Every church I know of has communion of some sort.
If it is
common sense then why do the vast majority of Christians disagree with your version of "practical?"
Church life experiences of course are practical. But as per typical LCM
equivocation, you define "practical" to mean what you want it to mean, when, of course, it could be defined a lot of ways.
This is such a common rhetorical tactic of the LCM that it makes one's head swim, which I suppose is the point. Here is how they do it:
- Take a common term, like "practical."
- Make note of the general definition.
- Then make a proprietary definition.
- Use the term in an acceptable way using the general definition. For example, say "the church must be practical." Most will nod in agreement.
- Then pull out the proprietary definition. For example, say "because the church must be practical it must do A, B and C," (which are all according to the proprietary definition, not the general definition).
- Then go for the kill and declare, "The LC is the only true church because it has A, B and C!"
- Welcome dupes that fall for such specious logic into the fold of the faithful.
Do this over and over with various terms, like "church," "oneness," "Spirit," "division," "building," "function," "opinion," "gift," "move," "ministry," etc, and you have something that operates rhetorically like the LCM, e.g. in a deceptive and equivocating manner.