What Makes a Healthy Fellowship?

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.