Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO 63080
Date: December 12, 2004
FELLOWSHIP MEALS AND THE FAMILY OF GOD
Ben Justice
“Fellowship” is truly one of the most beautiful words in Holy writ. Although there are many different Greek
words translated “fellowship” in the NT, the most common is koinonia. This word is indeed a very rich term.
Its basic meaning is, “joint-participation (cooperation).” The beauty of ‘Fellowship” among Christians is seen
in a variety of ways. It is seen in our evangelist efforts (see 3 John 5-8; Phil. 1:1-5; 4:14-18) edification
efforts (see I Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1; I Thess. 3:1-2) and benevolent efforts (see 2 Cor. 8:1-4; Rom. 15:26-27; 2
Cor. 8:23). “Fellowship” is also seen in our worship together (see I Cor. 10:16-17; Acts 2:42; Rom. 15:26; Eph.
5:19; Col. 3:16; Acts 20:7). Of course, the greatest fellowship of all is with the Godhead three (see Matt. 28:
19).
How do “fellowship meals” relate to “fellowship,” as the NT defines and uses that word? Certainly, whenever
Christians come together for a meal, there is “fellowship.” In other words, there is that “joint-participation
and cooperation” with one another. With that said, however, let us recognize that Biblical fellowship is
spiritual in nature — not physical. We must keep in mind as well that Christians are already in fellowship
with one another before eating a meal together. Some brethren do not like calling the eating of meals with
other Christians as “fellowship meals.” I can certainly understand the arguments they make in this regard.
However, terming it “fellowship meals,” I believe, can be used accomodatively. But, let us never limit or just
see “fellowship” as socializing and pleasure, for fellowship, as set forth in the Word of God, is spiritual in
nature, as is seen in our work and worship together.
It is a real shame that many brethren do not take advantage of being with those of like precious faith (cf. 2
Pet. 1:1). Our best friends in the whole wide world should be Christians — for it is Christians who help us
and encourage us to be better Christians. In fact, one of the purposes of the local church is to help each
other get to heaven. When we consider the fact that Jesus taught that one’s spiritual family (the church) is
even greater than one’s physical family (see Matt. 10:37; 19:29), then one should long to be with the family of
God. Just as most people long to be with their physical family (and rightly so), how much more so should
they long to be with the family of God! Certainly, there is nothing wrong with having friends who are non-
Christians, but we must remember that those of the world do not have the same heavenly aspirations as we,
do not hold to the same truths and doctrines that we hold to, and many times engage in immoral practices (e.
g., dress immodestly, use profanity, dance, smoke, or social drink). Who can better help us to make it in this
difficult and sinful world than Christians!? Let us always take advantage in being with our brothers and
sisters in Christ. Now, back to the issue of fellowship meals. Note the following couple of points:
1.) “Fellowship” is not a work of the church. Rather, “fellowship” is a relationship that we sustain with
one another based on who we are — brothers and sisters in Christ (cf. I John 1:3). We are the family of God,
and it is that spiritual fellowship that binds us together. First century brethren came together with one
another. They even came together to eat. These were commonly known as “love feasts” (Jude 12 says “feasts
of charity). This would be equivalent to our “pot-lucks” or “fellowship meals.” Some brethren have the
erroneous concept that “fellowship” is a work of the church, and because they see socializing and pleasure-
oriented activities as “fellowship,” then we, therefore, have authority to erect so-called “Family-Life Centers”
(gymnasiums and recreational facilities) in which to have “fellowship.” True, Christians can “fellowship” in
these things, but again, “fellowship” is not a work of the church, but a relationship. Could the church build a
mall in which Christians come together to fellowship? Even though fellowship is not a work of the church,
still brethren ought to take advantage in being with other brethren, be it at the church building in having a
pot-luck, in some one’s home, or at a ballgame. It is always a great thing when those of like precious faith
can be together. This was truly one of the distinct things the early Christians had with one another (see Acts
2:44; 4:32).
2.) Even though “fellowship” is not a work of the church, “fellowship” can certainly enhance the
closeness and the unity in the church. And, when a group of people has a real closeness and unity, then
they are more apt to work. Think about it. If the family of God never comes together for socialization and
fellowship, then that can have a negative impact upon the overall work of the church. Even the physical
things in life are sometimes connected with the spiritual. Common sense says that being with one’s fleshly
family helps the overall function of the home. The same is true with the family of God. The Devil would like
nothing more than for brethren to never take advantage of opportunities to be with one another. He knows
that such will eventually erode the closeness and togetherness of the church, which will weaken the overall
vitality of the church.
A “COMMITTEE MINDED” CHURCH
Ben Justice
A common phenomenon that we currently are seeing in the church is that of “committees.” I once attend a
congregation where the elders seemed to be very “committee minded.” It was “committee this” and
“committee that.” Of course, the very first question that we must always ask ourselves is, “Does the NT
authorize such?” This all depends on how one defines “committee” and what the committee will be used and
set up for. Let’s approach this issue from a negative and positive standpoint.
NEGATIVELY
There is simply no biblical authority to set up some kind of permanent “committee” to do the work that God
has assigned to “elders.” The pattern given in the NT is that every local congregation has a plurality of elders
(see Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). These elders (and the elders only) have the authority to make the expedient
decisions in carrying out the work of the church (see Heb. 13:17; I Pet. 5:1-2; Acts 20:28). We also read about
“deacons” in the NT (see Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8ff). “Deacons” are to “serve,” for the very name “deacon” (from
diakonos) means “servant.” They are to “serve” the elders in carrying out the work of the church, operating
under their (the elders’) authority. Also, the NT authorizes that an evangelist work with the local
congregation (I & II Timothy & Titus). This is the government of the local church. Nowhere do we read about
another office in the church, such as a “committee.” All that we read about are “elders” and “deacons.”
Question: “Is God’s way not good enough, or do brethren believe that it needs to be improved upon?”
Apparently, many are opting for the latter. There is no NT authority for another office in the church other
than elders and deacons. If the church can set up another office (such as a committee), then why not 2 more
offices, and then 4 and then 8? God’s pattern for elders and deacons in every local congregation is perfect
and can’t be improved upon. When elders start doing this sort of thing, it shows a dereliction of duty. It is
forsaking the work that God has given them and pawning if off to other people — not the mention the
forsaking of the NT pattern! If elders would take their responsibilities seriously and give work for deacons to
do, then we would not have the problems we are currently experiencing in the church today.
POSITIVELY
In Acts 6:1-7, a need arose in the Jerusalem church. Verse 1 tells us that “their widows were neglected in the
daily ministration.” As the account reveals, the apostles instructed the brethren to “look ye out among you seven
men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business” (v. 3). This is
exactly what the brethren did (v. 5-6). Some brethren have supposed these were the first deacons. I
disagree. Nowhere are these men termed “deacons.” Besides, the qualifications for these men are different
than the qualifications given for “deacons” in I Tim. 3:8ff. Here was simply a group of people to carry out a
specific task. I guess we could call this the “widow committee.” However, such was not a permanent office in
the church. And, therein lies the important distinction.