Can Christians Eat Together?

I remember when Stanley Hauerwas provocatively asked the questions, "Can Christians not kill one another?" This sounds like a simple answer but the problem is many Christians have no problem droning or dropping bombs on other nations.  Obviously in practice, Christians will argue that in extreme cases which often turn out to not to be exceptional but normative, that Christians can kill Christians.

Two books I am reading at the same time is the edited work by George Kalantis and Marc Cortez Come, Let Us Eat Together: Sacraments and Christian Unity as well as Craig Carter's Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis.  It is interesting and sad to see how many of the divergent articles simply uphold their traditional beliefs on the subject, especially concerning the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics. Several of the best articles were by D. Stephen Long and I especially appreciated Cherith Fee Nordling "Ascension Communion."

Paul L. Gavrilyuk "The Eschatological Dimension of Sacramental Unity" I found the most helpful in thinking through the murky waters of intercommunion among Christians. He tries to provide a "middle way" between the two extremes of open communion and closed communion. He says that open communion serious flaw is the reality of divisions is ignored. His problem with closed communion which is part of his Eastern Orthodox tradition is there is no place for the eschatological character of the sacrament to be seen.

The Eucharist is the in-breaking of the kingdom of God and is a foretaste of the unity of Christ that breaks down all barriers between believers (p.182).  The Eucharist is a foretaste of the messianic banquet and a sacrament of communion with Christ. The reality of eschatological intercommunion is obscured by our continuing divisions and quarrels. To the extent in which we are Eucharistically taken up into fellowship with Christ, our divisions melt away in the life of communion (p.183).

Craig Carter's book is trying to get Christians back to both a sacramental realism and a recovery of Christian Platonism. Although I agree with Carter and Hans Boersma in their respective works in renewing the church through the theology of the early church fathers, I agree with the focus on a sacramental realism that binds us together but I don't understand why we must hold onto Christian Platonism to be faithful to Scriptures and the traditions of the church? Surely if the church father's contextualized the gospel in their Greek Platonic world, can't we do the same today translating the same faithful gospel into our postmodern global world? For example, Carter somewhat dismisses panentheism as heresy or wrong because it does not follow the classical theism of the ancient church. But doesn't our changing world demand that we look at the more interconnected ways the science, philosophy, metaphysics and the like have evolved?

We have shifted today from our dualistic thinking to more holistic thinking on so many issues. Rather than see everything as either/or categories, have we not seen some welcome changes in both/and categories?  For example, Carter says God is either in history, or is history and therefore not free of history and transcendent in the classical sense.  I want to suggest that God is over history (transcendent of history) and involved and in history (panentheism sense not to be confused with pantheism) and these are both true realities we need to hold onto and not jutrapose them against each other. 

In the end, I am on board with Carter's recovery of premodern exegesis but does that mean we have to throw out all modern exegetical forms? I suspect Carter would be on the same page here and maybe a better way of saying this is rather than critiquing modern historical studies of the Scriptures, we say they must serve the Great tradition as a norm rather than the other way around understanding that even the great tradition needs course corrections and renewal at times.  Maybe another way of saying this for me is we need to hold onto Patristic theology but it's contextualized forms like Platonism may change due to preaching the gospel fresh in today's unbelieving world.