To answer the question about what makes a healthy
fellowship, we have to look at what a fellowship is and what it should be.
An initial approach at this can draw from the etymology of
the word. There is the organization of a
fellowship and there is the relational experience of fellowship. Within the organization of fellowship, there
should be a relational experience of fellowship. When this is not the case, one could say that
the fellowship organization is not healthy.
On the other hand, some would say that the reason fellowship
organizations do not experience fellowship amongst themselves is due to either “the
sin of lovelessness or by the intrusion of heresy into the church.”[1] Among these, Masaki emphasizes that it is
actually harmful to maintain relational fellowship with those who are doctrinally
in serious error.[2]
Ziegler especially emphasizes that it is important to have the correct
understanding of the Gospel.[3] Nevertheless, Schultz does recognize “a
broader fellowship, based upon the existence of salvific faith in the triune
God.”[4]
However, these considerations are really looking at the Church,
both universal and local, rather than a specific organizational
fellowship. Therefore, the question then
becomes, “What is the relationship between a particular fellowship and the
Church, either universal or local?” An
organizational fellowship could be a local church, especially as a house
church. An organizational fellowship
could be a subgroup within a local church, such as age-based or
life-stage-based groups, which have their own goals but also work toward the
goals of the local church of which they are a part. As well, an organizational fellowship could
be a para-church organization, such as a student organization at a
university.
There is no clear biblical prohibition or commandment clearly
stating whether these fellowship groups must or must not be age-based or
life-stage-based, sociologically targeted or multi-cultural. Moreover, in this sense, there is a lot of
freedom on what one can do. And, in
these areas of freedom, we cannot say that one group is unhealthy because it is
age-based rather than life-stage-based.
There are usually good arguments for going one way or another. For example, Johnson emphasizes the value of building
friendships across generational barriers in the church.[5] Sometimes one way of doing things is not the
most effective. However, sometimes very
little effectiveness is the best that can be done. A lot of ideas can be helpful to increase
attendance or giving or create a more pleasant atmosphere, but we should
recognize their value as the extent to which they contribute to the purpose of
the Church.
Richard Foster argues that unhealthy traits affect a church
when the church becomes formal, focused on legality, in the larger Church
setting. He sees these negative traits
as occurring at the larger denominational level, where there is little or no
personal relationship with those who hold the opposing viewpoint. He refers to this as the Church as an
organization. His suggestion is to
emphasize the local church, small enough where everyone has personal
relationship with each other. In such a
context, disagreements are informal and consist of loving conversation with
personal friends and family. He refers to
this as the Church as an organism.[6] While I think that Foster overstates the
values of the local church, I must agree that he has a point about the kindness
that comes with personal relationship that is often clearly seen at the
local-church level and not as easily seen at the denominational level. This
does not necessarily mean that a small church equals a unified one. There is the saying that one Dutchman is a
theologian, two Dutchmen make a church, and three Dutchmen make a schism. Nevertheless, the kindness of personal
relationship, which avoids formal legality, reminds me of the truth of Proverbs
25:8, which says:
“Don't take a matter to court hastily. Otherwise, what will
you do afterward if your opponent humiliates you?” (HCSB)
[1] Naomichi Masaki, “Cultural
Differences and Church Fellowship: The Japan Lutheran Church as Case Study,” Concordia
Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 96.
[2] Ibid., 113.
[3] Roland F Ziegler, “Doctrinal
Unity and Church Fellowship,” Concordia Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014):
73.
[4] Klaus Detlev Schulz, “Fellowship
Issues and Missions,” Concordia Theol. Q. 70, no. 2 (2006): 185.
[5] Raymond Johnson, “Cross-Generational
Fellowship and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” J. Disciplesh. Fam. Minist.
3, no. 2 (2013): 87.
[6] Richard J. Foster, Celebration
of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth Special 20th Anniversary Edition,
2000 Hardcover (Harper SanFrancisco, 2000), 175–89.
