Small Groups And Their Radically Wrong View of Acts 2:42 

It is unfortunately common for church leaders to base their promotion of small groups on Acts 2:42, which says: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers.”

The small group idea popular today is further reinforced in verse 46, which says these first followers “were breaking bread from house to house,” and “they ate their food with gladness.”

Based on this passage, many small group leaders have formed their view of fellowship.

Anything wrong with that? Yes, there is a lot wrong with that.

To begin with, correct biblical interpretation requires that didactic passages take priority over historical passages. Hang on for a moment and I'll explain this simple concept.

These verses in Acts 2 are from a historical passage. They simply give a report of what the Jerusalem church did.

But if we want to understand biblical fellowship, we can't rely on a historical passage; we need didactic passages, meaning teaching passages.

In fact, the subject of fellowship needs all the didactic passages provided in the “one another” verses.

These are statements that instruct, explain, and even command when laying out in detail God's vision of fellowship.

But if we were to look only at these verses in Acts 2, we wouldn't get any of that.

Instead, the conclusion would be exactly what these small group enthusiasts are saying today: Fellowship means getting together in the home, doing a bible study, offering prayer, and enjoying a snack, if not a full meal together.

Well, does it now?

If that's what a small group does—which, in fact, it is exactly what many small groups do—this format would effectively eliminate most of the dynamics the “one another” statements set forth by eating up the time these dynamics require.

But you wouldn't know that unless you studied these statements.

Most small group leaders have never done this. They are leading what they have never studied. Does this make any sense?

Let's focus further on this interpretation principle (theologians call it hermeneutics).

Consider the mistakes we would make if we allowed the historical statements in Genesis to determine our view of God.

You remember what happened: God comes on the scene after Adam sinned and asks: Who told you were naked? Did you eat of the forbidden fruit?

Now, if we were basing our views on the historical narrative alone, we might say:

1) that God's knowledge is limited, because he is seeking knowledge he doesn't have

2) that God isn't omnipresent, because he obviously wasn't there when the dreadful deed occurred in the garden; and

3) that God isn't sovereign because his will was overthrown in the garden: Satan got the victory, not God.

All of these would have been logical, plausible conclusions. And all of them would have been entirely wrong!

The reason we know better on all these issues is, why? Because many didactic passages tell us what this historical passage didn't tell us.

Make sense?

Going back to Acts 2, we must ask ourselves, what does it mean that they continued in the apostles' doctrine?

The passage doesn't tell us, does it?  

We do know that there was no New Testament at that time, so they weren't studying from a book. But other than that deduction, we don't know how they continued in the apostles' doctrine.

Let's try the next one.

What does it mean that they continued in fellowship?

This historical passage doesn't explain that either, does it? Yet, it is critical that we know this!

Since this passage in Acts tells us that these first two dynamics—continuing in doctrine and fellowship—were done steadfastly, that means our questions are all the more important.

Did what steadfastly?

We shouldn't have to guess. Scripture must answer these questions. Which it does.

But, again, if our attention is riveted on Acts 2, we won't know these answers. We'll be guessing. And it would be a huge mistake to think that most of us are good guessers (we aren't), that most of us already know what fellowship is (we don't).

The vision of fellowship explained in the “one another” statements is profoundly different than what anyone ever would have thought.

The fundamental error of many small group leaders is this: By trusting a few historical passages on fellowship and then largely disregarding the teaching passages, fellowship gets defined by human opinion. And that, as it turns out, barely resembles divine revelation.

Here are some more questions based on this passage in Acts.

What kind of prayers did they pray? What claims of faith did they make? What fervor was exhibited? How were these prayers answered? Again, we don't know.

Acts 2:46 speaks of their gladness. So what was that? It had to be better than some chuckles and giggles during happy hour at a bar.

So—visually, verbally—what was this gladness like? Why was it different? What produced it? What sustained it? Were they all this glad? Did the gladness of one impact the gladness of another? And if so, how so?

So many questions. So few answers.

Why? Because these are the limitations of a historical passage.

One obvious conclusion is this: If we want to know what biblical fellowship is, we shouldn't draw our conclusion based on Acts 2.

Yet this is precisely what many church leaders do; and they don't even do that with consistency.

For example, in Acts 2, the people go to the temple every day. True, the temple isn't there anymore, but is there a principle here that our leaders hold up for us to follow?

Acts 2 also tells us that the leaders in the church did many wonders and signs. Are these small group leaders today providing or promoting that?

Acts 2 additionally tells us of the persecution that came upon the church, threatening the livelihood of believers. Are our small group leaders leading us into a godliness that Scripture guarantees will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12)?

The answer is no to all these questions.

Amazing! Not only do leaders omit the relevant teaching passages; they barely skim the surface of the historical ones.

Point any of this out, though, and you won't see the lights turning on, as it does when truth suddenly shows the way.

You'll more likely to see the opposite—the flash of a dark spirit, followed by a sour look, a stubborn attitude, with no willingness expressed to change anything.

One pastor just loved these fellowship dinners! Loved them! He hosted these “fellowship” dinners every month at his favorite restaurant! And even though this rotund reverend was well on his way to being buried in a piano box, he wasn't going to change anything.

The Bible plainly says that fellowship included a meal—yea, a festive meal with gladness! So maybe some jokes will be in order (people always like that)—and then, of course, there will be some bible study, and a prayer at the end.

It's all so simple. Comes right out of the Book of Acts. Why would anyone be confused about fellowship?

In the words of our President, “C'mon, man!”