CREED: I BELIEVE IN ... THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS


In my comments on “I believe in the Holy Spirit” I concluded with this statement. “I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. And because I do, other truths follow: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints'”. 
How much they are connected, I discovered or rediscovered as I researched what the early church (and KJV) meant by “saint” or “saints”. The Greek word (according to Strong's Concordance) that is translated HOLY each time the phrase HOLY SPIRIT is used, is the same word translated “saints”. It is also translated as the “holy thing” or “holy ones” or “the godly”. 
Then I discovered that the word “communion” is also translated as “fellowship”. 
So now, it does no harm to the ideas if I should say: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy universal (collective) body of believers, and the fellowship of the individual holy ones.” Again one must understand that Holy means the set apart ones. In this case the set apart collective body i.e. The Church, and the set apart individuals, i.e. “the Saints”. And they are declared “holy” or made “holy” by the “anointing” of the Holy Spirit. (In the same way Tabernacle furnishings and utensils and Levites were set apart or made holy by the anointing with oil, or blood etc. in the OT.
Having thus defined the “saints” as those who are set aside by God's Spirit for service rather than those who are deemed to be “perfect, without flaw, or sinless” I need now to contemplate what I mean when I say that I believe in the “communion of saints”. Because of mis-application of both the term "saint" and "communion", I need to start with what it does NOT mean. Communion does not mean “conversation” as in “talking to” or communicating with”, and the “saints” are not those departed souls that a particular body has decreed have powers to work miracles on our behalf. 
Communion or “fellowship” I find in the Old Testament and then into the New Testament had the sense of “being bound together”. And thus to “sharing”. “ Having a share, giving a share, or sharing.”
I believe that I have this is common with “the saints”. That I have shared, do share and will share my experiences of being in Christ, and in the fellowship of His suffering and so on. This sharing also implies the sharing of substance as in giving generously. But the declaration that I believe in the communion of the saints, following the belief in the HOLY CATHOLIC Church means that this “in common fellowship” is NOT just about my local assembly of believers --- of like mind. It means that I have this “communion” with all saints, in all places, and throughout all history. Why is it so hard for Christians to understand that if in a human family I have a father whether biological or or by adoption, and he has another child whether biological or by adoption, then we are siblings. It doesn't matter if the other one was adopted before me or after me. It doesn't matter if the other one lives in another place, city or country or even speaks a different language. It doesn't matter if we have different skin colour, and it certainly doesn't matter what tastes we have in dress, music, level of maturity or anything else really. We are “brothers” and/or “sisters” and nothing can change that fact. We “share” the same Father. We have this in common. We are in fellowship. We have the “communion of the set apart ones.” 
What is the “So what?” here? Perhaps it is as simple as this: 
Having been born of the Spirit and therefore sharing in the fellowship or communion of every believer how do I dare to set boundaries as to who I will allow into my circle ? If the Father accepts them (by adoption) how can I judge them according to external behaviour as to whether or not they are among the saints? 
Note how Paul addresses the believers in Corinth (not the Red Ribbon Congregation that we think we are in): 
“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”


A footnote about “Holy” or holiness. Have you ever heard someone say they aren't “holy” enough to become a Christian? Or maybe even worse, a Christian counselling someone else that the reason they are not “filled with the HOLY Spirit” is because they are not “holy” enough. Question: How can anyone become “holy” if the HOLY SPIRIT is not actively working IN them to make them “holy” or “set aside”? Trying to become “more holy” is purely an effort of the Flesh or “works” and cannot be done. Allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work is the only answer, and again why the belief in, the trust in the Holy Spirit must be the preceding declaration before we can declare we (I) believe in the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of the Holy ones (saints.)

Max Lucado in Grace for the moment/ He still moves stones relates this story:
Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian writer, tells of the time he was walking down the street and passed a beggar. Tolstoy reached into his pocket to give the beggar some money, but his pocket was empty. Tolstoy turned to the man and said, “I'm sorry, my brother, but I have nothing to give.”
The beggar brightened and said, “You have given me more than I asked for--- you have called me brother.”

Imagine the impact on the world if Christians could learn to call fellow believers, no matter what their peculiarities and differences “brother” (or “sister”.)! Think of the oddest denomination you can think of, (not false religions or cults) and imagine one of its members confessing that they believe “in God the Father Almighty, ... and in Jesus Christ His only Son”. (Imagine that person being a Roman Catholic – maybe a Martin somebody, or a wild field preacher, a John or Charles somebody, or an Agnes, or an Ellen,or a Brian -or even a Grant.) Now imagine you calling him or her, “brother” or “sister”. Could you, or would you do it? Could you, or should you, say; “I believe in the communion of the saints.”?