I'm convinced the fear and contempt among Christian sects is more often due to misunderstanding than substantive differences, but that doesn't make the hatred any less hurtful and damaging.
Eastern and Roman traditions cannot demonstrate that Christ's blood and body are physically present in the host (bread and wine), but that conviction separates them from Baptists, for example, who neither can demonstrate they are saved by a "prayer of salvation."[1]
What do all Christians who "do this in remembrance"[2] have in common?
- The observance is somber and reverent.
- It is administered by a devout person - a priest, a minister, or in special circumstances a respected lay person.
- The participants prepare their hearts and are free of unconfessed sin.
- Bread and liquid are consumed.
- It is regarded as a sacrament.
- It is preceded and followed by prayer and reflection.
It's difficult to fathom how so many millions that celebrate this special moment can't see the similarities they share but choose to focus on the differences (vestments, leavening, wine/water/grape juice, etc).
Something Like Grace
There is one thing not listed in those bullets above: Grace (or something akin to it) is imparted to participants. You can believe it's real or metaphorical; I don't think it matters.
Question: If you are dangling from a cliff and someone throws you a rope and says "Grab this rope and sing Rock of Ages Cleft for Me and I'll pull you up!", and you hold onto the rope and sing the song, what actually saves you?
Does it matter what you think saves you as long as a subset of your practices or beliefs do have salvific value?[3]
How much human suffering (from words that kill our spirit to actions that kill our bodies) is the result of us exaggerating the importance of an opinion neither side can prove? Perhaps that is precisely why we fight over these things: we can't demonstrate we're right, so we silence those who think we are wrong.
[1]
Let's not split hairs; I know that Baptists don't believe we are saved "by" anything but the blood of Jesus. Note that transubstantiation - the actual presence of Christ in the host (bread and wine) - has strong biblical support (John 6), but there is no "prayer of salvation" in the bible, even though every Baptist I know has prayed one, and if you're Baptist and like me, you prayed it many times, just to be sure.
And to be fair, every Catholic I've heard talk about the subject says belief in the physical presence of Christ in the host is nonnegotiable. Even though there is no physical evidence that there is any human flesh or blood in the host prior to or following ingestion.
We have a word for believing something despite what your senses tell you: Faith.
How about both sides (all sides) come to agreement that for a variety of reasons they've chosen to interpret the bible and the human activities around it differently, but they are still describing the same qualities that ground their faith in the first place.
There is an old Hindu allegory in which three blind men are holding onto an elephant. One is holding the tail and says "It's a snake" ; another is holding an ear and says "It's a banana leaf" ; the third is holding a leg and says "It's a tree trunk."
Humans need to codify important processes so they can be repeated and taught. This process can be quite ornate (Christmas, birthdays, baptisms) or very simple (how silverware is arranged at the dinner table). It all arises from the same need, though it doesn't naturally follow that they are equally significant.
[2]
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19, KJV
[3]
Some fundamentalists will say Yes, it does matter. You have to believe Proposition A. Not B or C or anything else. Just A and only A. Given the wide variety of differences among the apostles and church fathers, this is hard to maintain; at some point (actually many points) you are picking and choosing, or interpreting very loosely.
No comments:
Post a Comment