Personhood, Communion, and Why They Matter
Way deep in the catacombs of comments to my post on being in relationship as essential to being a person, Micah made the brief and important statement, “Fortunately, I can’t think of a single real-life difference either of our positions would make.” This is an important statement in that if our views—whether mine or my dissenter’s—do not affect the way we live, it likely isn’t worth the time and effort to either hold that position or to argue for it. I don’t mean to belittle the long discussion we had and I especially don’t want to belittle the position Timbo argued for as he was my main challenger in the discussion. This post is not intended to continue that debate, but to respond to Micah’s claim through a personal narrative. Of course, one should always be wary when reading a post that opens with a disclaimer, especially a disclaimer this long.
I came to my view of communion as necessary for personhood rather late in the game, as it were. As I said in the post I mentioned, the view as articulated by John Zizioulas that relationship is essential to personhood came to me through my studies in systematic theology during my time in seminary. It immediately resonated with me and like so many things that resonate with me, the view did not so much show me something altogether new, but put into words what I had been thinking and experiencing for quite some time. Zizioulas may have put matters in terms I would have never considered prior since philosophy and systematic theology have never been the disciplines I naturally gravitate toward.
In an earlier post I discussed a bit of my journey in faith. For the majority of my time as a disciple of Christ, I have had a very individualistic view of what it means to be a Christian. I would read the Bible for my development, I wanted to know what I could get out of a worship service and a sermon, and participation in a community was mostly something that was good for me. I saw my attendance at weekly worship services as a means strengthen my walk, to give me some material to reflect on during my private quiet times (or devotionals if you prefer) throughout the week. Whether I developed this individualistic view on my own or it was somehow given to me doesn’t really matter because I owned it and held it closely to my chest.
I would have experiences later in life that challenged my individualistic relationship with God. As an evangelical Christian, I most certainly do not want to give up the belief in a personal relationship with God, but my experience showed me that the personal and corporate are not mutually exclusive. Both are radically important.
My first experience came as a college student in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF). Actually, my time as a camper and staff worker at Calvin Crest Conferences was the first real experience of the beauty of being in regular community with Christians. I simply did not have a community like that when I went back home down the mountain. In IVCF I did find that kind of community of fellow disciples wanting to follow Jesus with their whole lives in a setting that was not separate from the rest of society. Here my fellow Christians wrestled with God in their studies, in their relationships with others, in their jobs, etc. All of the sudden I found that my experience in the group setting did strengthen my private time with God, but the opposite was also true. My private time with God related more to what was happening within the community. I was not left alone as I began to discover God’s heart for reconciliation across the barriers that separate us, but learned about it and experienced it with others. These two aspects of the faith began to work in concert with each other.
In the subsequent years, through other experiences and study, I began to believe that God’s goal was not to save me as an individual, but to create a redeemed people as a part of redeeming all of creation. Being a part of a community was no longer an option of the Christian faith. And yes, those advantages of community such as mutual support, accountability, and wisdom from others are absolutely true. More importantly, however, I have come to believe that the communities of the people of God are the primary locations of God’s activity in this world. It is in community that God speaks and where we can discern the Holy Spirit’s activity and direction. Jesus called his disciples to follow him in community, not to follow him as a group of individuals who have no real relationship to one another.
But why is this so? As I came across theologians like the Cappadocian Fathers, Zizioulas, Jürgen Moltmann, Stanley Grenz, and Miroslav Volf, I saw that that piece of our doctrine, the Trinity, which for years I had believed because I was supposed to but found to be supremely esoteric all of the sudden began to matter. These theologians emphasized that the Trinity is God in community. The three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit—are in eternal communion with one another. They love and give to each other. They serve and support each other. They send and glorify one another. The other aspect of Christian doctrine which I have held is that as human beings, we are created in the image of God. Combine the doctrine of the image of God with the doctrine of a social Trinity and I saw that why I experienced God in surprisingly beautiful and strong ways in community was because I was being true to who God created me to be. To be in communion with God and with other persons is (partly) what it means to be created in the image of God. God is communal. Humans are communal. Membership within a community—and I do not mean church membership specifically—is not extracurricular to the Christian faith, but it is something Jesus calls us into when he calls us to follow him.


The difference it makes: if communion is essential to personhood, then to an atheist, the isolated homeless are not persons, for they are not in communion with any other persons. This is a dangerous road to travel.
Comment by Timbo — March 31, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Again, show me the human not in communion with other persons, and I may see your point. As it stands, even the homeless person is in communion with others—he or she is not and has never been totally isolated. Also, I respect an atheistic outlook, but it is not one to which I ascribe. I am coming to my understanding of persons via what I understand Christian doctrine says about both the Godhead and humans.
Comment by Tyler Watson — March 31, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Once again we talk past eachother.
Comment by Timbo — March 31, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Please show me where we misunderstand each other. Again, I’m content to say that we disagree, but that does not seem to be how you see the situation. In your most recent example you said that according to the atheist a homeless person would not be a person under my definition because they are not in communion with other persons. I responded that the homeless person has been and I think is in communion with other persons. Where did I misunderstand you? My assumption has never been an overarching view of persons neutral to religious ideologies. I have from the beginning tried to formulate a Christian view.
Comment by Tyler Watson — March 31, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
“I have from the beginning tried to formulate a Christian view.”
And that is where we’ve been talking past each other. I have not been discussing a Christian view of persons, just the concept of personhood in and of it itself, which is logically prior to whatever Christian or Trinitarian considerations we bring to the concept of personhood. I am and have been from the start speaking of the concept of personhood by itself, not from a specifically Christian, Trinitarian, or whatever perspective.
Comment by Timbo — March 31, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
That should be “in and of itself.” Also, if my posting has taken away from your joy about going to New Zealand, then I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. Have a good time down under, er, in Middle Earth.
Comment by Timbo — March 31, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
We are theologians, Tim. The idea of speaking about personhood without speaking about God and a person’s relationship to God, and to the rest of creation is troubling if not untennable.
I don’t see how I could accept “a concept of personhood in and of it itself, which is logically prior to whatever Christian or Trinitarian considerations we bring to the concept of personhood.”
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — March 31, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
How is it troubling? Are you saying that you are unable to understand things apart from your theology? Can you not even step outside your own perspective to even try to understand how someone could make sense of the concept of personhood without reference to Trinitarian theology? Why force people to accept Christian theology in order to have an intelligible conception of personhood? Although I certainly agree that the Christian understanding of personhood is the correct understanding of personhood, I do not think it is the only coherent possibility: there is a huge difference between saying that there are many possible coherent understandings of personhood but that the Christian understanding is true and saying that there is no coherent conception of personhood apart from Christian Trinitarian theology.
Comment by Timbo — April 1, 2006 @ 7:30 am
In what I find to be a beautifully ironic reversal of our roles, Tim, as long as we are not talking about what is truth, or what personhood truly is, I am happy to conjecture with you about what other possible cogent understandings of personhood would be.
The relational aspects of my views of personhood though are up to this point founded only on Christian grounds.
Why make someone accept our Christian beliefs before they can discuss the concept of personhood? That is a fascinating turn on my question before, why make someone accept our trust in absolute truth before they can accept Jesus Christ as their savior? I’d like to mull that over for a while.
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — April 1, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Timbo:
“Are you saying that you are unable to understand things apart from your theology?”
Actually, nothing makes ultimate sense without theology as it is the study of God. Random chance and a universe without purpose (hence God) is absurd and meaningless.
Tyler: How does your view of “communion” fit with “Communion?” I was trying to piece your thoughts together to understand. It seems if we take the plural “we’s” of the NT seriously and that the church is the very center of God’s attention and doing in the universe, we participate in the most profound event in the universe each week…together. Heaven comes down to earth and the church on earth and the church in heaven worship as one. We end with a Peace Offering meal with God wherein something actually happens, we are transformed more into the image of Christ (Real Presence).
Comment by Anikisan — April 12, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
“Actually, nothing makes ultimate sense without theology as it is the study of God. Random chance and a universe without purpose (hence God) is absurd and meaningless.”
I am in complete agreement! But I am not talking about “ultimate sense.” A theological conception of personhood is just that: it brings theological insights to the concept of personhood. But I am talking about personhood simpliciter, and one must not be a Christian Trinitarian in order to have a coherent understanding of personhood.
Comment by Timbo — April 13, 2006 @ 6:55 am