The Unit Concept of
Fellowship
How does God want it Applied
to Student Participation in Lutheran Schools?
Surely
no denomination in the history of Christianity has written more on the doctrine
of fellowship than has the
The
close fellowship we experience in the
A scriptural
close fellowship practice also includes disfellowship of those who could
endanger the preservation of the pure gospel in our midst. And so we have the
policy of WELS-only preachers in our pulpits, WELS-only teachers in our schools,
and usually WELS-only coaches for our athletic teams. And we generally understand that close
communion and WELS-only sponsors at baptisms express the will of God. Practicing a close fellowship which includes
closed fellowship in some things is not hard to understand and agree with as being
scriptural.
Nevertheless,
there are fellowship issues which are not so easily understood: Prayer with non-WELS family members privately
in our homes, a non-WELS singer at a wedding who would sing a doctrinally sound
song, and a non-WELS student at our Lutheran school being allowed or not
allowed to sing in one of our churches.
And despite all the writings and scripture passages cited by our
stricter WELS theologians, something deep inside of each of us is uncomfortable
with an interpretation of fellowship principles that always says “verboten!” in each of these
circumstances.
The
reason there is a difference of opinion on how the fellowship principles found
in scripture should be practiced in our schools is because there is a
difference of opinion among us as to why God has given us fellowship
principles. There will never be uniform
practice until there is a uniform understanding of the purpose of the
fellowship principles. And so through
this paper I submit what I believe God’s purpose is in having fellowship principles
for his
We
believe that throughout history, God has had one set of unchanging directives for mankind. From the time of the Fall until the present,
God’s purpose in his dealing with humanity has been the same. Ezekiel expressed it in 33:11: “Turn from your evil ways and live”, Jesus
expressed it in Luke 13:3,5 “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.” And
in Luke 24:47, Jesus commands us to teach this message of repentance and
forgiveness to people of every nation.
Our
Lutheran heritage summarizes the message of repentance and forgiveness as the
“Law” and the “Gospel”. The Law breaks down our pride and shows us our sin, and
leads us to repent, the Gospel lifts us up and shows us Jesus our Savior, who
has forgiven us. And so when we
Lutherans fight so vigorously to keep clear the doctrine of Law and Gospel, we
are fighting to preserve the central message from God to fallen mankind.
Why
mention this unchanging directive in a discussion about fellowship? Because it is so contrary to the natural
understanding of a sinful human mind. We
fallen creatures can easily see that we are sinful, and deserve the wrath of
the Almighty. What we don’t see is the
solution. Our reason would convince us
that standards of behavior could be established by which we could live, and when we die, our eternal reward would be
meted out according to how well we lived up to those standards. And so the world is filled with natural
religions and philosophies which basically say the same thing in different ways
– “Be as good as you can be, and God will reward you.”
Jesus
encountered this wrong ‘natural philosophy’ idea about how to please God when
he walked the earth. Jesus could not
help people who came to him thinking their good works earned God’s favor. “I have not come to call the righteous, but
sinners” they were told. A rich man came
to him, but was sent away empty (Mark
But
this wrong idea was not very prevalent in the minds of the lowest of society’s people,
in the ‘have-nots’ of Jesus’ day. We
find the prostitutes, the Samaritans, the tax collectors, the lepers, the
blind, all coming to Jesus, understanding that they are helpless in God’s
sight, and begging for his help. Jesus welcomed
them with both physical help and the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus
tells us that the most disturbing place where he found the ‘natural philosophy’
idea of pleasing God was in the minds of the religious leaders of God’s
people. The Pharisees, who worked so
hard to make themselves as holy as possible, were condemned by Jesus as the
ones who “shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces,” not entering themselves,
and not allowing others to enter (Matt
Perhaps
a short history lesson about the Pharisees is in order to help us see how this
damning philosophy had become so prevalent in Jesus’ day. Assuming the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has it reasonably accurate, the
sect of the Pharisees has its origin “in a reaction against the Hellenizing
spirit that appeared among the Jews and manifested itself in the readiness of a
part of the people to adopt Greek customs.” (under the entry “Pharisees”) The name ‘Pharisee’ may not appear in Jewish literature
until about 100 B.C., but the philosophy to remain separate from Greek
influence and keep the faith handed down from Moses was alive and working to keep
the people of God distinct through the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, the
resulting Maccabean revolt, and the time of relative peace which preceded our
Lord’s earthly life.
Personally,
I can sympathize with the Pharisees.
When faced with increasing secularization of society, what more natural
way is there but to look into the Word of God and endeavor to keep it
faithfully? When asked by devout members
of God’s family, “How shall we react to this, or to that?”, what would be more
natural than for the religious leaders to make a scriptural suggestion to help
them. And the Levitical laws surely have
as one of their purposes to keep God’s people separate from the influences of
the unbelieving world. The problem (we
can easily surmise) is that suggestions eventually become norms of behavior for
the faithful, which eventually become laws which must be enforced if one is to
remain a certifiable child of God. This
was the Pharisee-ism that Jesus encountered.
It
appears from the New Testament that the law the Pharisees had the hardest time
interpreting was the law which made the Children of Israel most unique, and did
the most to keep them a separate people.
This was the law to honor the Sabbath Day. Doing any work – even gathering sticks – on
the Sabbath was punishable by death (Num
(The
same thing can be said of all of the Old Testament laws. The Old Testament form of worship, with its
daily sacrifices, was not a form designed to instill in the minds of God’s
people that if they do these prescribed things, then they will be acceptable to
God. No!
Rather, God’s love for his people showed in the sacrifices they were
to make – an innocent lamb received the punishment, not they
themselves. Furthermore, once a
year, their sins were symbolically put onto an innocent lamb, which was led out
to the desert, showing how their sins had been taken away. This Atonement ritual demonstrated that it was not their adherence to rules which
removed their sins, but their loving God
who removed their sins.)
And
so Jesus entered Jewish society in about A.D. 30. Because the purpose of God’s laws had been
forgotten, and the nation of
Matthew
12:1-14 illustrates this: Jesus’
disciples walked through a grain field on a Sabbath, picked the heads of grain
and ate them. When the Pharisees
objected, Jesus had the opportunity to correct their misunderstandings. He uses an example from Scripture which at
first may seem disconnected from the situation.
The law said the Bread of the Presence belonged to and was to be eaten
only by Aaron and his sons (Lev 24:9), that is, the priests. But David understood that this law could
be broken, and the bread could be eaten by soldiers in time of
need. The law said that no work was to
be done on the Sabbath, but the priests regularly worked on the Sabbath in
making offerings in the temple.
Therefore, they too, could break the Sabbath. What thread of reason connects these
examples? Simply put, human needs are more important than
following laws.
Later
that day Jesus reminded them all that if one of their sheep was in danger of
dying on a Sabbath, they themselves would break the Sabbath regulations, and go
to rescue their sheep. Even they would
make exception for a sheep, surely Jesus could make an exception for a human
being.
Jesus
summarized his understanding of the Sabbath day by declaring God’s purpose in
making the Sabbath – it was made to
serve man, not to be served by man (Mk
In
Galatians 3:24,25, Paul tells us that the rules and regulations which dictated
daily life from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus were designed to be temporary. The Old Testament law was like a baby sitter,
guiding God’s people for a time, until they would be considered adults in their
understanding and no longer needing the law to be over them. A child needs laws
to govern his behavior, because his reasoning skills are not yet fully
developed. An adult, however, can be
expected to conduct himself properly using basic guidelines and his mature
reason. Ever since the day of Pentecost, God’s people are considered to be
adult enough to live for him without a strict set of laws. Jesus came to set us free (Jn
Laws
do not draw God’s people closer to him.
When the Sabbath observance stopped being an expression of the Gospel (a
time to reflect on God’s salvation of the nation) and became instead an
expression of the Law (a work that had to be done to remain in God’s favor),
the Sabbath was no longer serving its intended purpose. What the Pharisees had done was set up two
classes of people, those who outwardly follow God’s Laws (and are therefore
better in God’s eyes) and those who don’t. But Jesus brings the true Sabbath rest to us
in a way that a weekly physical resting cannot bring.
Because
of what the Pharisees did with God’s Word, the term ‘Pharisee’ today is a
byword for anyone who is concerned only with a person’s outward behaviors, not
with the attitude of his heart. And even
though Jesus roundly condemned the Pharisees, we must admit they helped
preserve the scriptures till he came. I confess
I feel a certain kinship to the Pharisees -- they honestly wanted to keep God’s
Word pure, unmixed with the prevailing philosophy of the day. And they truly wanted to spread the truth of
God’s Word to others, Jesus himself said so (Matt
Just
because Jesus canceled the Law, it does not mean his Church today will join the
rest of the world. It is still God’s will that we join together with
like-minded believers, and send away those who would undermine the proper
understanding of the Law and Gospel message.
Paul exhorts us with these guidelines:
to meet together regularly, encouraging one another (Heb
But
in the story of the Pharisees is a lesson we in the
In
the 1950’s it became necessary for the WELS to formulate statements of protest
against the ways the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod was practicing church
fellowship with the more liberal Lutheran synods. The 1959 document called Church Fellowship became the basis for our termination of
fellowship with the LCMS in 1961. The
revision of this document in 1970 serves as the basis for our present policy in
dealing with people of denominations not “in fellowship” with the
The
"Church fellowship should therefore be treated as a unit concept, covering every joint expression, manifestation, and demonstration of a common faith" (Appendix to Church Fellowship, by John Brug, NPH 1996, p. 166)
Unfortunately,
the same statement Jesus had to make about Sabbath regulations -- “The Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark
However,
we routinely see wholesale criticism if not condemnation of the innocent by
some of our
A
principle of the early Church was that “we should not make it difficult for the
Gentiles who are turning to God.” (Acts
When
Jesus condemned the Pharisee’s application of Sabbath laws, he referred them to
the higher law of love (Matt 12:1-14; Mark
How
does this apply to the issue before us today?
Are there situations when we can break the ‘unit concept’ in the name of
love? Can a non-WELS person sing God’s
Word to us in a worship setting? The
example of Jesus urges us to look beyond the unit concept, drawn from scripture
though it is, and ask the question “Which is the response of love?” The 1970 document itself says in Thesis B,
Part 4: “Weakness of faith is in itself
not a reason for terminating church fellowship, but rather an inducement for
practicing it vigorously to help one another in overcoming our individual
weaknesses. In precept and example,
Scripture abounds with exhortations to pay our full debt of love toward the
weak.”
Both
WELS and non-WELS students come to our high school for a variety of reasons,
not only to sit at the feet of teachers who teach from a scriptural
viewpoint. The education we offer is not
only that of studying scripture and absorbing a Godly view of academic
subjects, but the education we offer also includes opportunities to practice
our faith – through various acts of service, through joint worship, and through
the opportunity to lead worship. How do
we best grow God’s people – by making barrier laws which treat non-WELS
students as second class citizens during worship services, or by welcoming and
inviting them to praise God with us as we together experience the love God has us? The question before the governing board of
any Christian school is “What policies
should we have at this school which will best allow the Gospel to work in the
hearts of our students?” It should
not be “What policies should we implement to make sure that people with an
incomplete understanding are not getting the impression that an incomplete
understanding is acceptable to God.”
Another
principle we must keep in mind is how the Church grows, and what our function
is in the growth of Christ’s kingdom.
Paul admits “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it
grow.” (1 Cor 3:6) God’s power is in the
gospel (Ro
Jesus
condemned the Pharisees because their interpretation of Sabbath laws had
erected a barrier between them and the people they were to serve. God wants people to come to him to have their
burdens lightened. What the world saw in
the Pharisees was a burden that no one could carry (Matt 23:4), which drove
people away from God instead of to him. We
must be careful that the scriptural principles of fellowship which we term the
unit concept are not becoming a barrier which hinders people from hearing about
and experiencing the love God has for them.
And we must be careful that the unit concept does not give our own
people the impression that being associated with the
Where
are the words of scripture which tell us to draw a line between ourselves and
non-WELS students, telling them that they before we can educate them in each of
the ways our school offers, they must demonstrate a level of Christian maturity
which compels them to leave the denomination they grew up in, and join our
denomination? Our new school policy
tells them if they do not display this level of Christian maturity, they cannot
participate in the opportunity to lead us in worship. But I submit that this is trying to motivate
them with the Law, not the Gospel. If
there is any doctrine that Paul makes more clear for the Church than what Jesus
did, it is this: Legalism does not grow the Church, but only the preaching of the Gospel.
No
where in Scripture is there a command to break fellowship with people who want
to come to us to learn. We should flee
from false doctrines and false teachers, certainly, and our school must have a
policy which, based on Titus 3:10, will remove a student who openly promotes
some false teaching. But the proposed
policy will go beyond what is written in scripture. The policy will take a student who agrees
with our doctrines, who is being blessed by our fellowship, and tell him that
his faith is not mature enough because he has not yet left his
denomination. It will not be enough to
show a love for the Gospel of Jesus by attending our classes, no, he must also
make a stand for the
This
viewpoint of elevating the outward joining with us as being more important than
professing adherence to the Gospel is what Paul warned against in Galatians
5:20 by the word translated as “factions”.
When we become more concerned that someone has joined our denomination
than we are concerned about their personal walk in the faith, then we are being
factious in God’s Kingdom. This
factiousness is the workmanship of our own pride in knowing that God has
blessed us with pure doctrine. But every
time a non-WELS family decides to enroll their child elsewhere because of our
fellowship policy, it is our pride that is sending students away from that pure
doctrine.
The
common response in the
God’s
people today grow closer to him as they practice scriptural fellowship
principles which allow them to reflect on how Christ has called them out of
darkness into his wonderful light (1 Pet 2:9-10). It is good for us to join together with
likeminded Christian brothers and sisters and praise our God. But it is not good for us to enact policies
which have the effect of pushing weak Christians away. And it is not good for us to demand levels of
understanding from weak Christians before we will allow them to sing back to us
the very truths we have taught them.
When the unit concept becomes a litmus test for how holy we are compared
to our LCMS brothers (or more distant relatives in other heterodox
denominations), then our fellowship principles are no longer serving Christ in
helping to grow his people.
Getting
away from a legal interpretation of our 1970 fellowship document and adopting a
Gospel-motivated interpretation will have its pitfalls. Issues will no longer be black and white, but
filled with opinions based on scripture.
But this is what Jesus meant when he quoted Hosea, “I desire mercy, not
sacrifice.” Practicing mercy is filled
with opinions on what is best in individual situations. Sacrifice requires only following a
regulation.
There
are those among us who hold to an interpretation of the unit concept which says
that if we allow non-WELS students to sing to us in our worship services, we
will give them the impression that we think it is fine for them to remain in
their error. So it is out of love that
we bar them. But how can we assume such
an opinion will result when we have clearly taught our doctrinal position in
religion classes, when we refuse to allow the student to commune with us, and
when we refuse to take our choir to the student’s home church to sing at their
worship service? Surely these actions
are sufficient to witness our insistence on doctrinal purity in our practice as
well as our confession.
But
when we have a policy which states that students who have come to our school to
learn God’s Word, but who have not been moved by the Spirit to break ties with
their non-WELS church, cannot for that reason sing or play an instrument during
a worship service, I believe we give
the false impression. People, both WELS
and non-WELS, will come away from this policy with the idea that somehow
allowing a non-WELS person to stand before us in worship will adulterate the
worship, that the worship is more pure when the people worshipping have passed
a certain litmus test. But it is not the
people bringing us the message that makes the message pure. All people,
Now
before anyone objects to this, let me make it clear that having a non-WELS
student deliver a message from God’s Word in our daily chapel could give the impression that we do
not care about the differences between our denomination and his, and we must be
careful to not give that impression.
But, when a
We
continue to draw lines between us and other denominations in certain situations
by using the phrase “activities which are joint expressions of faith.” This phrase, like the term ‘unit concept,’
comes out of the years of protest and separation from the LCMS. We had been jointly operating high schools,
foreign missions, nursing homes, etc.
LCMS and
But
is that the situation we have in our Lutheran school today? The operation of
I
think of my former pastor who went to the local public school one December and
declared that no student from his church would be allowed to sing songs in the school
choir if they were in any way religious.
I would be the first to say that his actions came from his sincere love
for his Lord. But his actions were
misunderstood by the entire town, both
A
few years ago my wife was talking with a colleague of hers about things that
happen in our local public high school.
My wife asked her if she had ever considered sending her children to
How
our high school applies the fellowship principles of the unit concept depends
on how we see our school. Is it a
mission arm of the Christian Church – that is, to reach out to all whom God may
call, or is it a tool only for our denomination – to strengthen its
members? It is my hope and prayer that
Bob
Fink