Talk:Communion (Koinonia/Christian Fellowship)

Comments
Communion, Christian meaning article was created recently, I moved to Community (Christian) based on statement that it relates to koinonia κοινωνία maybe merge with Communion of Saints? Has cleanup and merge notices --> needs work. Paul foord 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Maybe Fellowship (Christian) would be a better title Paul foord 15:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to see how "community" can be thought to correspond to "κοινωνία". I doubt if any English translation of the New Testament ever used "community" in connection with the abstract noun "κοινωνία" or its concrete cognate "κοινωνός" (one who has κοινωνία). I have gone through the King James Version and found it uses the following words, which I place in order of frequency:
 * partake/partaker: Mt 23:30, Rm 11:17, Rm 15:27, 1 Co 9:23, 1 Co 10:18, 2 Co 1:7, Ph 1:7, 1 Tm 5:22, Heb 2:14, 1 P 4:13, 1 P 5:1, 2 P 1:4, 1 Jn 1:3, 1 Jn 1:6, 1 Jn 1:7, 2 Jn 1:11, Rv 18:4
 * fellowship: Ac 2:42, 1 Co 1:9, 1 Co 10:20, 2 Co 6:14, 2 Co 8:4, Ga 2:9, Ep 3:9, Ep 5:11, Ph 1:5, Ph 2:1, Ph 3:10
 * communicate/communication: Ga 6:6, Ph 4:14, Ph 4:15, 1 Tm 6:18, Phm 1:6, Heb 13:16
 * partner: Lk 5:10, 2 Co 8:23, Phm 1:17
 * communion: 1 Co 10:16, 2 Co 13:24
 * companion: Heb 10:33, Rv 1:9
 * distribute/distribution: Rm 12:13, 2 Co 9:13
 * contribution: Rm 15:26

What is wrong with using the word "communion"? It is the word most used nowadays for the bond connecting Christians as individuals and Churches. We usually speak of "the Anglican communion", not "the Anglican community" or "the Anglican fellowship". Do we normally speak of Churches as being "in full community" or "in full fellowship", rather than "in full communion"? Those other expressions are possible, but unusual. The usual term is what should appear in the title.

"Communion (bond between Christians)" seems to be the most accurate title for this article.

I submit that it is nonsense to suggest that this article should be merged with the article on the Eucharist. The bond and the sacrament are two quite distinct, though not unrelated, matters.

In this regard, why is the category to which the Eucharist article is assigned still called Communion, when all the articles in the category (and also the symbol of bread and chalice) concern the sacrament, not the bond?

Lima 06:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

i looked at the the page communion(christian) and i thought it was odd to state it as Eucharistic usage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.251.230 (talk • contribs)

New Testament
I have a question concerning the number of times it's used in the NT. The Koinokia page quotes it as 19 times in most Greek NTs, while this page quotes it as 43 verses. Is that perhaps because it's used multiple times in a verse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.133.183 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The noun κοινωνία (koinonia) presumably appears 19 time in the New Testament. This article lists instances not only of that word but also of its adjectival and verbal forms ("having communion" and "to have communion").  Esoglou (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Koinonia in Septuagint S-2842 Lev. 6:2; S-2841 2Chr. 20:35-37, Job 34:8, Prov. 1:11, Ecc.9:4, Is. 44:9; S-2844 2Ki. 17:11, Prov. 28:24, Is. 1:23, Mal. 2:14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.152.4 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Communion (Christian) → Communion (word) – This article is not about any one meaning of communion, and is mostly linguistic. The current disambiguator accomplishes nothing, because most/all meanings of "communion" have to do with Christianity (see Communion). See for examples of articles with "word" as a disambiguator. JFH (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not a dictionary, and needs to be only about one meaning, and seems to be only about the Christian form of communion, and not, for example, discourse. There is though, a great deal of confusion between this article and Eucharist, such that reading both it is difficult to learn what communion actually is. Apteva (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the article could be about "interpersonal bonds" (I didn't see the hatnote before). Would Communion (interpersonal bond) work? --JFH (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment exactly what do you want to do with "word" ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, when I read the article, I get a lot of information about the word "communion" and its predecessors, and very little about any particular meaning of the word. I want the artice title to reflect the subject of the article. It starts with "The term communion", and then fails to give a definition. I also want people looking for Eucharist to not get confused and end up here. -JFH (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose strongly. Communion (Christian) is about a specific bond between Christian individuals and groups, not about similar bonds in general; nor is it directly about the word "communion", although it must explain the origin of the specific meaning of that word when applied to a bond between Christians. The article Communion (disambiguation) corresponds to what perhaps most people would expect from an article on "Communion (word)".  Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then Communion (Christian bond). Communion (Christian) is terribly ambiguous and easily confused with Eucharist. --JFH (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to actuation of this new proposal, if it gains support. But I don't see it as necessary.  The article states: "In a special way the term communion is applied to sharing in the Eucharist by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, an action seen as entering into a particularly close relationship with Christ."  "Communion (Christian)" includes Holy Communion, is not something distinct from it.  Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not communion as a "bond" includes the rite, it doesn't address the ambiguity problem. If a broad topic includes another topic, the "subtopic" is still distinct and needs to be referred to in a way which makes it clear what is being talked about. Participants in this discussion should feel free to support any alternatives which come up during the discussion. --JFH (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is not a dictionary. --Article editor (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Do not move to Communion (Christian bond). There may be consensus for other possible titles, but it's not clear from this discussion. B2C 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Communion (Christian) → Communion (Christian bond) – The current title is very ambiguous; every other common meaning of the word has something to do with Christianity. During the last RM the lead was clarified, and it seems the article is supposed to be about the bond uniting Christians with one another. I would think the article was about the Lord's Supper based on the title. It is true that the Lord's Supper is an expression of the bond uniting Christians, but it is not the same thing, hence the need for this article. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC) JFH (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Red Slash 06:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Query. It strikes me that "bond" is quite ambiguous.  To make clear that here it has nothing to do with the financial meaning - "Russian bonds" ... "Jewish bonds" (?), "Christian bonds" (?) - would it be better to say "Communion (bond between Christians)"?  Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think the title is now too descriptive. --Article editor (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Communion (Christianity). "Bond" is over-precise; "communion" usually just means either A) The Lord's Supper, or B) Other congregations / churches a specific church is working with or cooperating with.  e.g. "the Xians are in full communion with the Yians and consider the Yians sacraments, priests/ministers, etc. valid as Xian."  Neither of these are well-described by "bond," though that's part of it.  THe current article obscures that a bit actually.  That said, "Christian" is weird, so use the religion's name itself as the disambiguator. SnowFire (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that communion usually means the things you mentioned, and that's the problem. We already have Eucharist for A and full communion for B. The article proposes another, related concept, and the title needs to distinguish that concept from A and B if the article is to continue to exist. Please see WP:PRECISE. --JFH (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Snowfire's proposal. This minimal change may perhaps be just enough to overcome fear of confusion with "the Lord's Supper"/"Eucharist".  Insistence on precision would favour "Communion (bond between Christians)" rather than "Communion (Christian bond)", which is not quite precise, and which can be seen as "too descriptive" in comparison to both "Communion (Christian)" and "Communion (Christianity)".  "Christianity", in place of "Christian", directs thought, I think, to the whole body of Christians, rather than to a rite that they perform.  Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Christianity" just sounds like the subject or context (see the second bullet under WP:NCDAB #2). So I would assume we are talking about communion in the context of Christianity, and that doesn't help me any, because every article we have on communion is in that context. "Christianity" would be preferred to "Christian", since we should avoid adjectives, but I don't think it's an improvement on my concern regarding confusion with other articles. I kind of doubt, by the way, that anyone will think we're referring to a financial instrument, since I'm not aware of such a "Christian bond", but I have no problem with "bond between Christians". --JFH (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can also support a move to Communion (Christianity); I still oppose the move to Communion (Christian bond). --Article editor (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Minor point) There are many "Christian bond"s other than communion: those established by the sacrament of marriage, religious profession ... Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why it would be Communion (Christian bond) and not just Christian bond. It is a generic class disambiguator (see WP:NCDAB). This is something called "communion" which is a type of Christian bond, just as mercury is a type of element. --JFH (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I too am fine with "Christian fellowship" to be clear, since it seems that's what this article wants to actually talk about.  (Although if the article is not moved to "Christian fellowship", I still support "Communion (Christianity)" as the next best alternative.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. As someone unfamiliar with this, I'm not sure what the article is even supposed to be about. Seems a very fuzzy, non-encyclopedic concept. Why isn't this Christian fellowship (which oddly redirects to the scholarly Greek term koinonia) or ecumenism? It seems to me that the topic of this article may actually be the misdirected "Christian fellowship". Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think the title of this article should be changed to "Communion (Christian fellowship)", much clearer and less ambiguous than linking it with any variation of "bond".  Esoglou (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, would "Christian fellowship" become a dab? For this article, koinonia, and possibly other concept translated as "fellowship" in the Christian realm. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could best be a redirect to the "Communion (Christian fellowship)" article, and the "Communion (Christian fellowship)" article could treat of κοινωνία (what it meant in the New Testament and before) only in summary fashion, leaving the main presentation to the Koinonia article. "Communion" (with which are associated the terms "full communion", "partial communion") puts the stress on present-day Christian fellowship.  "Communion of saints" too is a concept that, I think, grew up as Latin communio sanctorum, not as Greek κοινωνία τῶν ἁγίων and is thus associated with this article, not with that on κοινωνία.  Esoglou (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Christian fellowship actually seems like the best title for this article (kind of ashamed I didn't think of that). I don't think it's very likely anyone looking for "Christian fellowship" is looking for an article on the Greek word "Koinonia" (surely that article is on a word). Koinonia could be hatnoted from Christian fellowship. Anyway, I'd support either Christian fellowship or Communion (Christian fellowship), and I prefer both of them to Communion (Christian bond). --JFH (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. "Communion (Christian fellowship)" is the better of the two names that you say you would support.  As hinted above, I think "communion" is the most frequently used term for this concept, rather than "Christian fellowship", which, rather than a commonly used term, is instead an explanatory phrase.  Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Christian fellowship. "Communion" is always going to primarily mean the Eucharist in a Christian context, and I don't like Communion (Christian fellowship) for its redundancy. Hat to Koinonia per JFH, or even merge it with this article. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder how you would then rewrite the paragraph that begins: "By metonymy, the term is used of a group of Christian Churches that have this close relationship of communion with each other. An example is the Anglican Communion." We can't really change to "... Churches that have this close relationship of Christian fellowship with each other".  Indeed, "Christian fellowship" is broader than that form of Christian fellowship that is known as "communion".   This, not Christian fellowship in general, is what the article is about.  Nobody would ask whether the Oriental Orthodox are in "Christian fellowship" with the Eastern Orthodox.  Many do ask whether the Oriental Orthodox are in "communion" with the Eastern Orthodox.  No, a move to "Christian fellowship" would not be appropriate.  Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about banning "communion" from the article altogether. I just think it's a poor fit for the title because it isn't properly recognizable. By all means, we can explain it as an alternative term for the concept. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea you're describing belongs in full communion. --JFH (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with BDD that "communion" should not be banned from the article. If it were, the whole article would consist of a single sentence: "The bond uniting Christians as individuals and groups with each other and with Jesus Christ is known as communion Christian fellowship".  However, if "communion" is kept, practically the only change in the article would be to start with "The bond uniting Christians as individuals and groups with each other and with Jesus Christ is known as communion Christian fellowship, a closer form of which is called communion", with the rest of the article left perhaps unchanged, certainly with no need to mention "Christian fellowship" again.  The title "Christian fellowship" for such an article would be an inappropriate choice.  Esoglou (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to Communion (Christianity) - per SnowFire. --MicroX (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that SnowFire recently indicated support for "Christian fellowship". --JFH (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Communion is actually one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity. From the Latin cum - with and unio- unity. it speaks of the union of Christ with his Church and of all its members with each other. It is a profoundly theological term, widely used, especially in Roman Catholic theology. The sacramental term 'communion' is intimately connected with this idea, but is distinct. So the term should not be dismissed.Gazzster (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed something, nobody has voiced opposition to the proposal to move to "Communion (Christianity)", although some give it only their second preference. Proposals to move to "Communion (Christian bond)" or "Christian fellowship" or "Communion (Christian fellowship)" have all met opposition.  Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - withdrawing support from discussion. Though I have to ask: does this topic satisfy WP:GNG? Almost seems like WP:SYNTH. The first inline citation leads nowhere relevant. The second inline citation leads to a Word Document which says that it is still in "draft form" and "any comments and ideas are welcome" (WP:OR?). The third and final citation is just the search for the words "Communion" and "Fellowship" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (WP:SYNTH?) and the second external link is a dead link. The first external link is the definition of the word fellowship in the New Testament. The third external link seems like the most relevant but it isn't an inline citation. --MicroX (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability
Per the comment immediately above at the end of the RM, I have added a notability tag. Where are the sources for this? Citing some would be good. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand on what grounds the notability of an idea that is so widely discussed can be questioned. The two inline citations (about the origin of the term and about the range of meanings of the Greek word κοινωνία) that MicroX commented on are unrelated to the notability of the idea.  There is no point in counting Google hits for the single word "communion", but perhaps there is in seeing what publications come up in a Google Books search for phrases such as "idea of communion" and "communion between churches".  Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspects
There is some wording in the Aspects section which appears suspect. First I will quote the passage in question, then relate the two following verses:

quote, "This relationship is generally understood to extend not only to those still in earthly life, but also to those who have gone past death to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8)."

1 Corinthians 15:31 - "I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."

2 Corinthians 5:8 - "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

These verses are necessarily talking about what the symbolism of baptism has done for us, dying to the flesh and rising in the spirit through living by faith (1 Peter 3:21). We call down and carry the Holy Spirit by renewing our minds daily with prayer and study (Romans 12:2, 2 Timothy 2:15); this allows us to live obediently after the example of Christ instead of as slaves to sin. Additionally - unless we are one of the 24 translated elders (Revelation 4:10-11) - our spirit beyond death does not go "home with the Lord" until the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Revelation 20:4-5); rather, evidence points to the dead knowing nothing and sleeping while in the grave (Daniel 12:2, John 11:11-24, Ecclesiastes 9:5). It's a bit silly to think that when we die our spirit goes to Heaven, then at the resurrection we get taken from Heaven and put back in our bodies so that we can go back to Heaven. When Jesus ascended to the Father, He took His body with Him; when the elders were translated, they likewise took their bodies with them (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11, Hebrews 11:5). Our dry bones are made a living soul only when we have breath in our nostrils (Genesis 2:7, Ezekiel 37:4-6). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapur9 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement in the article is about how the communion of saints is generally understood, not about the correctness or otherwise of this general understanding. The statement is securely sourced and I have rephrased it to make it yet clearer.  Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communion (Christian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319091142/http://clsa.org/content/files/USCCB_memo_2006_0405.pdf to http://clsa.org/content/files/USCCB_memo_2006_0405.pdf/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726135447/http://www.newmartyr.org.uk/branch.html to http://www.newmartyr.org.uk/branch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communion (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050902232311/http://bartleby.com/61/82/C0518200.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/C0518200.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)