Lady of shallot, we Christians have the notion that the church is the body of Christ. One of the ways that metaphor was constituted was in turning the eucharistic meal into one in which Christ is present. As raw imagery, it has unpleasant aspects. But that is appropriate - their beloved one had just been martyred by the authorities. Is is so strange that the early church would carry on with a meal at which he probably said the bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood? Re-constituting the Passover meal, celebrating freedom from tyranny, as given by the mighty hand of God. My point is that they didn't shed the blood, but had good reason to remember it. Not as a glorious or a ghoulish thing, but as clear recognition that the way he died mattered.
Tweet This Topic
