OT - question regarding fellowship

[Diannecp]

I have a very dear friend who recently told me she is struggling with fellowshipping more with people from their church. I guess they are in a leadership group there and basically they were encouraged that their deepest relationships should be within the church. I guess she is having a hard time with this, and frankly I am too. I know she wants to be obedient but do you think it's proper for a church to say something like that? Don't relationships grow naturally?

I'm not upset with her but just sad I guess. Any thoughts on this?

[DrRita]

Sounds like a controlling issue within the church leadership. It's an oft used tactic to isolate leaders (and members) from the outside so they will be totally dependant upon the church for thier life. She needs to seriously question the reasoning behind this "encouragement" from their church leadership. It doesn't sound good.

[wgjones3]

I hate to bring up the 'C' word, but if it looks like a cult and acts like a cult...

I'll put it this way and leave it at that--every church I've ever attended where this attitude existed (which is 4--3 Baptist and a Charasmatic), the leadership was rife with sin and paranoid. In my experience, it starts out with the leadership saying that they're promoting this attitude only to strengthen the faith of the flock; it ends up with witch hunts and a lot of spiritually abused people walking away from the church, some from the faith altogether. And, as the evangelist at my current church said last night, there's gonna be hell to pay when people who abuse their authority in the name of Christ come face to face with His Daddy.

Anyway, the only thing you can do is pray and wait for God. People have to wake up for themselves; trying to open their eyes will only cause problems. Only God can do that. And if you stay supportive of your friend and follow God's lead, then when her eyes are opened, she won't feel suspect of you or your motives.

By the way, I think if you really look at scripture, Jesus and the apostles socialized with the "world" in order to draw people to the Truth. You cannot do that if your social sphere begins and ends at the front doors of a church. Which is why this idea of only fellowshipping with people from one church is a big red flag for me. But like I said, this is all my personal opinion on the subject.

[waterfallbooks]

I agree that your closest friendships should be in the church - Christ's church. The body of Christ is so much bigger than what building you happen to visit on Sundays.

That aside, I think it's healthy for leadership to have deep friends outside of the church or group, to give them a better perspective so the church doesn't fall into a rut.

Cultlike? It depends on how serious the "encouragement" was and the motive behind it. If they were just trying to promote keeping your deepest friendships reserved for Christians and it came out the wrong way, fine. Or if they were trying to encourage the leadership to be better friends. But exclusiveness is wrong.

[Diannecp]

I too agree that our most meaningful relationships ought to be within the body of Christ. I think it's good for us to make new friends within our own churches but I don't see how you can just walk away from other friendships with believers, if they are edifying.

I just think it's odd. My take on friendships . . . if it's meant to be, it's meant to be. You can't force a relationship with people. I think my friend is struggling with this also. I just spent some time in prayer at lunch and gave the whole thing to God.

[Hisart]

Jesus is a friend that is closer than a brother, He is to be your closest friend.

Beyond that, the Bible says not to be unequally yoked in any covenant. Friendship is a covenant.

Now as far as limiting that friendship to within a certain building, no. We are the church, we are the body. One of my closest friends, I've never met face to face. He's my friend and a brother in the Lord (he's in the church body) he just lives in another state.

I have friends outside the church, but their access to my heart is limited. Like Jesus there were circles or levels of friendship - the multitudes, the followers, the one-hundred and twenty, the twelve, and the three (Peter, James and John). We all have circles that get closer and closer. My worldly friends can't get all the way in, they work for the other guy. Now I love them, but can't trust them.

As far as the leadership thing... pray. It does sound like someone in leadership has some issues. Pray first and ask God for wisdom, then again He might have just given it to you. ;)

God Bless!
Hisart (http://www.Hisart.us):cool:

[MsSherry]

I think that is important to have friendships with "non-believers" as well. Jesus spent time with them, so should we. If we aren't their friend first, why would they even want to listen to us tell them about Jesus? If we are friends only with people in the Church, the Church may never grow. I'm not saying we need to do everything they do by any means, but we do need to treat everyone with kindness and love.

Ok, off that soap box and back on topic. I would agree with WG. Unfortunately, when anyone tries to tell you who to associate with, to the exclusion of others, it reeks of a control issue which makes me wonder about the agenda of this particular church. When you try to control others in this way, it's like telling them that they have no common sense and are unable to make decisions for themselves. I would tell her to be wary, but I wouldn't force the issue. Forcing the issue may make her angry at you.

That's just my $.02. Probably worth less than that though-lol. :D

I could be way off base, and maybe she just misunderstood the context of what she was told, or even the person who said it could have stated it in a way that wasn't exactly the meaning he had in mind.

[Diannecp]

You're right Sherry . . . and that's what I"m hoping - that this was a misunderstanding between the leadership and my friend.

I agree with you too that we need to cultivate relationships with non-believers. But those kind of friiendships are different, if you know what I mean. At least for starters. Those are "reaching out relationships" - which we all need to be working on.

Thanks for the thoughts & encouragement. I was in one of those controlling churches before and I hope and pray this is not headed in that direction.

[David Meigs]

The only reason I can fathom following such logic is in the case of fellowship with someone who rebelled while under church discipline. I’m sure that is not the case here, so here’s my curmudgeonly advice: If you visit, don’t drink the Kool-aid. :eek:


Curm

[paulchernoch]

I believe that there are legitimate expectations that a church can have that members make some effort to cultivate at least some strong friendships with other members of that church. When in college, I joined a service fraternity whose motto is "Leadership, Friendship, Service". The goal was to serve the community as effectively as possible. To do so requires capable leadership, but rather than always turning to the experienced type-A people, care was taken to assign leadership roles to the person viewed as most likely to be able to do a reasonable job AND learn from the experience, i.e. gain further leadership ability. After a short time in the fraternity, ALL members had had some kind of leadership role. Absolutely essential to fostering a productive endeavor were strong bonds of friendship among the members.

The church of Jesus Christ is like my old fraternity. We have a collective mission of service to render, we each have individual responsibilities (leadership) that we need help to develop, and to be effective and to enjoy the work, we need friends. I believe that all leaders in a church have an obligation to fellowship with their fellow leaders at least to the extent that is demanded by the work, and hopefully to the extent that the Apostle Paul expressed when he talked of sharing not only the gospel but his life with the churches he helped to start.

This fellowship cannot be forced, but if it is possible for someone to recognize a calling to missions, or the pastorate, or christian ed, then they should also be able to recognize the calling to be a community without which their vocation cannot possibly be fulfilled.

A baptist church I attend from time to time has this as their purpose statement:
"Our purpose is to be a community of believers in Jesus Christ that worships God and enables one another, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to glorify God and expand his kingdom."

I think that about sums it up.

- Paul

[Storge]

I agree with Paul's comments -- one distinction I would add to the discussion: Most believers recognize that it is important to have friendships with other believers, but I also find that it is popular today for people to meet their need for community without committing to a local church. We recognize the universal Church, and everyone knows that Christian community should extend to the broader Christian community, but it is also essential for personal spiritual growth that there be a committment and investment (I am not talking about money) in a local body. The universal church is real, but it is only in the local church that we find the accountability, opportunities for service, and regular contact we need...I am not saying I agree with this church's comments -- truthfully I don't think we heard enough of the context to make any kind of judgements (cult/non-cult; controlling/non-controlling)...at the church I attend we value relationships outside the "body" with both believers and unbelievers because that is where mission happens, but we also value the opporunity we have to build relationships inside the body to create a true sense of community and accountability.

Just my additional $.02. ;)

[Diannecp]

The deal is we were all friends at the same church; now for one reason or another we attend different churches. But we've continued our friendship, while becoming involved with our new churches. Oh well, I'm sure it will work out and I think I'm past the initial shock. They do lots with their new church so for their church to suggest their closest relationships need to be w/in the church just suggests exclusivity to me.