What is Communion in General?

I’m reading John Owen’s book Communion with God.  One of the questions I had at the outset was, “What does ‘communion’ mean?”  The things that come to my mind when I think of “communion” are things like relationship, a sense of warm closeness, fellowship, or the Lord’s Supper.  Owen has a brief section entitled “What is Communion?” and here is what he says: communion is “a joint participation in anything whatever, good or evil, duty or enjoyment, nature or actions.”  So communion is, most basically, a joint participation.  Sharing something in common, whether nature, duty, enjoyment, actions.

More specifically, Owen says “communion is the mutual communication of such good things as wherein the persons holding that communion are delighted, bottomed upon some union between them.”  At first, this made me think of shared enjoyments.  If we share our common delight together, we are communing.  It made me think of John Piper’s book, The Pleasures of God, in which he discusses some things that God enjoys.  Communion with God would be sharing in his pleasures.  Loving what he loves.  Enjoying something in common and conversing about that enjoyment.

Then I noticed the odd word “bottomed.”  What it means is “grounded in.”  This communion is grounded in some union between the persons.  Of course, as Christians we have union with God through Jesus Christ.  We have been put in an unbreakable relationship with God through our union with Christ.  Built on the bedrock of that relationship, we can share with God “the mutual communication of” what delights us.

Then a couple paragraphs later I realized my initial understanding wasn’t quite what Owen was saying.  He writes, “Our communion, then, with God consists in his communication of himself to us, with our return to him of that which he requires and accepts, flowing from that union which in Jesus Christ we have with him.”  So what Owen had in mind was not necessarily the mutual enjoyment of the same thing, although I don’t think that’s wrong.  What he describes here, though, is God’s self-communication to us of what delights us about him, followed by our giving back to him what he delights in from us.

To generalize, then, communion is two people who have a relationship giving and receiving what brings joy to the other.  Owen then applies this to us and each Person of the Godhead in the rest of the book.  It occurred to me, however, that this description of communion could be applied to any relationship.  If communion were only the shared enjoyment of the same thing, it would be hard to commune with people with whom we don’t have much in common.  But if communion is giving and receiving what gives joy to the other, then we can commune with anyone, if we love them and are willing to work at it.  At a “less spiritual” level, a rabid football fan and I could have communion if I make an effort to communicate to him what he loves, namely football, and he makes an effort to communicate to me what I love, namely biblical studies.  Not that we have to talk football and theology in every conversation, me saying, “How ’bout that awesome touchdown?” and he replying, “Yes, it reminds me of the perseverance of the saints.”  Rather, in the dynamic of the relationship (that which we are “bottomed” upon, as Owen put it), we try to take an interest in what delights the other.  This requires love and should produce increasing closeness.

These thoughts made me think of the book about the “love languages,” (which I’ve never read) that basically describes how different people feel loved through different means, and we should learn how to express love in the particular ways that are meaningful to each person.  This observation has proven true in my marriage.  What makes me feel loved doesn’t work for my wife, and what makes her feel loved doesn’t work for me.  We speak different love languages.  Yet I constantly try to love her in the way that makes me feel loved.  I babble at her in my foreign love language and get annoyed when she doesn’t understand.  According to Owen, if I want to have communion with my wife, then I need to give her what brings her joy, and she needs to return to me what gives me joy.  I shouldn’t selfishly insist that she be the same as me, but in love give to her what brings her joy.  We must have “the mutual communication of such good things as wherein . . . [we] are delighted, bottomed upon some union between” us.

NOTE: It’s either David Powlison or Ed Welch (both biblical counselors) who has a critique of the love languages book, in which he notes positives and negatives, specifically that if our goal is to make a person feel loved we must be careful that we are not merely pandering to the idols of their heart.  I’ve read the critique of the book, but not the book itself, so I’m not qualified to weigh in at this point.

The Missing Safety Net

You are standing a hundred feet above the ground on a couple planks of wood attached to a tall pole. Before you is a thin wire stretched from your pole to another pole that seems miles away. A crowd of thousands awaits breathlessly, silently, for you to step out onto the quivering wire and walk across. The drum-roll begins. Your stomach also begins to roll, and beads of perspiration begin to form on your brow. You can barely breathe as you slowly, carefully extend your left foot out into the nothingness. You glance far below, thankful at least for the safety net that will break your fall if worst comes to worst. You put your foot down on the wire, slowly shifting your weight forward. Suddenly, the announcer almost upsets your delicate balance as he booms, “And now, ladies and gentlemen, watch in amazement as this death-defying feat is accomplished . . . WITH NO SAFETY NET!” Your mind reels in disbelief and panic as the safety net is pulled away, leaving absolutely nothing between you and the concrete floor one hundred feet below! Do you take the next step? Do you pull back? Can you pull back? You realize with sickening horror that if you fall, you are dead.

What am I talking about? Why, Social Security, of course! This government program, we are told, is practically bankrupt and will be inadequate to care for the elderly in a couple decades. It was supposed to be a safety net for retirees, but it has dissolved under the burden of poor management and a growing population of aging baby-boomers. Jesus calls his people to take risks for the sake of his kingdom, to be willing to give up all in his service, but how can we when the safety net of Social Security is missing?

Okay, yes, I am kidding. Are we as Christians to put our trust in government programs to take care of us if we sacrifice our possessions in the service of God? Are we to put our confidence in the historically justified expectation that the Dow Jones always increases over time? Is it a secure income, wise financial investment, a good pension, or an adequately stocked 401k that should free us to be sacrificially generous? The churches of first century Macedonia didn’t think so. Paul wrote, “We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor [literally, grace] of taking part in the relief of the saints—and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us” (2 Cor. 8:1-5). Paul praises God for the grace he has poured out on the Macedonian believers that enables them to give generously in the midst of their own poverty and affliction. God himself is the ultimate safety net the Macedonians are trusting in, but the riches he promises are not material riches. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). Paul is not talking about material riches here, but about spiritual riches. He talks in 2 Corinthians 9 about abounding in grace and every good work, about an increasing harvest of righteousness and overflowing thanksgiving to God. He is telling the Corinthians that if they willingly give up their material possessions for Christ’s sake, God will make them wealthy in grace, good works, righteousness, and thanksgiving to God—everything they truly need! God promises to take care of us, not by replacing or multiplying our material possessions, but by giving us what is more important: the promise of an eternal future with him, regardless of how difficult this earthly life becomes.

So if we want to step out in faith, to risk all in the attempt to walk that tight-rope for Christ, we can do so with the assurance that what truly matters can never be threatened or taken away from us. Our future with God; every spiritual blessing that is ours in Christ—these can never be taken away, even if we lose everything in this life. God himself is the unfailing safety net for believers.

But is there something more? Should there be a further safety net for Christians who are contemplating risking it all for Christ? Is there anything that will catch them if they fall? I was talking with someone in our church about how hard it is for us well-off, comfort-seeking Western Christians to actually give up our comforts and possessions and risk everything for Jesus. Why is it so rare for Western Christians to be like the Macedonians, begging earnestly for the favor of giving beyond their means for the relief of the saints? Do you know anyone who has actually done this? How many of us are willing to risk impoverishment for the sake of Christ’s kingdom? Could we actually forego a “financially secure” future for the sake of evangelistic endeavors or caring for the poor and needy?

What my friend said was something like this: “I think we are fearful of doing this because we wonder if anyone will be there to catch me if I fall. Who will provide for me in my old age? I think if the church was doing its job of loving and supporting each other, we would feel less fearful about it.” I had never really thought about that. Knowing that my brothers and sisters in Christ will take care of my physical needs if I lose everything could indeed embolden me to be more daring for Jesus. If I knew that my fellow-believers were so full of love, generosity, and commitment toward me that they would do everything they could to care for my earthly needs, I might feel freer to risk it all for the Lord.

Perhaps the Western church is the missing safety net. Western Christians have, like everyone everywhere, been influenced by their culture and history. We are very individualistic, independent, self-reliant, capitalistic, and anti-socialist. None of these things are absolutely evil or good in themselves, but they may hinder us from having truly biblical attitudes. Let’s face it: if we acted like the Macedonians, our culture—even the Christians in our culture—would think we were crazy and foolish fanatics. “You have a responsibility to provide for your family’s future! That’s just poor stewardship of the money and talents God has given you! Don’t you want to enjoy your Golden Years? Foolish, foolish, foolish.” Would anyone overflow with gratitude to God that we had impoverished ourselves for Jesus? Would anyone be there for us, to catch us and care for us?

If we could trust each other to take care of each other’s material needs, we wouldn’t need to stockpile money in bank accounts, 401k’s, pensions, or stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Of course, for this to work, every succeeding generation of Christians would have to care for the previous one. Also, if all Christians everywhere gave up everything at the same time, we would be unable to care for anyone. And not everyone has to give up all material possessions. Paul never commanded it and didn’t expect it. He said the Macedonians’ giving was “not as we expected,” and emphasized to the Corinthians that they should give willingly, “not as an exaction,” and “not reluctantly or under compulsion” (2 Cor. 9). He says, “For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness” (2 Cor. 9:13-14). To me, this sounds like redistribution of wealth within the church, which seems somewhat uncapitalistic. I have to ask myself if I am more committed to conservatism or biblical teaching. My primary devotion has to be to God’s Word, not conservatism or liberalism, capitalism or socialism. There may be aspects of conservative or liberal thought that are biblical or unbiblical. There may be aspects of Western culture that are biblical or unbiblical. God’s Word must be our standard.

I honestly don’t know how it would work, if it would work, or if we could change our Western Christian culture. But it surely is an intriguing and exciting idea. What if our generosity and love for each other could remove some of the fear for those among us who are moved to do financially or materially risky things for the sake of Christ? Would we see more radical acts of service and sacrifice for Jesus if the church acted as a safety net? Would more believers be willing to step out on that dangerously quivering tight-rope, ready to risk the fall because their brothers and sisters in the Lord are waiting to catch them? Our ultimate trust is, of course, in God himself. Even if the church fails us, we can still rely on God for what truly matters for eternity. But it would surely help if our love for each other was so radical, practical, and committed that it acted as a safety net for daring sacrifice for the Lord.