My general reaction to Michael’s post: I see as much divisiveness stemming from those who are IGNORANT about what other Christians actually believe as I see from theologians.

Disunity is a function of sinful human nature. Those who know a lot will make their knowledge an excuse for division. Those who know little will still find reasons for divisions.

One thing that has struck me about the renewed debate sparked by the recent Vatican document on the nature of the Church is that all the insulted reactions stem from a wrong understanding of the ecumenical enterprise.

We will never achieve true unity by sweeping existing differences under the carpet or otherwise pretending that they don’t exist, nor by pressuring people into giving up sincerely held convictions because they are somehow an obstacle to unity.

Rather, we need to start appreciating the areas where we already agree, and work and fellowship together as much as possible. Where there are differences, we need to acknowledge them RESPECTFULLY, ascribing neither ill intent nor lack of intelligence or spiritual insight to those who differ from us. Above all, we need to pray to the Father, with the Lord of the Church, that the spiritual unity which is already true of all His children would become more and more manifest in visible ways.

But I am not holding my breath waiting for institutional or organizational unity; I think that’s the least important aspect of it, anyway.

I’m a sacramentalist, and I might well be one of those people “on that song 24/7.” You might also know that I’m a communicant of Saint Pat’s in Lexington, and one of the things that I appreciate about our liturgy is that there doesn’t seem to be a heavy demand on our people affirming incredibly specific things about what they are consuming. I’m not a fan when people refer to That which sits upon the altar after the consecration as “bread,” but do you know what else I believe about the Sacrament? I am convinced that it’s a gracious action whereby God further actualizes what began in baptism: we are one in Jesus Christ, and are being made one in Jesus Christ. That means I suck it up and learn to deal.

Richard Hooker urged his contemporaries to back off on the debates as to what rested on the altar.

One of the things I appreciate about your writings on this matter is that I hear you imply something something that I try to make explicit, that “it’s the eschatology, stupid” (ahem). The most important thing about our celebration of the Eucharist (or scandalous lack thereof) is whether and how we welcome what God wishes to do in us and to us by our participation.

At the same time, I could not in good conscience share in the Lord’s Supper with many evangelical friends at their churches, because I would be subjected to, along with the words of institution, an interpretive gloss that specifically disaffirms the notion of any sacramental grace being conveyed through the instruments of bread and wine.

We would do well to remember that needless and divisive theologizing (falsely called) can and does go both ways.

Quite a few of these are ones who call themselves “biblical Christians”. The irony resounds.

Theology has one purpose–expounding upon how good God is, and how bountiful his gifts are, and how worthy of trust he is. If a child can’t appreciate it, the trash heap can have it. It will only send people to hell.

But, as Paul said, “as long as Christ is being proclaimed”. God apparently is content to use vainglorious fools just to get the word out. Such a shame so many of them won’t see heaven themselves, but at least they may ignite a spark in someone who actually wants Jesus, instead of a power trip.

Alternatives seem to be along the lines of

1) Hone doctrine as though God is also in the details, and be castigated for being too persnickety by half.
2) Let doctrine be damned, and be nice to virtually everyone, making sure never to give voice to theological imperatives (aka judge).
3) Harbor secret doctrinal beliefs.
4) Love. And do your worst.

Is there something I’m overlooking. (I hope)

If you are going to be a wise ass, snarkily taunting evangelicals from your sacramentalist superiority complex, do it on your blog. We all know about “is” and we all know the hundreds of instances where “is” isn’t “is.” So you are wasting your time treating the other posters on any thread on the sacraments asif they were stupid.

Start your own blog, or I can send you to some that are on that song 24/7.

Most of the theologians I read are pretty enthusiastic about the idea of cross-denominational Christian unity. Meanwhile, I’ve known people in Baptist churches who can’t even define “sacrament” yet are quite certain that most Catholics are going to hell.

That said, I do also know of a whole lot of seminary graduates who seem awfully eager to excommunicate each other. But in the end, what else can we expect from a religion that makes having the right set of doctrinal beliefs the prerequisite entrance into heaven?