God has given us this meal as a sign and seal of the unity we have with Him, and consequently of the unity we have with one another. But, not surprisingly, we have responded like a nation of dufflepuds, using the meal of unity as one of the principle points of disunity. We have read, take and eat as take and argue.
Not only do we quarrel about the food, and the table settings, but we chase away from our observance of the Table any who do not parse the arguments in exactly the same way we do. Thus we set aside the Word of God for the sake of our tradition.
Such traditions are hard to break away from, admittedly, but we are seeking to do it. That is why any baptized Christian, who is not under the lawful discipline of the Church, is welcome here. We know that this is not our Table.
Some will say that certain parsings of the meaning of this Table amount to idolatry, and we agree. The disagreements that arise are not necessarily disagreements over words. They can amount to idolatry, and all idolatry must be repented. Not only must it be repented of, but the Word that accompanies the sacrament must identify all such idolatries.
But if it is a faithful Word, then it will identify the idolatries that we are in danger of committing, and not rest content with inveighing against idolatries that are being committed on the other side of the world, or even across town.
The errors of Rome are not really a temptation here. So what is? Many conservative Protestants insist on observing the Supper as though it were simply a cleverly disguised sermon—or an extension on the sermon, the part of the sermon where the minister uses some props, to help us remember certain propositions. And the idolatry here is of our own minds, our own rational capacities. If we don’t feed ourselves, by teaching ourselves, we believe that we cannot be fed. But reading a nutrition text is not the same as eating.