Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
August 22, 1957
NUMBER 16, PAGE 4-4b

"Christian Fellowship" — A Review

George T. Jones, San Antonio, Texas

This is a review of an article appearing in the July 4 issue of the Gospel Advocate. The article was from the pen of Maurice Meredith. We hastily disclaim any personal for brother Meredith. We simply believe the piece under review did not teach the truth. We think the error it taught is of such grave nature as to demand reviewing. We even like the fact that our brother attempted to sustain his position by an appeal to the scriptures. However, he did misuse them and we earnestly believe his conclusion is in error.

The Issue

The subject is "Christian Fellowship" but our brother misses the point. Not only does he miss the point but he also shifts the discussion from the real issue. Those of our generation are witnessing a definite trend among the churches to go into the recreation or entertainment business. It does not require an alarmist to see this. Nor does one have to be particularly astute to detect it. Reports are more and more frequent of churches going to considerable expense to build recreational facilities. One church commonly known to be "On The March" is reported to have spent a sum in excess of 50,000 for a recreational building for high school students only. While the above may be a more liberal figure than most churches are using for such facilities, this movement to put the church in the recreation business is not "hidden under a bushel" and "it hath not been done in a corner." Churches have ball teams, encampments, recreational buildings, dining halls, etc. The treasuries of many churches are being used for these things.

Here is the issue: are such things the work of the church? Did the Lord authorize the church to engage in such activities? If He did, it will be simple enough to find it in the New Testament. When we want to show what the worship of the church is, we go to the New Testament. This is true of the work of the church; or, the church is not restrained from engaging in any legal or moral pursuit. Either the churches are restrained by Divine revelation from engaging in any unauthorized work, or else there is no moral or legitimate business under the sun in which they may not engage. So, what brethren who undertake to defend these practices are obligated to do is find New Testament authority for the church engaging in the recreation business. Instead of trying to delude by talking about "eating in the church house" or the "meetinghouse is not sacred," let them get to the issue and defend with the New Testament the practice of churches engaging in the entertainment business!

The article we have under review has subheads. To each of these, we shall pay our respects.

The first is Recreation In this our brother asserts the Lord believed in wholesome recreation. We learn that Christ was a mountain-climber! Hear him: "I find that on other occasions he found time in his epoch-packed life to climb mountains." The most charitable adjective we can think of for that statement is "asinine." He says he finds that Christ climbed mountains — for recreation, of course. Where did he find it? The New Testament reveals that Christ climbed mountains to pray, to teach, to heal, to be transfigured, but my New Testament is silent as to His "mountain-climbing" for recreation. No, it is not this writer's position that recreation is wrong. But it is pathetic when a gospel preacher will attempt to prove that the church should be in the recreation business by proving Christ a "mountain-climber." We are not denying the profitableness of wholesome recreation. That is not the issue.

Can Fellowship Include Recreation?

Under this subheading, the writer under review quotes Thayer's general definition of the word rendered "fellowship" in the New Testament. The definition is: "fellowship, association, community, joint participation, intercourse." He then proceeds to assume this broad definition of fellowship includes church-sponsored recreation, eating, etc. What our brother fails to take into consideration is Thayer's three-fold definition of koinonia. "1. the share which one has in anything, participation." Under this definition, Thayer lists fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1); fellowship of the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 3:10); fellowship with the blood and body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16); fellowship in ministering to the saints (2 Cor. 8:4); fellowship of the mystery (Eph. 3:9); and the fellowship of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 1:9). "As any honest mind will see" there is no use of the word fellowship here that will fit "our" social and recreation programs.

Notice, then, Thayer's second definition of fellowship. "2. intercourse, fellowship, intimacy: the right hand as the sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office), Gal. 2:9." Under this definition he lists the lack of communion or fellowship between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14). Then Thayer adds: "used of the intimate bond of fellowship which unites Christians." He cites Acts 2:42 and Phil. 1:5. Then he cites I Jno. 1:3,6, "of the fellowship of Christians with God and Christ." This is the definition of fellowship under which the church-sponsored recreation advocates will take refuge. But there is no comfort there. For Thayer further defines: "which fellowship, according to John's teaching, consists in the fact that Christians are partakers in common of same mind as God and Christ, and of the blessings arising therefrom." Our brother tells us that "fellowship includes those things done on the social realm, just as much as it does those things that are the work and worship of the church." But Thayer says Christian fellowship "consists in the fact that Christians are partakers in common of the same mind as God and Christ. Just what is peculiarly Christian about a game of ping-pong Is there something uniquely Christian about doughnuts and Coffee?

Thayer's third definition of fellowship is: "3. a benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution." He cites those passages in the New Testament dealing with contributions for poor saints. Surely, the church-sponsored recreation brethren will not try to get ping pong or doughnuts and coffee from this.

We are quite aware that the majority of the readers of brother Meredith's article and of our review have never consulted Thayer's Lexicon. We believe there are very many New Testament Christians who have been enjoying "Christian fellowship" for many years without trying to expand it to include what it does not. But when an authority such as Thayer is misused, we have no other course than to demonstrate the misapplication.

Furthermore, his statement makes these church-sponsored social and recreational programs essential. "Fellowship includes those things done in the social realm, just as much as it does things that are the work and worship of the church." The practices he is defending are just as essential to fellowship as the work and worship of the church are. Therefore, we are not at liberty to dispense with them. Every church must have its recreational hall, dining room and ping pong tables or it does not have all the ingredients of fellowship, according to our brother.

Our brother is in error again on the matter of fellowship. He thinks eating a common meal is "Christian fellowship" because Paul told the church at Corinth not to eat with disfellowshipped brethren. Read his statement: "The apostle Paul indicated that eating a meal with a brother was fellowship, and told Corinth not to eat with disfellowshipped brethren." It is true that Paul instructed the church not to eat with brethren guilty of certain sins. But just where did Paul indicate the eating of a common meal is fellowship Our brother errs in confusing fellowship with that which is a sign of fellowship. The Corinthians were not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. The refusal to eat with such would be proof of the absence of fellowship. Eating with the brethren would be proof of the presence of fellowship, but not the fellowship itself. "I need not belabor that point, as any honest mind will see it."

(More To Follow)