This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:
Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction
I have also had people ask me about cultivating fellowship in churches where leadership or members are ignorant of what fellowship actually is. There is no easy answer for this.
I spoke with one pastor about this recently who believed that it simply requires a couple or two to begin to affect a change in a church without biblical fellowship. I think that this is possible, of course, but I don’t think this is always going to be the case. I have seen churches where the leadership is not just ignorant of fellowship, but where their actions and words are actively (not maliciously, but through application in ignorance) thwarting fellowship in the church.
Obviously there are greater problems at work if the leadership is promoting a kind of “anti-fellowship”- where they themselves are gossiping, judging, shaming, being self-righteous or promoting their own image or pride. Where this is the case, I think the pastor(s) need to be approached humbly with some ideas on ways that the church can be improved in this area. A teachable pastor is going to look critically and carefully at these suggestions and hopefully will seek to implement them in ways that he sees fit.
Unfortunately, it may be likely that the pastor will reject these things - after all, it attacks his pride and his own view of his own authority, wisdom and importance. Some pastors are thoroughly convinced that they are actually performing a biblical function by engaging in and encouraging anti-fellowship. I have seen pastors stand on nothing but their own pride and authority before - even when scripture and reason have completely been abandoned. At this point, it may be best to shake the dust off your feet and move on - forgiving the pastor for being a human being, with the same kind of failings that you yourself have.
Aside from that scenario, reading a bible-based book together with a friend, another couple, or a small group is a good way to start. Most people won’t say no to this, and it enables you to begin to work together, sharing your thoughts about what you are reading and how you might apply this. I think this simple, no frills act can do amazing work in everything from a marriage to a small church.
Before we went to a church that taught and discipled us specifically in biblical fellowship - this is how we learned about it. My wife and I read books together, and also with our friends. Again, as long as the leadership is at least indifferent to this (most, I think, would be supportive) then this may very well start a positive move towards establishing fellowship.
On to Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You).
I think it is far too common of an experience for believers to be drawn to the Lord and left to flounder once they have accepted His free gift of salvation with no discipleship or worse, burdened by false discipleship in works righteousness and other strangeness.
I appreciate your balanced and Biblical stance on these issues… it looks like the way that fellowship was meant to be!
Peace of Christ be yours always
Again, I’m almost ashamed to admit that this fellowship concept is almost foreign to me. I don’t think I have ever been in a church (excepting a really large one maybe) where the pastor would reject someone’s idea to help foster fellowship, but I don’t know of anyone who understands the concept the way that it has been presented.
In a previous church I went to, a young man moved from a neighboring state to establish a missions outreach. He also expressed that he would like to start a young married couples group. Of course, he was free to do so and the pastor thought it was a good idea. I personally expressed my interest to him, not because I was really so keen on the idea. I just wanted to get to know him. Anyway, my wife and I joined the group, and that man’s wife almost drove me insane! She was always bossing her husband around and dictating everything. (Some people feel important in church if they are in charge of something.) Then everyone (which basically means her) decided to get some “materials”. You know, workbooks and all that. Of course, each couple got stuck with a bill we weren’t expecting.
For a few weeks after that, we followed along with the lessons and everything, and then people lost interest. From then on, we met occasionally, but we would just take turns cooking dinner and playing games. It was weak. We wasted money on the books and everything, which weren’t that great in my opinion anyway. I just thought I would edify everyone with that story.
Then another time, a crazy lady in the same church decided she wanted to start a women’s fellowship deal, where the older women would “mentor” the younger ones, which sounds good on the surface. But once again, this lady was crazy. And I’m not just saying that. One day she and her family drove to church and she wouldn’t go inside. Instead she walked around the campus near the church. She came in at the end of the service and told everyone how she had been walking around and telling God how she was mad at him because she had been praying about something for years and he hadn’t answered her prayer. Then one time we were having Thanksgiving dinner at the church and she and her daughter started kicking each other for fun! I’m serious. Anyway, so she started this women’s thing. My wife went a couple of times, but she didn’t like it because this lady was in charge and she was mentally unstable. She was teaching all kinds of unbiblical stuff and nobody put a stop to it.
This same woman had an idea to start a sign language ministry. Sounds like a good idea. She would interpret the sermon to people who couldn’t hear. We didn’t have any deaf people, but she knew sign language, and if we ever did have any deaf people she could communicate to them. Well, rather than getting any deaf people to come into the church, she just signed to all the hearing people. A few times when I was asked to speak, and she complained that I preached too fast. I’m thinking, “So what? Can’t you see there are no deaf people? Or maybe you’re blind. Or maybe you’re just plain crazy.” Of course, I was always polite, but that’s what I was thinking. I believe there is a place for everyone in the body of Christ - even the mental people - but I just don’t think they should be in charge of stuff, that’s all.
That sign language story is a great analogy of speaking in tongues… if no one can understand you, then why do it?
“That sign language story is a great analogy of speaking in tongues… if no one can understand you, then why do it?”
Good question. Thankfully the Bible has the answer, or more precisely, the answers. Paul dealt with this question at length.
“For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)
So the first reason is that it is a means of praying about things you otherwise wouldn’t be able to pray about because you don’t have knowledge about.
“He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4)
The second reason is that it is a means of personal spiritual edification, or building up.
“I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.” (1 Corinthians 14:5)
Paul said that he wished that everyone spoke with tongues, so it must have been of some spiritual benefit.
“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.” (1 Corinthians 14:14,15)
Praying and singing with tongues is a way of allowing your spirit to pray and sing praises to God.
“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
By most people’s standards, Paul was pretty fanatical about speaking in tongues. He did it more than anyone in the Corinthian church. But he was clear that, in the church, the focus should be on edifying the whole church body. So he instructed people not to speak with tongues in the worship service without interpretation. So yes, without interpretation, speaking to the whole church in tongues would be like this lady signing to people who didn’t know sign language. Except for the fact that they could hear and understand the language that was being spoken.
Apart from the doctrine that Paul laid out about tongues, there are some other things we can learn from the book of Acts. First, speaking with tongues was the initial evidence that believers had been filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). The only reason the Jewish believers accepted that the Gentiles had actually been saved was basically because Peter’s testimony that the Holy Spirit had fallen on them and they spoke with tongues (Acts 11). When the Samarians had been saved, the disciples called for Peter and John, who prayed for them that they would also have this experience (Acts 8:15-17). Sure, they received the Holy Spirit when they were born of the Spirit, but they had not yet received the power that John the Baptist and Jesus had spoken about.
I could go on, but I don’t want to distract people from Colin’s article. But basically, Darius, if you haven’t received the power of the Spirit that is evidenced by speaking with other tongues, I would seek God about it. I have lived about half of my life without this experience and half of my life with it, and I can tell you that it makes all the difference in the world. Jesus never intended for us to live the Christian life apart from this supernatural ability.
I think the biggest thing we fail to do for a hurting church is to pray for it. The pillars of a church are prayer and meditating on Scripture, and if we fail to maintain either the church will not be what it ought to be. I’m not just talking about praying for the needs of attenders, though that’s part of it, but also praying for the ministries, the hearts, the students. I’m talking praying alone, in pairs, and in groups for our churches. Prayer is what a dying church needs most.
On the action side, start your own “small groups” as described by Colin, and then FORK them. I’d suggest starting with four committed people and forking at 8 committed people. Keep expanding until these groups comprise the vast majority of church membership, then require that a person be recommended by such a group to BECOME a member. Church membership should be about being integrated into the local body, and submitting to the authority of church leaders.
Ideally, these groups should cross boundaries between “churches”, and be about the meeting of believers to fellowship. Preferably, people should be involved in several such groups. The body of Christ is about the global body, and any “local church” that cuts itself off from this body is as guilty of forsaking the fellowship as a family or individual who stops going to church. We form smaller groupings to get things done, but these groups should never forget that they are part of a larger global team for the glory of Christ.
“I think the biggest thing we fail to do for a hurting church is to pray for it. The pillars of a church are prayer and meditating on Scripture, and if we fail to maintain either the church will not be what it ought to be. I’m not just talking about praying for the needs of attenders, though that’s part of it, but also praying for the ministries, the hearts, the students. I’m talking praying alone, in pairs, and in groups for our churches. Prayer is what a dying church needs most.”
So true.
“Keep expanding until these groups comprise the vast majority of church membership, then require that a person be recommended by such a group to BECOME a member. Church membership should be about being integrated into the local body, and submitting to the authority of church leaders.”
Good thought. I honestly never really considered official church membership to be that important. Because I always thought, “What does that mean really?”
At my previous church, I was there three years and never became a member, although I made a significant contribution to the ministry. For that church, and many others in that denomination, the democratic process of voting, etc. is a key emphasis of membership. When I started getting involved there, the Holy Spirit expressly told me not to be involved with anything administrative. I never participated in their church business meetings or any of that. Anytime anyone asked me about what I thought about decisions that were made, I wouldn’t discuss it.
But I think if church membership really meant being a member of something, it would logically include these intimate groups. It seems that it would add so much more to the accountability factor. It would be a lot harder for people to disconnect without being noticed, and would actually give them an actual sense of belonging.
Chris A said, “Darius, if you haven’t received the power of the Spirit that is evidenced by speaking with other tongues, I would seek God about it. I have lived about half of my life without this experience and half of my life with it, and I can tell you that it makes all the difference in the world. Jesus never intended for us to live the Christian life apart from this supernatural ability.”
Chris, I must take exception to your instructions to Darius. It seems to me you are telling Darius to do something Paul would not do because speaking in tongues is not given to everyone.
First of all, I Cor 12 says there are many gifts, and not everyone has all of them:
I Cor 12:9-11 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
Second, the whole rest of chapter 12 is the familiar “one body made of many separate parts” discourse. The point of that is that we are all in this together, but we don’t all have the same gifts to serve the rest of us. What would a body look like (and more importantly, how would it function) if everyone were a left elbow and nobody was an ear, or nose. In the context of spiritual gifts both before and after this discourse, it seems to me Paul is saying not every member of the body of Christ is going to be a prophet, not everybody is going to speak in tongues, not everybody is going to interpret because a body needs all it different and very distinct parts in order to work. We are wrong to envy a different part of the body and it would seem by analogy that it would be wrong to tell a different part of the body that they need to be the same as us. (BTW, even apart from the topic of tongues, this is a very powerful section of scripture, on so many levels.)
Third, Paul just openly says not everyone is going to speak in tongues (he says that about each of the spiritual gifts).
I Cor 12:28-30 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret?
The implied answer to his rhetorical question is “No.”
Fourth, and maybe this is a lesser point, while tongues is clearly one of the spiritual gifts, (and shouldn’t be forbidden I Cor. 14:39) it sure seems to be one of the lesser ones, and one of the ones most misused, for Paul to devote so much ink to to curbing abuses associated with speaking in tongues.
And last, another minor point, I don’t think the event in Acts 2 is at all the same as I Cor. The “tongues” in Acts 2 were real, human, natural languages with names which the different ethnic communities understood without interpretation–quite different from what is described in I Cor. Yes, there was a miracle going on there, but it wasn’t speaking in heavenly tongues.
What Thainamu said… I have no problem with tongues, but I have a huge problem with churches that emphasize them, since Paul clearly said that they are worthless without more important characteristics of the Christian life. And I have a big problem with churches that break out into “tongues” without any interpretation… that’s explicitly unbiblical.
Well, you guys have brought up some interesting points. It’s hard for me to address them without writing an entire article, but I’ll try. First of all, I’m going to sound like a broken record and say “context, context, context.” Let’s start with I Cor 12:28-30:
“And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”
What is the subject here? Ministries, right? These are specific ministries that God has set in the church - apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. The tongues Paul is speaking of in this context specifically is a ministry of tongues to be used in conjunction with interpretation of tongues, which is equal to prophecy. Obviously not every Christian has a ministry of this. But that doesn’t mean that every Christian cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak with tongues. Remember Acts 2:4 says,
“ALL OF THEM were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”
Does this mean they all had a ministry of tongues? Obviously not. But all of them spoke with tongues. Then also remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:5.
“I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE OF YOU TO SPEAK IN TONGUES, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.”
Now, this should be interpreted in light of what he said in the previous verse, verse 4:
“He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.”
So he was contrasting the personal edification that comes with speaking in tongues with the corporate edification of prophecy or tongues with interpretation. Both are important, but in the context of worship, prophetic utterances have preeminence because the emphasis is to be on the spiritual building up of the entire group. What we don’t want to do is interpret the scriptures in such a way that we find Paul contradicting himself, since that is clearly not the case.
“And last, another minor point, I don’t think the event in Acts 2 is at all the same as I Cor. The ‘tongues’ in Acts 2 were real, human, natural languages with names which the different ethnic communities understood without interpretation–quite different from what is described in I Cor. Yes, there was a miracle going on there, but it wasn’t speaking in heavenly tongues.”
Well, I see two possibilities here. Either there was a miracle in the hearing or there was a miracle in the speaking. I tend to agree with you that it was probably in the speaking. And yes, if this were the case, they were speaking the languages of men rather than the languages of angels, but in either case the Spirit provided the utterance, and that is consistent with all spiritual manifestations of tongues.
I have heard many stories of people, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaking languages unknown to them when they were filled with the Spirit. Some of the more remarkable testimonies I have heard are of American missionaries who were in foreign fields. Sometimes when the natives are baptized in the Spirit, they will literally be giving words of encouragement to the missionaries in the English tongue. Of course, the natives have no idea what they are saying.
Personally I have spoken both with the languages of men and angels. How do I know? Well, usually when I began to speak with languages of men, I just become conscious of it in my spirit. Once I was at a prayer meeting and many of us were praying in other tongues. (This is not out of order in the context of a prayer meeting with other believers who understand what’s going on. In other words, this isn’t in the same worship context that Paul was referring to.) Anyway, afterward I was told by one of my Ethiopian friends that her friend (who was also Ethiopian) heard me say “Pray to the Lord! Pray to the Lord!” in Amharic. I didn’t even know there was a language called Amharic.
“What Thainamu said… I have no problem with tongues, but I have a huge problem with churches that emphasize them, since Paul clearly said that they are worthless without more important characteristics of the Christian life.”
Well, evidently Paul placed a great emphasis on tongues in his personal life, so I don’t see how it could be wrong if churches do. He said he spoke with tongues more than anybody at Corinth. Obviously everything should be kept in perspective and balance, and yes they are worthless without God’s love. But acts of charity and everything else is worthless by the same standard.
I can relate to people who are apprehensive about tongues. I grew up Baptist, and somehow I was afraid of tongues. I can’t remember anyone literally teaching me against it, but somehow I thought it was really weird and something to stay away from. That is, until I was exposed to the power of the Holy Spirit and actually read the Bible. Since being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues, I’ve seen all the abuses that Paul warned against, but I wouldn’t let them keep me from the blessing I have as a result of being able to be supernaturally edified by the Holy Spirit.
Sometimes I minister by tongues and interpretation of tongues in the public assembly, but more often than not I am speaking with tongues as a means of prayer. And ever since I have it has opened up a whole new realm of spiritual consciousness that I had not experienced before.
I am smart enough to know that I can’t naturally convince people that this blessing is something God wants them to have, because as long as we are in the realm of reason the carnal mind will extinguish the fire of the Holy Ghost every time. What I would ask people to do is to search the scriptures and ask God about it personally. If they are content to live without the supernatural power promised to all people the Lord calls (Acts 2:39), then that’s between them and God. But if you want it, I believe you can have it. Its a free gift.
What I meant that churches overemphasize tongues is what Paul said in 1 Cor. 13: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal… Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.”
The fruits of the Spirit are infinitely more important than tongues or prophesy, since they are IMPERFECT and will pass away (and in many ways, already have). “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
Paul also said that “in the church [he] would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
Yeah, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that the fruit of the spirit is more important than tongues. But we have to realize that we shouldn’t put them against each other like they are opposites or something. That’s like saying, “Water is more important than food, so I’ll just stick with water…thank you very much.” Both the fruit of the spirit and tongues are from God, and because they are gifts that come from him, they should all be prized. I don’t think that passage in 1 Corinthians is dealing with an overemphasis of tongues, so much as it is dealing with an underemphasis of God’s love.
I don’t know what you mean when you say “in many ways” tongues have already passed away. “Christians” have sought to rid the church of them (against the clear command of God), but that doesn’t invalidate them in the eyes of God. They came from Him and they have not passed away any more than our present knowledge has passed away. How do I know that? Because perfection has not come yet. It will not come until Jesus returns, and then tongues, prophecies, and knowledge will no longer be necessary. If we read the scripture that follows the passage you quoted in 1 Corinthians 13, we get a clearer picture of what is meant by “imperfect” and “perfect”. Let’s not stop at verse 10.
“11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
Do we yet have full knowledge, such that we know as we are fully known? Obviously not. This is speaking of a time of perfection yet to come.
“Paul also said that ‘in the church [he] would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.’”
Yeah, Paul said that speaking of the context of a worship service; hence the phrase, “in the church”. Because, again, the emphasis of worship is on the edification of the whole body, not just the individual. But that doesn’t cancel out the benefit of the individual you uses tongues in private devotion to God, nor does it nullify interpretation of tongues, which can be used to communicate the truth of what is first said in tongues and then interpreted in a language known to the hearer.
“…you uses tongues in private devotion to God.”
Umm….”who” actually, not “you”.
I fully agree with your view regarding the lack of meaning of “membership” in typical American churches. The church I went to as a small child actually had a better usage, and that was the understanding that membership was an intentional commitment to the ministry of the church. You were welcome to attend, worship, and participate as much as you liked without becoming a member. However, to become a member you were expected to intentionally make yourself accountable to the church leadership, attend 3 services at the church weekly, and to be actively involved in some ministry. The “members” were the leaders who prayed over the church and served. I also think this is a better group to have affirming the elders God has chosen and acting to keep these elders accountable to God.
I really don’t like the concentric circle method my church used to profile the world. They have “community”, “crowd”, “congregation”, and “core”. Each is about how committed the person is to our church (lives close, visits, member, leader) with no clear correlation to how close the person is to God or what service they engage in. I eventually became a member because it was a pre-requisite for many ministries, apparently people from other churches or who don’t feel comfortable being listed as a “member” aren’t allowed to help us serve God.
I asked many times in the 18 months I wasn’t a member what expectations the church demanded of its members, and never did get a clear answer. Apparently its just about having your name put on the list. I think when a large portion of your “members” don’t even attend regularly, you have lost meaning in the word “member”.
“I really don’t like the concentric circle method my church used to profile the world. They have “community”, “crowd”, “congregation”, and “core”. Each is about how committed the person is to our church (lives close, visits, member, leader) with no clear correlation to how close the person is to God or what service they engage in.”
Yeah, I don’t like that either. That’s the perfect way of describing it too.
In our church the only prerequisite for becoming a member is that “you must be born again.” I understand that on one level, but if we are talking about forming a community, that’s actually kind of weak.