Tuesday, January 14, 2003
TS O'Rama takes issue with my post lamenting the state of Christianity, most especially with my call for an "open table" Communion and apparent support of "mere Christianity" over denominations. To answer the second objection first, I'd like to start by saying that I think Christianity ought to be one big room without the need for corridors. That doesn't mean glossing over differences, but rather looking to see what the Bible says and whether the differences are really enough to keep people from worshipping together. I can't think of any disputes not readily answerable by the Bible (I suspect that most are, though) that should be enough to prevent Christians from worshipping together.
As for Communion, it appears to me that any church which denies Communion to anyone who seeks it (or forces them to lie about their status as a member of that church in order to participate) and still holds that the people they refuse are Christians needs to re-examine its policies. If Xists want to say that Yists are Christians but still refuse to show Christian brotherhood, they're hypocrites. As for Catholics believing Communion to be the actual veins-and-sinews body and blood of Christ while Protestants believe it to be merely a representation, I don't consider this enough to separate the two. It also doesn't address those such as myself who believe it to literally be the spiritual body and blood of Christ. I think that ultimately, Protestants and Catholics also believe this. To say that it's merely a representation is saying that it is love and fellowship. Catholics deny that their view of Communion is cannibalism, and thus the only way I can see something being Christ without also being human flesh is to be his spiritual body, which, being God, is love. The closest to a dispute I can see from this is whether or not fellowship is a direct or indirect result of this.