UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP: DO WE NEED BETTER TERMS?

A few months back a forum was conducted at Freed-Hardeman College on the subject of unity and fellowship. In listening to the tapes of this forum it is evident that there are still a lot of hangups about what these terms mean. Several speakers used fellowship as if it meant approval or endorsement, such as “I cannot fellowship those who use instrumental music” and “Are we to fellowship premillenialists?” One wonders if such statements really mean I do not approve of instrumental music in worship and I do not believe in premillennialism.

Surely they cannot seriously argue that fellowship between believers is predicated upon complete agreement on all doctrinal issues. Those who so contend will find that they have differences among themselves over numerous matters related to the Bible, if they do any thinking at all. No two people, not even a man and his wife, will agree on everything! If fellowship is contingent on eye-to-eye unanimity of viewpoint, then who can be in fellowship? If differences are to be allowed (and they have to be allowed if there is to be any fellowship at all), who is to serve as arbiter in determining what differences will be made a “test” and which will not? May we have a pacifist and a militarist in the fellowship? Teetotalers and social drinkers? Voters and non-voters? Smokers and non-smokers? TV addicts and anti-TV addicts?

If complete agreement is necessary for fellowship, or even near complete agreement, why would the Scriptures impose upon us a loving and forbearing attitude in their plea for unity, as in Eph. 4:1-3. Those verses show that we are to “preserve the unity of the Spirit” by way of forbearing love. Forbearance has no meaning except in terms of our differences. I may believe that you are wrong or ignorant or stubborn, but I am to show that love that covers sins and that forbearance that reaches out and accepts you as you are, warts and all. If there is a place for forbearance in unity and fellowship, then there is a place for differences. A forbearing fellowship implies that those who are “right” and those who are “wrong” (each persuasion is convinced of course that the other side is wrong!) will be accepting of each other.

Is this not what Rom. 15:7 means? “Accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.” We all know that we were still wrong about a lot of things, and far from perfect, when Christ accepted us, with overflowing mercy and forgiveness. That kind of acceptance is “to the glory of God,” but when we come down hard on each other and demand conformity to our creed, it is to the glory of some party.

Another speaker at the Freed-Hardeman forum in a noble effort to be more accepting of “brothers in error” referred to different levels of fellowship. There is the big “F” Fellowship that embraces all those who are in Christ, and a small “f” fellowship that one has with those within his own smaller circle. And so he graciously accepts those in the Christian Church as within the big “F” Fellowship, for they too are part of the Body of Christ. But he withholds the small “f” fellowship because they use instruments of music.

This may be his way of saying that there can be fellowship without endorsement or approval. We can accept a woman because she is our sister in Christ without approving of all she may believe and practice. But in the light of Scripture it is risky to speak of various levels of fellowship, for there is but one “fellowship of the Spirit” and it is a relationship shared by all who are in Christ equally. I have no half-brothers or half-sisters in Christ, and no cousins or second cousins. We are all sisters and brothers in Christ, and “we were called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9).

Since fellowship is a relationship we share in Christ it can become richer and richer with the years and it can grow deeper and deeper. We may have a closer fellowship with some than with others, if for no other reason, because they are “there” and we are “here.” And in our walk together fellowship may sometimes be strained, for we can all be difficult to get along with. But still there is but one fellowship and we are all equal. As in a family where sisters and brothers sometimes quarrel and are closer to some than to others, so in Christ we are all called into the one fellowship as the family of God despite our diversities.

In listening to the Freed-Hardeman tapes I wondered if it would make a difference if each speaker was asked to strike unity and fellowship from his vocabulary and use other terms. There are so many hangup’s and bugaboos over these terms. Unity seems to conjure up notions of full endorsement and doctrinal conformity, and even “adding them to the church roll.” Fellowship becomes a matter of strict loyalty to “the issues” (which differ from party to party), and even if one is himself faithful to the issues he cannot be fellowshipped if he fellowships anyone who neglects the issues.

Some of these brethren, for example, will not appear on the same program with certain ones deemed disloyal. One couple’s application with an adoption agency was rejected because they attended an “anti” Church of Christ, even though they did not agree with its “noninstitutional” interpretation but simply liked the congregation. All this sort of thing in the name of fellowship!

If we called for a moratorium on these terms for a time and forced ourselves to use some synonym, it might change our thinking. If instead of unity we referred to oneness it might make a difference, and it might be a better translation, as our Lord’s prayer in John 17 indicates. Jesus prayed for oneness: “may they be one even as we are one.” We know that “oneness” in a marriage is between two very different people who are far from unanimity of viewpoint. And yet we know that a woman and a man are one because they are of “one heart and one soul” in what really matters. This should be our view of oneness in the church.

Or we might use acceptance instead of unity, that great word that we drew from Rom. 15:7. Let us forget the stereotypes about “unity” and simply obey the Scriptures and accept one another as Christ has accepted us. The brethren at Freed-Hardeman were critical of the “unity meetings” going on with Christian Churches, but if those gatherings were no more than an expression of a mutual acceptance of each other — as Christ accepted us — they might be less threatening. Since we claim to be loyal to Scripture, we are to be reminded that the Bible commands us to accept each other with differences and as equals. The context of Rom. 15:7 makes that clear. And herein is the measure of our sin against each other: We have rejected each other!

Using some term besides fellowship is no problem, for it may not be the best translation of the Greek koinonia. The New English Bible translators believed “the shared life” better catches the meaning, and so they render 1 Jn. 1:7 this way: “If we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, then we share together a common life.” The word fellowship never appears in this version, and it is surely for the better. Such passages as Acts 2:42 are clearer; “They met constantly to hear the apostles teach, and to share the common life, to break bread and to pray.” That is what koinonia (fellowship) really means, to share the common life.

We should be able to share life in Christ with all who sincerely seek to follow him. We can more easily forget about “tests of fellowship” when we think in terms of sharing a common life. I am ready to share that life with all disciples of Jesus, with all who respond to his invitation, “Come, follow me.” The only “tests” are a love for Christ and a sincere effort to be Christlike. All who “take up their cross and follow Christ” can and should share the common life.

As we share the common life together we will grow together, learn together, and make corrections together. And we do not have to wait for someone to reach our level of perfection before we accept him.

The beauty of Christian acceptance is that a person is accepted as he is without any effort to control him. He is allowed to think for himself and to grow in Christ according to his own uniqueness. We are not to make a person over into the likeness of our party creed. Since we are not his master and since “To his own master he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4), we do not have to serve as his judge. To accept fellow Christians without trying to control them! That is the need of the hour and only that will heal the wounds of division.

It may be that we have difficulty in accepting others because we have never really accepted ourselves, as we are. We thus create an artificial world, a world that never was, a phony world filled with phony people. When we by the grace of God accept ourselves as the sinners that we are, we are then ready to accept all God’s children as they are. — the Editor