Re: Necessary division?

Javajeb responds to my post and some of the comments:

Further, the reaction to Machen’s writings by City of God seems to miss the point. Machen isn’t praising or decrying the separation of groups over the supper; it’s the fact the differences were significant enough, that an honest conscience required an objection. We find our theology, all to often, as a matter of personal preference. Our spiritual parents found it enough to stand ground on significant doctrines. Should we not stand as firm today, where required. Even though we’re all predominantly Zwinglian, should we be?

First things first: I am the furthest thing from a Zwinglian. My favourite book on the Eucharist is by Peter Leithart, a Federal Visionist (I assume Javajeb knows about all that, since he quotes Keith Mathison and is reading Gresham Machen)! My objection to the separation that Machen was noting (and defending: “Such indifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisions between the branches of the Church”) was that I see no biblical reason why we need to exclude each other from the table because of metaphysical theories about what happens at the table. Because I am not a Zwinglian, I believe the Supper does something independent of our thoughts about it; in fact, I think that something (uniting us to Christ, renewing the covenant, etc. etc.) is the primary purpose of the Supper, rather than being a trigger for reflection.

Should we not stand as firm today, where required.

Yes, by all means. But my original exasperation remains: why is it required to stand firm in division over the doctrine of the consubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements? I still don’t get it.