Ever understood something Lewis doesn't?

[Steve]

I had an odd experience yesterday, reading Letters to Philip, where Lewis is discussing Communion. He says he is puzzled how to interpret Communion as purely symbolic because bread and wine are such odd symbols to choose.
Yet in my understanding this isn't difficult at all. Am I missing something obvious?

Here is my understanding: Jesus referred to the bread and the wine being his body and blood because He was giving new meaning to the Jewish tradition of the Passover Seder. He is saying in effect "This bread that you share with each other, to remember the deliverance from Egypt under Moses, is now also a remembrance of me delivering you from sin and instituting the New Covenant." (Similarly for the wine).

[A#minor]

I agree with your understanding of communion. I don't think there's any mystical significance in the Lord's Supper other than to remember what Christ did for us on the cross. He said, "Do this in remembrance of Me."

Perhaps that's Lewis' Anglican and Catholic influences coming out?

[Karen]

[WolfVanZandt]

Heh. The sun's bright but it has sunspots.

Don't sell yourself short, Steve. You're certainly capable of having insights that Lewis was barred from for one reason or another.

[Iris]

[Karen]

[Monica]

As long as we're discussing Steve's "ever understood something Lewis doesn't?" question how about this line from Lewis:

For some people, perhaps especially for Englishmen and Russians, what we call the "love of nature" is a permanent and serious sentiment.

I'm Canadian, and I know our love of nature is a permanent and serious sentiment. I can't speak for the Americans (anybody?) -- but don't the French love their landscapes? Don't the Italians love their seasides? Don't the Swiss love their Alps?

[soul101]

[Steve]

[Steve]

[soul101]

not to mention GWB's environment policy...

[bekados]

[loeee]

[Leslie]

[rusmeister]