Eucharist Discussion Continued

We were having a good email conversation about the Eucharist, so I thought I would bring it over into our blog.

There is one fascinating perspective on the Eucharist that I just recently picked up on, namely the basic significance of eating. I think I often have trouble with the sacraments because the materials themselves are so utterily mundane: bread, wine, water, oil etc. But now I am realizing that the universality and "everyday-ness" of the materiality of the sacraments is not merely accidental. In the sacraments, the everyday things that are most intimate to us become where we meet God. So, in essesnce, we are bringing what is most human to God. And God is bringing Himself to what is most human. This is so incarnational; it only makes sense Christologically.

In the Eucharist, perhaps the most basic human act--eating--becomes a meeting place with God. Eating is symbolic of culture in general; people come together to eat; its one of the most fundamental social/ cultural actions. So it makes sense that the central sacrament would be a meal.

Moreover, when we eat we literally take something into us and make it a part of us. In eating, something outside enters into us. Food is digested and absorbed into our body. So when we eat the body of Christ, we take Christ into us, and we physically become one with him. This is so basic and physical that it easily escapes my attempt to "analyze" the meaning of the Eucharist.

I think the more difficult question, then, is not why do we eat the Eucharist, but why does Christ enter into bread? I guess one could point to bread as the most universal and everyday food. Another problem for me: wouldn't the apparent "effects" of the Eucharist be more apparent if Christ is truly entering into us. Why don't I experience a renewed faith or spiritual energy, etc? Is it just due to my lack of faith?

Any thoughts?