Christian fellowship is not merely jokes and friendly banter. Unity in Christ, lives centered on Him, and living as those who have a participation in the gospel and are partakers of grace are what are meant by being brought into fellowship. It is that which the outside world will not have. It is that which Christians have as we see the mission to which Christ has called us, and we set our affection on him and pursue his calling.

When we hear the word fellowship or Christian fellowship today, the image that comes to mind most frequently is a potluck supper after church when everyone is laughing and enjoying each other’s company. We envision spending time in small groups and hosting Christian church friends in our homes. Anything goes as long as Christians are having a good time talking to one another. But does the Bible mean that when it talks of Christian fellowship? Christian community goes beyond what one can experience in a neighborhood bar, Starbucks, or barbershop. It is more comparable to individuals who are conscripted from varied backgrounds, given a task, and then figure that out in their engagements as soldiers.
In the first few verses of his letter to the Philippians, Paul provides what is meant by Christian fellowship. To state the obvious, but for Paul, Christ is the centering and grounding element of Christian community. He lays it out for us in Philippians 1:5 and 1:7. He tells the Philippians in 1:4 that he prays joyfully for them, and he explains in 1:5 why: “for your fellowship (the word can alternatively be rendered as partnership or participation) in the gospel.” He informs them that “you all are partakers with me of grace” in 1:7. As we reflect on what Paul is saying, it becomes clear that fellowship is much more than just having coffee with a Christian friend to pray. While it might involve going out for coffee, the essence of it revolves around taking part in what God is doing in the world. We are included in it and have our unity around Christ and his mission.
I hesitate to use an illustration drawn from Lord of the Rings, but I believe it will help us better understand the concept of fellowship. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Just as the notion of “harm” is being used to limit freedom of speech, so the notion of health and safety (and its expansion beyond the physical to the psycho-social) will be used to limit the freedom of the Church to govern itself. We must not wait until it is too late. Now is the time to declare that we stand under the Bible, and that the State too stands under the judgement of God’s word.

The Two Kingdoms
In 1596 one of the most famous scenes in Presbyterian history took place. Andrew Melville, a well-known Scottish minister was summoned to appear before King James to answer for his opposition to the ‘Black Acts’, which sought to impose the King’s desire for bishops on the Church of Scotland. Melville told the King: “I must tell you, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus the King of the church, whose subject James the sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom Christ has called and commanded to watch over his church, have power and authority from him to govern his spiritual kingdom both jointly and severally; the which no Christian king or prince should control and discharge, but fortify and assist; otherwise, they are not faithful subjects of Christ and members of his church.”
The history of Scottish Presbyterianism, from the Reformation, through to the Covenanters and the Free Church Disruption of 1843, is the history of the two kingdoms. This is also true of Presbyterians throughout the world. We are not theocrats. We do not believe that the Church has the right to tell the State how to govern. But neither are we Erastians—we do not accept that the State has the right to tell the Church how we should be governed.
The Australian Presbyterian church was set up on that basis. So was the Australian constitution, which declares in section 116 that the Commonwealth was banned from making any law which would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
However, there is an enormous danger that the Presbyterian churches in Australia could forget their historical, confessional and biblical roots—by adopting a 21st century version of Erastian Church/State relations.
Today’s Cultural Background
The cultural background to this situation is that we live in a society which is rejecting its Christian roots. Rather than there being two kingdoms, there is in effect only one—that of the State. The government, instead of accepting that it has a limited role, is now setting itself up as God, determining what is right and wrong, for everyone. This is seen in terms of business, academia, media, sport and most significantly for us—education, the family and the church. Ultimately Caesar does not mind if we exist, as long as we acknowledge Caesar as Lord (i.e. the Supreme Authority) in everything.
Chaos and Confusion
As an observer to last week’s New South Wales General Assembly, I saw at first hand the confusion and chaos that the acceptance of this Erastian doctrine causes us.
The situation arose out of a decision which in effect binds the Assembly from making any decisions without first of all, conforming with the NSW government’s Work Health and Safety Act. Under this Act we were told that all office bearers, staff and volunteers were to be considered workers—and therefore the Act would apply to them. Accordingly, no change can occur without consulting all workers and addressing any concerns they may have. The Assembly were told that all members of the Assembly were to be regarded as PCBU’s (Persons Conducting a Business Undertaking) and were individually legally responsible to consult every ‘worker’. We were also told that this includes not only actual volunteers but those who might ‘aspire to the role’. In other words, everyone. By requiring ‘consultation with all workers’ (i.e. anyone who does anything within the Church), we are in danger of forsaking the basic principles of Presbyterianism, that we have government by elders and that we are not Independents or governed by votes on each issue. Nor are we be governed by ‘experts’, lawyers or focus groups.
This is all done with the worthy aim of protecting workers’ health. Health in the Act includes psychosocial effects. Counselling should be offered and, in some cases, even the consultation should not take place until the relevant risks were minimised. This all arose because of a threatening letter which the General Office received before the 2023 Assembly. In response, everything was put on hold.
The presenting issue was the decision of the Assembly to seek to draw up legislation which would permit only male elders. I have no desire to get into that issue in this article—(although I think it is important, especially where the biblical teaching has been misused to disguise or justify misogyny.) My whole point is that that is a question for the Church to determine, not the State. My concern is with people who use the civil law in order to control what the Church can and cannot do—on whatever side of whatever issue.
The Assembly decided that, amongst other things, “that the sex qualifications of elders shall not be the subject of questions, speeches, comments or debate for the duration of this session of Assembly.”The result of this decision was to make the Assembly one of the most confused and chaotic I have ever witnessed. We had reports on the Women’s committee and from the Elders committee, which we were not allowed to discuss fully. Decisions were made on the basis of legal advice that we were not allowed to see (although we were told that we were legally liable for it!). A second legal opinion was asked for and refused. A motion limiting discussion was itself passed without discussion. (I am not telling tales out of court. This was all done and decided in public. As an observer, I observed).
State-Sponsored Pharisaism
I am sure that most of this was done with good intentions. The decision makers wanted to protect the Church, and also to deal with some of the injustices that some women have faced over the years. In that they were right. The trouble is that the decision did neither, and in fact may have made both worse. If you can’t talk about a subject, then you can’t deal with it. And if you limit the discussion to the confines of the WHS Act, you have placed the Church in an unbiblical bind. The root meaning of the word ‘religio’ means ‘to bind’. Ironically, by allowing the State to be our rule maker and supreme governor we have ended up in a bind that will cripple us—a kind of State-sponsored Pharisaism. To paraphrase an article in the Spectator (on a different subject): “Our Presbyterianism is in danger of wrapping ourselves in bureaucratic bandages to manufacture the visage of life and competence, even as holiness and courage evaporate”.
What’s Wrong with Wanting to Obey the State?
Why do I say this? What can be wrong with just simply obeying the law of the State, especially when that law is designed to prevent harm? That is a good and reasonable question. But it all depends on:
a) how much you trust the State to make the laws of the Church,b) what is meant by harm?c) whether the State has authority over the Church.
Some of the arguments made in the Assembly were quite disturbing. For example, we were told that we should always want to follow the Word of God first, but it should not be the first box to tick. On the contrary, it should be the first and the last tick in the order—the alpha and omega of all we decide!
Read More
Related Posts:

A thorough commitment to evangelical and Reformed theology was everything needed in times past to move Christians to compassion and care for the neediest members of fallen humanity. All the resources for a vibrant social ministry are found in the Reformed tradition. But more importantly, they’re found in the Scriptures themselves, which summon Christians to love their neighbors (Mark 12:31), to do good to all (Gal. 6:10), and to be a people zealous for good works (Titus 2:14).

In conservative evangelical circles, “social ministry” can sometimes sound like a four-letter word. Some view Christian activism and ministries of mercy among the poor as an impulse of theological liberalism. This isn’t altogether surprising, as theological liberals often promote social activism as part of the church’s primary purpose in the world. So when one finds a group of Christians passionate about social justice, helping the poor, and feeding the hungry, some may assume they must be theologically liberal or, at least, acting out the instincts of liberalism.
It’s worth noting that political and economic developments, especially in the 20th century, caused a net deflation in the value of Christian social ministry, as many advanced Western countries launched government-subsidized welfare programs to care for their neediest citizens. What some had once understood to be the responsibility of churches and charitable organizations (often founded by conservative evangelicals) was, by the early to mid-20th century, increasingly seen as the responsibility of the wider body politic, mediated through local and national taxation.
It’s at least plausible, then, that the twin developments of the rise of theological liberalism on the one hand and state subsidies on the other sapped conservative evangelicalism of what had been its characteristic zeal for mercy ministry.
Nonetheless, Charles Spurgeon should challenge us in this regard. If his social concern seems unusual today, perhaps it says more about us than about him.
Charles Spurgeon, Liberal?
Though “the Prince of Preachers” by no means championed a social gospel, he oversaw dozens of benevolent ministries in the heart of 19th-century London—organizing free schools for destitute children, advocating for American slaves, and caring for orphans and widows. But was Spurgeon’s social concern an evangelical anomaly, deviating from the Calvinistic tradition in which he was raised? 
Such a question betrays a contemporary consciousness shaped more by modern cultural debates than a serious reflection on the heritage of the Reformed and evangelical traditions. To properly understand Spurgeon’s commitment to social ministry, we must realize he saw care and concern for the needy as springing forth from his understanding of the Bible—as well as from the body of doctrine he’d received from his theological forebears. Without question, Spurgeon saw himself as living out the consistent social implications of Reformed and evangelical theology.
When one studies how many Protestants, beginning in the 16th century, prioritized care for the poor and needy, Spurgeon begins to look more like the norm. Meanwhile, many evangelicals today who are suspicious of social concern appear more like a departure from their historical and theological heritage.
Reformed Benevolence
Consider the Belgic Confession (1561), which requires that churches be properly ordered, in part, “so that also the poor and all the afflicted may be helped and comforted according to their need.” Or the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church (1571): “Every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.” Or the Second Helvetic Confession (1566): ministers should “commend the necessity of the poor to the church,” and the church should use its resources “especially for the succor and relief of the poor.” Or the Heidelberg Catechism’s (1563) question: “What is God’s will for you in the fourth commandment?” The answer in part is “to bring Christian offerings for the poor.”
Read More
Related Posts: