which you present it here.

If I am understanding you correctly, and also understanding correctly the whole thing about the "3 tiers" a la Albert Mohler, I hear you arguing here for basically a 2-tier system, with only the 1st tier and 3rd tier, not no 2nd tier. Basically, for all practical purposes, the obliteration of denominations. In an ideal world, that may be great, but in the situation in which we find ourselves today, after 2000 years of church history, I wonder to what extent it is either realistic or even beneficial (in light of the complications of making it work).

On various different occasions, I have written about this very question from one perspective or another. I know it is a lot to ask, and I completely understand if you don't have time. But, I believe if you, or anyone else, would take the time to go back through and read carefully through the following posts from "Love Each Stone," you would see why I am writing this.

In the meantime, please be assured of my total support and respect for you and your general approach to this issue. As I have indicated on various occasions, I have been amazed how similarly we think about this. The relevant posts can be found at:

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/04/souls-of-pickles-and-church-planting.html

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/unity-in-body-of-christ-and-unity-in.html (especially recommended)

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/milking-triage-even-further.html

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/getting-every-last-drop-out-of-triage.html

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/10/wayne-grudem-on-ministering-together.html

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/11/right-kind-of-unity.html

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/03/sbc-denomination-or-convention.html

[Alan Cross]

David, thank you for your comment and challenging me on this. One thing that I love about blogging is the opportunity that is provided for immediate critique and feedback on your ideas through the comment section. Let me use this comment to correct any misperception anyone might have by thinking that I am saying that we should not have denominations, or that Christian love cannot occur between denominations when cooperation on church planting is not possible. I guess that it seems that I am contradicting myself a bit from what I wrote in my post, but I was writing from a view within the SBC. In other words, I was assuming agreement on 1st and 2nd tier doctrines and saying that if you make a 3rd tier doctrine a test of cooperation, you are actually making it a test of fellowship as well, in that you are saying that we are no longer going to work with you, therefore we will not have fellowship with you in a biblical sense.

Perhaps I assumed too much and take full blame for a lack of clarity on that issue. You make excellent points. But, let me ask this: In building a separation between the ideas of fellowship between Christians of different denominations and cooperation between like minded Christians in mission work, are we creating a false dichotomy that is not seen in Scripture? I don't know how to answer the problems of denominations that differ on 2nd tier doctrines like the PCA and SBC, but still consider one another brothers. If we can't work together in ministry, do we truly have fellowship? Or, is it something else? Perhaps we love one another and hope for success for one another in their work, but we are not really in fellowship. Perhaps, we are to carve out areas where we CAN fellowship through agreements on what we are to focus on, but when it comes to local churches, we step away from that fellowship. Whatever happens between denominations, be can know that when a 3rd tier issue is made a test of cooperation, inevitably I believe that it also becomes a test of fellowship. This is evident in the many calls by proponents of the IMB guidelines for those who disagree to just go be a part of another denomination because they don't believe like Baptists. They are at least being consistent in making the inability to cooperate a test of fellowship as well.

Maybe there is a biblical imperative to labor until we work these things out so that we come to unity in the faith. But, that has not happened yet, obviously. So, no, I am not calling for the dissolution of denominational distinctives. But, I am saying that it is hard biblically to say that you have fellowship with someone in one breath, and then say that you can't work with them in the other. If so, then what does fellowship actually mean? I would propose that it means something a bit different than what the Bible says.

Thanks for making me think and trust me, I enjoy your challenge.

[Alan Cross]

David,

One other thing: Are you coming to San Antonio? If so, I would love to connect with you. I met you in Memphis with your mother last year, but it was brief and we had not engaged on the blogs at that point.

[Kyle]

Here's the (very real) question I've been deliberating over: is it possible to have fellowship with someone who refuses fellowship to other people with whom you believe you should be in fellowship?

[David Rogers]

Alan,

Thanks for your thoughtful interaction with me on this.

I see a parallel between this, and Paul and Barnabas, in their split over working with John Mark. Some may claim differently, but I have a hard time saying that Paul and Barnabas actually "broke fellowship" over this. I think they rather agreed to disagree, and work separately, for the overall good of the ministry, at least for a time. I know that later on Paul seems to have backed off of some of his strong views about not working with Mark. But, I think in the meantime, both Paul and Barnabas would have considered themselves to be "in fellowship" with one another.

When I have brought this example up to some on the other side of the PPL issue, they have responded something like: "Yeah, but their splitting ways was not over doctrine." Maybe not, but I think the general principle still holds. We must be fellowship or communion with all other true believers. But there are some, who, for pragmatic reasons, we can work with better than others. But, when we decide not to work with someone, we must be very careful to not pass the line into actually "breaking fellowship" with them at the same time.

In regard to your other question, no, I won't be able to make it to San Antonio this time. We are due to come home on Stateside Assignment in July. I would love to be able to get together with you sometime after that, though, if it is at all possible. Let's make a point to do it.

[David Rogers]

Alan,

Thanks for your thoughtful interaction with me on this.

I see a parallel between this, and Paul and Barnabas, in their split over working with John Mark. Some may claim differently, but I have a hard time saying that Paul and Barnabas actually "broke fellowship" over this. I think they rather agreed to disagree, and work separately, for the overall good of the ministry, at least for a time. I know that later on Paul seems to have backed off of some of his strong views about not working with Mark. But, I think in the meantime, both Paul and Barnabas would have considered themselves to be "in fellowship" with one another.

When I have brought this example up to some on the other side of the PPL issue, they have responded something like: "Yeah, but their splitting ways was not over doctrine." Maybe not, but I think the general principle still holds. We must be fellowship or communion with all other true believers. But there are some, who, for pragmatic reasons, we can work with better than others. But, when we decide not to work with someone, we must be very careful to not pass the line into actually "breaking fellowship" with them at the same time.

In regard to your other question, no, I won't be able to make it to San Antonio this time. We are due to come home on Stateside Assignment in July. I would love to be able to get together with you sometime after that, though, if it is at all possible. Let's make a point to do it.

[Alan Cross]

I see your point and you have given me a lot to think about. Thanks for challenging me on this, as it is causing me to think about it much deeper. I would have agreed with you completely before I did a study on this in March, because my perspective on being in fellowship was just that we considered another person a child of God and that we loved them and there were no relational problems between us. But, as I did my study, I began to see the idea of Christian fellowship as something more deliberate and intertwined than just being in the same room together or being nice to each other. That is what I see in the example of fellowship that we see in Acts 2:42-48 that I quoted earlier. I would not say that Paul and Barnabas did not consider each other brothers, but clearly they were not in "fellowship" when it came to working together on mission. Their sharp disagreement was big enough for them to go their separate ways and no longer journey together in the proclamation of the gospel. Did they hate one another? Did they consign each other to hell? Obviously not. I am sure that they both grieved over the loss of cooperation and God worked on Paul to accept John Mark at a later date. But, according to the example of fellowship in Acts 2, I would have to say that I don't think that Paul and Barnabas were in fellowship.

Just like on Robin's blog, maybe the issue is the definition of terms that we use. Again, thanks for challenging me on this. I guess that after really studying this, I have elevated the definition of fellowship to something akin to cooperation and intertwining our lives together. Maybe there is another word that I would use to describe Paul and Barnabas' relationship post John Mark besides fellowship. That is just what I am seeing right now.

And, by the way, if at all possible, I would love to get together with you.

[Alan Cross]

One other thing: Thank you for the links to the articles. I have not had a chance to read those yet, but I am sure that they will be enlightening when I do.

[Laura Hicks]

Alan,
I had an hour and a half conversation with a friend on unity just last night and the verse that we chewed on for a bit was in Ephesians 4. See below. As Christ-followers, we are called to be one and make every effort to keep unity. It is our calling to reach unity in the faith and yes it will cost us something. We have to keep coming back to the word, the truth, unity and fight for those things. They are worth fighting for.

Ephesians
4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

[Paul]

Alan, as always you have shown some great insight here. In reading your exchange with David I began to think somewhat of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church (not in the sense of corruption and what not, but in a practical street-level sense). I know we have a tendency to view the Catholic church as being very monolithic, and in some ways I'm sure it is. But for much of church history the Catholic church lived with a bit of doctrinal tension. Certainly there were things one might believe that would get him/her branded a heretic - and in those days might get him/her killed - though the Reformation was no better in that regard. But there were other things one might believe in which there was some liberty. Even today in the Catholic Church there are self-proclaimed "evangelical Catholics," charismatic Catholics, renewal-oriented Catholics, and yet there are still things that will get you branded a heretic and excommunicated.

I have a friend who is Episcopalian and they are similar in that regard. There are evangelical Episcopalians, reform-minded Episcopalians, moderate Episcopalians and liberal Episcopalians. OK, so maybe there isn't anyone they would deem a heretic. But when they talk about their denomination they call it the Anglican "Communion."

That's perhaps a long way of saying that there has to be something in between an "anything goes, all are welcome, even if you deny the gospel or Trinity or some such" position on the one end and a "my way or the highway, everyone must believe the same thing even on tertiary matters" position on the other. I used to think that Southern Baptists held that sort of middle ground, but we seem to be moving ever closer to the latter position year-by-year. Whatever the extent of the relationship between fellowship and cooperation, I believe we are well on our way toward losing a Biblical sense of both.

[Beth D]

You're using a language and referring to concepts I'm completely unfamiliar with ("tiers"? technical definition of "fellowship"?). I think sometimes simple things get taken too seriously and analyzed too much (I hear Gandalf in my head, "The dwarves delved too deep...") and this is especially tragic in non-doctrinal issues where God's in control. He's big enough to use all us pickle-heads. Anyway, you're the preacher, I'm the choir, I leave you with another version of Laura's (hi, Laura!) entry:

In light of all this, here's what I want you to do. While I'm locked up here, a prisoner for the Master, I want you to get out there and walk--better yet, run!-on the road God called you to travel. I don't want any of you sitting around on your hands. I don't want anyone strolling off, down some path that goes nowhere. And mark that you do this with humility and discipline--not in fits and starts, but steadily, pouring yourselves out for each other in acts of love, alert at noticing differences and quick at mending fences.

You were all called to travel on the same road and in the same direction, so stay together, both outwardly and inwardly. You have one Master, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who rules over all, works through all, and is present in all. Everything you are and think and do is permeated with Oneness.

But that doesn't mean you should all look and speak and act the same. Out of the generosity of Christ, each of us is given his own gift. Ephesians 4:1-something

[Alan Cross]

Beth, your first mistake was to actually try and look at this with logic and a clear head. How silly! I am talking about SBC POLITICS here! Nothing in it makes sense. Nothing about it involves much of anything that builds people up or actually propels the Kingdom. Soon, this will all be over with and we'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Lee]

Your observations regarding the nature of the Baptist Faith and Message as a remarkable document with regard to defining the parameters of cooperation is well taken. Understanding that perspectives change, and that even the strictest exegesis does not exclude conclusions which come from human origins, the BFM covers a lot of bases.

The only heresy that I see defined in the New Testament relates to the nature of Jesus as the Christ. From Peter's confession, recorded in Matthew 16, to Paul's defining of the gospel "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day," to John's statement that a "test" of the spirits involves the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the only real heresy in Christianity is denial of that fact.

What bothers me most about this whole issue is the thought that a doctrinal disagreement in the SBC can be solved by a simple majority vote of the convention. I'm particularly disturbed by those who think that the majority position of the SBC means that's the doctrinally correct position and that the consequence of falling on the minority side of the issue is that you become a "loser" who must either get in line and shut your mouth or exit without letting the door hit your rear on the way out. That's contrary to the original vision and purpose of the convention itself, which was to bring churches together at a level of cooperation that didn't interfere with their own independence and autonomy in doctrinal matters, but which allowed everyone to participate in cooperative missions. It's also contrary to the way the scripture teaches us to resolve differences as believers.

But you know, Alan, I really don't think this debate is over private prayer language. If it were, it would be easily resolved. It's about protecting personal kingdoms that have been built within the structure of the SBC. It's about who's in control.

[Paul Burleson]

What a refreshing, thoughtful, enjoyable, [add any good adjective] dialogue this is. I've been challenged by each comment and appreciate the whole process. Thanks Alan and all.