Fourth Sunday in Lent

Archbishop Haverland will be with us at St. Benedict's this Sunday, Confirming, celebrating and preaching. So, I am rerunning the following sermon.

But, I want to comment first about the miracle of the loaves and fishes. In that miracle we see something unique. There Jesus works His miracle through the hands of ministers, the Apostles, rather than working directly. This miracle, one of feeding, is a picture of the Lord's ministry in and through His Church, both of word and sacrament. It is a picture of His ministry through the Apostles and their successors, and as such should remind us of the opening of St. John's first Epistle, that our ongoing fellowship (or partaking) is rooted in the Incarnation, and that it is truly Apostolic fellowship and communion. 

Galatians 4:21-31 * John 6:1-14

The Epistle and Gospel appointed for this Sunday teach us about the wide gulf between God's grace, and the weakness and hopelessness of man's highest aspirations apart from that grace. The Epistle is a blend of doctrine and St. Paul's autobiographical reminiscences that demonstrate the truth of that doctrine. The occasion for the writing of the Epistle was a heresy that is described in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts. "And certain men which came down from Judaeataught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." This so troubled the Church that the first Council was called, the proto-Council of Jerusalem. This new and troubling doctrine contradicted what all the Apostles had taught ever since the day that St. Peter entered the house of Cornelius, and Gentiles had become part of the Church.

This heresy is called the Judaizer heresy, and it has very much in common with a later heresy of the fourth century.Pelagius in the fourth century taught that man does not needthe grace of God to become righteous, but can achieve perfection by the power of the flesh. What the Judaizers did not understand, and what later the Pelagians did not understand, is expressed perfectly by St. Paul in another Epistle, the Epistle to the Church in Rome: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."1 The Law cannot save us, because the flesh is weak. The Law, rather, serves the purpose of diagnosing our genuine condition, that we are subject to sin and death, and that we need the Savior. In this context Paul opens the whole Epistle by contrasting the limited and weak state of man against the unlimited power and wisdom of God.

The Gospel tells of a miracle that Jesus used for the purpose of teaching that he alone is the food and drink of eternal life, that he imparts grace and salvation as we partake of him, the true Bread from heaven. He not only wrought our salvation: He himself is our salvation.

The Epistle

The only way to understand the Epistle is to know your Old Testament. The story from Genesis about Hagar, and her son, is the story about two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. Both of them are the sons of Abraham, but Paul tells us that one, Ishmael, was born after the flesh, the other, Isaac, after spirit. St. Paul considers his own life, and presents himself as an example of both of these, inasmuch as before his conversion he was very much the son of Abraham, but only after the flesh. Look at these words that were read today from the text we have heard: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." In the overall context of the Epistle, this follows the autobiographical confession of St. Paul near its beginning, where he wrote:

"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." 2

And, this gives an autobiographical flavor to what comes near the end of this Epistle:

"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availethanything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." 3

And, so also an earlier passage:

"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." 4

Saul of Tarsus had been that son of Abraham born only after the flesh, for he had yet to become a full son of Abraham by faith in the Messiah. Born after the flesh a son of Abraham, but not a son with the faith of Abraham, he persecuted the Church, those who were born after the spirit, those born according to the promise which was by faith. In those days he imagined that he was keeping the Law: "Imagined" I say,because he described his own self-deception in no uncertain terms, in yet another of his Epistles, and then describes the light of truth that shined on him:

"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other manthinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."5

What Saul learned, on the day that Jesus Christ appeared to him, was that his greatest crowning act of righteousness, persecuting the Church, was a filthy rag,6 the sin of persecuting the Messiah himself. "Saul, Saul, why persecutestthou me?" But he also learned that righteousness isaccounted to us only through faith. This was not simply any faith. The old question of faith and works can be very misleading if we see these as mere principles. What matters is not some thing called faith versus some thing called works, but specifically faith in Jesus Christ himself. Only that faith can save us, because only Jesus Christ can do what the Law, the good, holy and death-dealing Law that condemns us all, cannot do. What the Law cannot do is not because it is weak, but because we are weak due to the Fall of man into sin and death.

Saul, on the road to Damascus, lying in the dust of death, now revealed by his own most righteous act to be a miserableoffender in desperate need of God's mercy, rises to become Saint Paul the Apostle. No longer clouded by the self-deception of having some righteousness of his own, but having the righteousness of faith in the Messiah, Jesus, he is forgiven, justified, and called to true service in the Kingdom of God.

So, when St. Paul contrasts faith in Jesus Christ against the works of the Law, he speaks from his own life. When he speaks of the good works to which Christians are called (in full agreement with St. James), he speaks even of these as part of the life of faith, something that charity itself, by the Holy Spirit, produces in us because of our faith; not something that we can manufacture by our own strength. So, he wrote to the Church in Ephesus:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."7

St. Paul had been the son of the bondwoman, and he so cast out the son of the bondwoman from his own heart and life, that he became the son of the free woman; that is, in place of Saul was Paul; he was born again, born of the spirit,8 a child of Abraham by faith. Now he receives persecution rather than dishing it out. And, that share of persecution was part of knowing Christ, fellowship with his sufferings in light of the hope of the resurrection.

The Gospel

The very next verse, directly following the selection we have heard today from the Gospel of John, says, "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." Later, as recorded in the very same chapter, it was this that prompted Jesus to say to the crowds that sought for him, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." 9

The crowd was interested in having the problems of this world solved. The aspiration to have a king who would break the tyranny of a foreign empire, Rome, was understandable, as was the desire for a king who could employ his miraculous power to feed the nation. But, like those who later would teach salvation by the power of the flesh to keep the perfect and holy Law of God, the worldly focus of the crowd fell short of God's grace as he was revealing it through his Son.

This miracle revealed that Jesus Christ places in the hands of his Apostles miraculous food for all the people, and he does so in a desert place where no one can keep himself alive. Where there is no means of feeding, and where there is no power from human strength to bring forth bread from the earth, Jesus Christ provides all that is needed. He sustains life, feeding the bodies of the crowd to teach them that it is he who gives the only true bread, the food and drink of eternal life. For, we are in the desert place, unable to keep ourselves alive, unable to avoid the universal sentence for all human sin, namely, death. No matter how long we hang on in this desert, we do not have in ourselves the power to survive forever. Sooner or later, this applies to each one of us: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."10

It is from this miracle that the Lord begins to teach them, to lift the vision of those who will see, and to speak the word to those who may hear:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he thatbelieveth on me shall never thirst."11

He went on:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."12

Not until "the night in which he was betrayed," when he broke the bread and took the cup, did they know how to eat his Body and drink his Blood. Those who continued to follow him trusted him enough to expect the revelation that would explain how to make sense of his words. "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life," said Peter. On that night they were not disappointed.

Jesus Christ places into the hands of the ministers in his Church the means of eternal life, this Sacrament "generally necessary to salvation." But, remember that this sacrament is a means of grace only to those who believe in Jesus Christ. As St. Paul tells us in the 11th chapter of his First Epistle to the Church in Corinth, those who presume to eat and drink without faith, add sin to sin and incur judgment. They do notreceive the grace of the sacrament. Therefore, our Book of Common Prayer only bids those who come with "hearty repentance and true faith." To approach the sacrament without "hearty repentance and true faith" is dangerous, profiting nothing, incurring judgment. Therefore, as we have heard, Jesus prefaced his teaching by saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life."

When our Anglican Fathers wrote the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549, under the direction of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, they emphasized the need to eat and drink the sacrament rather than merely to attend Mass. They gave the service we are having this day a new and somewhat long name: "The Supper of the Lorde and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Masse." Since then, to emphasize the words of Christ ("take, eat...drink, ye all, of this...") Anglicans have called the Mass by this Biblical name, full of meaning: "Holy Communion." Unlike the word "Mass," that simply refers to being dismissed at the end of the service (having no spiritual or theological meaning), "Holy Communion" actually means something; and what it means is very important. It takes us to the words of Jesus Christ abouthimself, and how he gives himself that we may be partakers of him: "I AM the Bread of life." The Name of God, "I AM" is contained in these words. The grace of God is revealed in these words. He is our salvation.

When you approach the altar rail, know this is the gift of Christ to you, and you are feeding on him as he gives himself. Come forward with hearty repentance and true faith, or not at all; because, we are not trying to keep ourselves alive by the efforts of our own flesh, weak as it is through sin. We put our trust in Jesus Christ, and not without that faith that makes us children of Abraham, born after the spirit because we were buried and risen with Christ in baptism, partaking of him by that same faith as receive him in this sacrament today.

Even the best aspirations of mankind, of hopes for this world and confidence in our own ability, are nothing worth, compared to the grace of God revealed in his Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And now, unto God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, be ascribed as is most justly due, all might, majesty, dominon, power and glory, henceforth, world without end. Amen.


1. Rom. 8:3
2. Gal.1:13,14
3. Gal. 6:12-15
4. Gal. 3:6,7
5. Phil. 3:4-9
6. Isaiah 64:6
7. Eph. 2:8-10
8. John 3:1-17, Rom. 6:1f
9. verse 26
10 Gen 1:19
11. John 6:32-35
12. John 6:47-58

Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

Articles XIX through XXXI move us into “Corporate Religion”

ARTICLE XIX

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

De Ecclesia

Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur et sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et Antiochena: ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et caeremoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

Fr. Laurence Wells

At this point the Articles move, rather seamlessly, into another department of doctrine.  Articles IX through XVIII deal with man’s need and God provision, the doctrine of salvation.  But at this point the concern shifts to the doctrine of the Church.  The progression is natural and smooth.  The Church is where salvation takes place.     

At its very beginning Article XIX alludes to (but does not dwell upon) a distinction unfamiliar and unpopular today, the distinction between the “visible” and “invisible” Church.  This distinction seems to imply that there are two Churches, as there are the two major Sacraments or the two natures of Christ.  I recall a devout lady, a faithful Churchwoman, who asked me in all sincerity, “Father, how may I join the invisible Church?”   That made me aware that my sermon on this topic had been less than clear and needed further teaching.  She was thinking that the “invisible Church” was a sort of advanced standing, somewhat like the Shriners within the Masonic Order.  Because of such an erroneous construction, many theologians have attempted to discard the distinction altogether.   

This distinction came to the fore in the 16^th century, which was a time of crisis not only for the doctrine of salvation but for the doctrine of the Church and sacraments as well.  But it was first developed by St Augustine of Hippo, whose theology was vigorously revived in that century in both Protestant and Roman camps.  Augustine elaborated the distinction as a corollary to his doctrine of Election, although the distinction works just as well for the semi-Pelagian and Arminian systems also.  Augustine wrote concerning the Church, “there are many sheep without and many wolves within.”   That truth became painfully obvious in the corrupt Church of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Augustine and his 16^th century disciples grounded this distinction firmly in Scripture.  The locus classicus is the parable of the wheat and tares growing together in Matthew 13:24—30.  In the same chapter we also find the parable of the net which catches fish of every kind, some of which must be thrown away as worthless.  In John’s writings we have the parable of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  In John’s first Epistle we meet the sad statement, “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1 John 2:19).  The Old Testament background on this point is the theme of the “remnant” of faithful Israelites, the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but submerged within a corrupt and apostate nation.        

Within the visible, earthly institution of the Church we find those who are genuine and sincere and along with them those who are false and hypocritical.  This is a commonsense observation.  There will be a final separation of sheep and goats, of wheat and tares, of good fish and worthless, of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  But the warning of Our Lord is that we are not to attempt this separation on our own before He comes.  To a certain extent the “antichristoi” of John’s Epistle will go their own way through schism and betrayal, but it is dangerous for us to undertake the separation on our own. Even Elijah did not know who were included in the 7,000.   Efforts to achieve a pure Church always turn out badly.        

The Church visible and invisible is not two separate Churches or two layers in a cake.  The visible Church is the Church visible to us here and now, the Church we discern through its marks of Word and Sacrament.   The Church invisible is invisible only to us, but is the Church visible to God.  This is the entire Body of the faithful (Augustine would say the entire Body of the elect), those who have gone before and are now with Christ in paradise, those still on their earthly pilgrimage, and those souls known only to God who are yet to be born.  This is the “multitude which no man can number” in Revelation, the “body of Christ” in Paul, “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

We may well say that the distinction between the visible and invisible aspects of the Church are analogous to the “sign” and “thing signified” in a sacrament. We see the sign with natural eyesight, but the thing signified must be apprehended by faith. When we see the mixed body of believers, semi-believers, and unbelievers gathered around the means of grace, we see an outward and visible sign of something far greater.  The invisible Church is truly the communion of saints, the mystical Body of Christ, made visible to us sometimes in the humblest of ways:  the priest who stutters and stammers, the choir which sings off-key, the congregation which is lackadaisical in its obligations, but along with the member who joined to make business contacts but does not have a single work of grace in his heart.                 

One warning: This distinction should never be employed to denigrate or devalue the human, imperfect, sinful, error-prone empirical thing we call the “visible Church.”  There are statements in print stating that the invisible Church was founded by God but the visible Church was created by man.  Such a statement does not come to grips with the Biblical data introduced above, in which the wheat and tares grow in the same field, the fruitful and unfruitful branches on the same tree.   Whatever the faults or errors of the 16^th century Reformers, it cannot be justly alleged that they held any “low view of the Church.”  Calvin was emphatic that no one can have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.  When Calvin quoted this dictum from St Cyprian, he was speaking of the visible Church.     

The value of this distinction is that, rather than belittling the “congregation of faithful men,” it affirms that the visible Church is as much a Divine institution as any sacrament (dare I say, any other sacrament?) and holds an integral place in God’s work of saving sinners.

Fr. Robert Hart

The question of which is greater and more important, the ministry of God’s word or of His sacraments, is a false question. People in one party emphasize preaching the pure word of God as the sign of the Church, and people in another party emphasize the ministry of the sacraments as that sign. But, in the truly balanced and sober approach of Anglican Reason, we see that both are necessary. We need both, and we do not have any intellectually honest way to compare their worth and weigh them against each other. Furthermore, without the ministry of God’s word there can be no sacraments, just as, without the sacraments, the Ministry described and commanded in God’s word cannot take place.

Not only does Article XIX state this clearly, but so does the Ordering of Priests in our Ordinal: The Bishop says this, long after the prayers have begun, while his hands are placed upon the man he is ordaining: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” He then says, “Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.” He does not emphasize one above the other.

The marks to look for are faith (“faithful men”, i.e. faithful human beings by the genuinely inclusive language of classical civilization), preaching of the pure word of God and the sacraments. If we are to accept the implications of the historical record, Book VII of Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” shows that Anglican practice and belief always included the Apostolic Succession of Bishops as part of both the ministry of God’s word and of His holy sacraments, and that this was instituted not by men, but by God through His Son; and carried on within the Church.

Some would argue that the marks to look for are those of the Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed: “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” Obviously, these describe the Church accurately. We say “I believe” to each of these.

But, how does a person see these things in his own hometown when looking for the Church? Can we see the Church as One? To avoid falling into the One True Church fallacy, we have to realize that no one can say to other parts of the Body, “I have no need of thee.” No one can, therefore, heal the political divisions of history as they affect the visible church in each locality. The mark of “One” does not apply, therefore, simply to one and only one congregation near you. Instead, it must speak of the broader unity that makes each true expression of the Church part of that One Church. Of the Apostolic churches, we alone understand that Oneness and essential unity of the Church, because Anglicans have never claimed to be the whole Church.

How does one see the Church as Holy? Obviously, not by finding a congregation in which no sin is ever manifest. For, that is simply impossible. To the best of our ability, we may discern where faith is present, and where hope and love appear to abide. We may see, however, Catholic and Apostolic in those visible ministries of the word and the sacraments.

We are told that “Catholic” means universal. The Church, we say in our major Creeds, is Catholic, and, according to the Creed named in honor of St. Athanasius, our Faith is Catholic. “Catholic” really means according to the whole (from the Greek word Katholikos). The Church is recognizable by teaching that whole doctrine that is universally agreed upon by the whole Church; that is, recognizable by teaching those things in the Creeds, all of which are revealed and recorded in the Scriptures, which have been known and recognized by the Church as the word of God. And, by both the teaching of God’s holy word and by the sacramental ministry of the Apostles continued in practice and visible in the life of a congregation, the Church is known, recognized and manifest.

Without “unchurching” other believers, we are nonetheless able to hold ourselves to the highest standard. Without presuming to cast judgment on how much grace is available in other Christian denominations and congregations, we may know, in a positive sense, what to look for in order to be confident that we are in the Church as Christ has ordained it.

The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice

This piece of apologetics was written specifically to explain the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and ministerial Priesthood to Protestants in the Free Church tradition.

Holy Communion and Sacrifice

Is there any evidence for a specific priestly aspect to the ministry of Christian Pastors?

Yes. See Romans 15:16 in the original Greek, or in the RSV and NIV. The ministry of the gospel is thus a priestly work, according to St Paul. And the name of “elder” (=presbyter) given to Christian pastors is also given to a group of priestly offerers of incense in Heaven in Revelation 5:8 (cp. Luke 1:8-9).

Why is the Leadership of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper the job of the Pastor?

Firstly, one can see that the first Celebrant of the Lord's Supper was the Lord! That is, to “do this” through the ages, it makes sense that we continue the pattern established at that Supper, with the leader leading. Also, we cannot avoid the implications of the fact that it is the job of the pastors (=shepherds) to feed the flock according to the Bible (see Psalm 23:1,2,5; John 21:15-17; 1 Peter 5:1,2). Whilst this feeding refers as much to ministry of the word as anything else, it obviously cannot exclude the very Sacrament where we are physically and spiritually fed from the Lord's Table! The fact that we know the pastors (Presbyters and Bishops) were in fact the ones who presided over the Eucharist throughout the Church's history from the earliest centuries clinches this common-sense-based interpretation. (The word Eucharist means “thanksgiving”, and is the name given to the Lord's Supper because the giving of thanks is an essential part of the rite, following Jesus' example at the Last Supper, e.g., Luke 22:19 & Matthew 26:27, compared with Matthew 26:26 and 1 Corinthians 10:16. The Communion is named after the blessing or thanksgiving itself by St Paul.)

Does the Lord's Supper itself have any aspect of Sacrifice? After all, the verses above from Romans and Revelation do not clearly connect the pastoral priesthood to the Eucharist. Showing the Pastor is a priest and presides at the Lord's Supper is not enough!

Quite true. But the precise wording of the Institution by our Lord of Holy Communion in the New Testament is very significant in this regard. The Greek word commonly translated as “remembrance” is anamnesis. It is used four times only in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which is the version constantly used by the New Testament writers. In two of those four occasions it has a manifestly sacrificial context. (The other two occurences, in the titles of Psalms 38 &70, are uncertain as to meaning, but evidence from the Targums – Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures – indicates they refer to memorial sacrifices as well.) Allow me to quote from another writer (source: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html):

Have Scripture interpret Scripture. If Scripture uses a word in one way throughout Scripture and not another way, it is best to interpret that specific way in which it is used when the issue is in dispute. Thus, in which way is the word anamnesis used throughout Scripture? Merely remembering something, or is it a memorial offering in sacrifice in Scripture? For arguments sake for the moment, let us leave aside the way it is used in the context of the Lord's institution of the Eucharist, since that is in dispute. Let us see how the word anamnesis is used. Now, in the Greek Septuagint, the word zakar is translated as anamnesis four times, ... Let us see the context and quotations.

Leviticus 24:7-9

And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial (anamnesis) portion to be offered by fire to the LORD. 8 Every Sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the LORD continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever. 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the LORD, a perpetual due

First, we see a sacrifice of bread that is offered to God in sacrifice with incense. The very word anamnesis is used in this sacrificial offering.

In fact, we see that this bread is offered continually by Aaron. It is a holy offering to the Lord in sacrifice that Aaron and his sons are to eat in what is called a holy place. This is part of a lasting covenantal meal. Thus, this sacrificial offering to God is a holy meal. The parallels of this sacrifice to the New Covenant meal is striking. In the Catholic Church the Body and Blood of Christ are of course much more holy, but the fact that the holiness is stressed in even this sacrificial Old Testament meal is striking. Of course as we saw in 1 Corinthians 11, if one eats unworthily, one is profaning the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The offering in the New Covenant of course far surpasses that of the Old Covenant. We also see that on every Sabbath this bread that is a sacrificial offering is a covenantal offering to God. In the New Covenant, the Eucharist is a covenantal offering to God. This covenantal offering to God is celebrated every Sunday in the New Covenant: Acts 20:7: On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Besides all these similarities, a major point is that the word anamnesis that is used in the New Covenant institution is undoubtedly used of a sacrificial offering here in the Old Covenant. It is not merely about remembering something.

Numbers 10:9-10

9 And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered (anamninesko) before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies. 10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance (anamnesis) before your God: I am the LORD your God.

Notice that the word noted here in v.9 is a different word. Here the word to remember is not anamnesis but anamninesko. A different word is used, and it is not related to sacrifice, but only recalling. Here is where the focus is on God recalling his people. However, when we get to v. 10, the word used here for an offering is a sacrificial offering. The word that is translated as a sacrificial offering is anamnesis, here the English translation as remembrance. This again, happens to be the same Greek word that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11:24 and 25, and Luke uses in Luke 22:19, in the institution of the Eucharist. It is not merely about remembering something.

But does the Memorial Offering at Holy Communion have anything to do with Christ's Priesthood and his Sacrifice of the Cross?

Well, Christ's priesthood is repeatedly said in Hebrews to be “according to the order of Melchizedek”. But virtually the first thing we are told in the Bible about the Melchizedek is that he “brought forth bread and wine” (Genesis 14:18)! So, we cannot separate Christ's Priesthood from the Eucharist, unless we are to ignore this not-so-subtle hint. And St Paul explicitly says that in this ceremonial rite we “proclaim (=kataggello in the Greek, meaning “announce”) the Lord's death till he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). In other words, this action represents publicly the Sacrifice of the Cross. But even Christ's Words of Institution make this clear: “[T]his is my body which is given for you … This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20). Note that the body “is given”, present tense, not has been or will be given, “for” us, not merely “to” us as food. The blood “is”, not was or will be, “shed”, not supplied or provided as if mere drink poured into a cup or a mouth. The language undoubtedly refers to Christ's sacrificial, blood-shedding death for us, as well as to what is outwardly happening at the Meal, and treats the two as one, even as simultaneous in some sense. So, we can say that the Memorial and Announcement are more than mental or verbal acts about a past event. They bring into the present, spiritually and sacramentally, that event and its saving effects. Time kisses eternity, as is implied in these phrases from Hebrews:

“Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself” (9:14).

“[Christ] offered for all time (literally, 'perpetually' or 'to the perpetual') a single sacrifice for sins” (10:12).

In both cases an aorist tense version of the verb for “offer”, implying a point-in-time, past action, is combined with an adverbial phrase implying perpetuity. The sacrifice is finished and single, yet an eternal reality to draw upon.

Note also the strong connection between “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood” at the Last Supper and “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better” in Hebrews 8:6. Christ's priestly ministry therefore includes the Mediation of the Communion Sacrifice.

We could say much more on this subject. For example, the Old Covenant had sacrifices of bread (e.g., Leviticus 7:13), wine (e.g., Exodus 29:40), and lambs (e.g., Leviticus 3:7). And some of the the purposes of these sacrifices were blood-atonement (e.g., Exodus 30:10), thanksgiving (e.g., Leviticus 7:13) and memorial (see above and Leviticus 2:2 etc.). It is not much of a stretch to see that the Bread and Wine we share in communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), over which we give thanks as the Body given and Blood shed of the Lamb of God, in remembrance of his death, unites and transcends these sacrifices for the New Covenant!

Hang on a minute! What about what it says in Hebrews about Christ's Sacrifice being “once-for-all” and never to be repeated (e.g., 9:25-28, 10:10,18)?

The first thing to realise is that the Church does not claim that Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross is repeated at all. That is not the relationship between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Cross. So, there is no contradiction with Hebrews 9:25. And Hebrews 10:18 can be properly translated “where there is remission of these, there is no further offering for sin.” Remember, the “where” is effectively located in the new “covenant” of verse 16, which is the Eucharist anyway. So, there is no question of denying the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but only of denying any additional sacrifice. (The whole point of Hebrews was to discourage Jewish Christians from going back to the sacrifices of Judaism, because they had everything they needed to deal with sin in the Church. That's why the last chapter says “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (13:10). Clearly, the implication is that we do have the right to eat of this altar. It is absurd to pretend this has nothing to do with the Eucharist. We do have an altar.)

As noted above, a historically finished event is eternally “present” to us through its effects and the ongoing presence of the Sacrificed One at Communion and before God as our Eternal Advocate and Propitiation. We offer a memorial sacrifice through words and actions that unite us and our worship to Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice.

We see this in Hebrews 10:19-22, where we are encouraged to come near to God in “the house of God” through the torn “veil” of the broken “flesh”, and through the shed blood, which is “sprinkled” (cp. 9:21) on our hearts, of Christ the “High Priest”. It is impossible to exclude the Eucharist from our interpretation of this passage, especially since this entrance into “the Holiest” is said to be a “new and living way”, while the Eucharist, which also happens in the house of God, the Church, is called the “new covenant”.

That Christ remains the Atoning Sacrifice in himself is shown by the present tense in 1 John 2:2. That his mere presence before God as the Propitiating Sacrifice is significant is proved by the phrase “now to appear in the presence of God for us” in Hebrews 9:24.

Therefore, we can say that Christ's act of self-offering is over historically, but “present” eternally in his state as the everliving Priest and Sacrifice, mediating the New Covenant at every Eucharist. As comparison of Romans 12:1 shows us, there is a kind of offering, a “presenting” appropriate for living sacrifices, that is, Christians in this verse. And the same Greek root, paristemi, is used in Romans 6:13 for our self-offering of life out of death. But here it is said to be modelled on Christ being dead to sin but alive to God in verses 10 and 11. Therefore, our ongoing paristemi-offering is based on Christ's. Christ's prosphero-offering at the Cross, involving suffering and death, the one specifically described in Hebrews as “once-for-all”, has ceased. But he remains a self-presenting living sacrifice. His “appearing” (cp. Hebrews 9:24) before the face of God is of itself enough to make Him our immortal Sacrifice and Priest.

Lent 3 Sermon Notes (modified)

 [Scripture quotations from ESV]


“He that is not with me is against me” +

In the 12^th chapter of the Gospel according to St Matthew, the parallel passage to today's Gospel, the same accusation that Jesus works by an evil spirit ends with the same personal challenge “He who is not with me is against me ...” But then it is immediately followed by this:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 

 

Now this seems to say that this sin is different to and worse than the sin just mentioned before, being “against” Jesus. And so many Christians have greatly feared this mysterious sin, wondering whether even as Christ's followers they could commit it and lose all the hope given in Him. Yet the use of the word “therefore” at the beginning of these verses implies that the statement about the “unforgivable sin” is the natural consequence of the teaching about our response to Jesus, and its decisive nature. And Jesus makes clear elsewhere that rejecting or deliberately ignoring Him is enough to condemn. For example, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, it is precisely our treatment of Jesus in the needy that determines our eternal destiny. And he constantly implicitly tells the Pharisees and others that their rejection of Him simply is rejection of God. Indeed, this is the message in the very next chapter of St Luke's Gospel (succeeding today's 11^th). “He who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” Immediately after which we have Luke's record of Jesus' teaching on the unforgivable sin!

So, rather than seeing the unpardonable sin as being something separate or supplementary to rejecting Christ, or merely a particular spoken form of words about the Holy Spirit, we need to look more deeply at the context of Jesus' teaching. 

 

In John 8 we have yet another example of this principle. Again, Jesus is accused of acting under the influence of an evil spirit. And he responds in verse 49 with “I do not have a demon; but I honour my Father and you dishonour me … if anyone keeps my word he shall never see death”. His opponents reply, “Who do you make yourself out to be?” Jesus reply is worth reading in full [vv. 54-59]:

  Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
  But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word.
  Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
  So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
  So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. 

When Jesus says "I am" rather than "I was", it is not bad grammar, but a claim of eternity and divinity, as the name of God revealed to Moses was "I AM". Thus definitively to say no to Jesus truly revealed to us, is to definitively say no to the Father. It is to hate God.

Now, this whole discussion ended as it started. Earlier we had this: [vv. 21-25]

“I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”
  So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
  He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
  I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am [he] you will die in your sins.”
  So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning."

Clearly, having known Jesus, heard what he taught and seen what he did, necessitated a choice. And to then choose to say that Christ was demonic, an expression of evil, was in fact to meet God and his manifest goodness and call them evil. In other words, this deliberate, whole-hearted opposition to the Light was in itself the total embrace of the Darkness, and its verbal expression a sign of that final commitment to evil. That is why Jesus follows the “unpardonable sin” passage in Matthew with this:

33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.

34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

The unpardonable sin is therefore not a sin that can be committed by the one who has faith in Christ, nor just by an accidental mis-statement about the Holy Spirit or about a work of his unrecognised. It is an unreserved opposition to and rejection of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God the Father and as the one infinitely filled with God the Holy Spirit [cp. John 3:34]. It is to turn away from God in Christ, not just to Jesus as a man. That is perhaps why He says that “whoever speaks a word [not “blasphemes”] against the Son of Man [not “the son of God”]” can be forgiven."

 

So, it is not that what we believe and say about Jesus is less important. No, once we have had a proper chance to know and respond to Him as He truly is, what we say and do is our response to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, the passage in question does not say that every other sin can be forgiven upon repentance, but that it “will” be forgiven. That “whoever” speaks against the Son of Man “will” be forgiven. It is almost as if Jesus is teaching that the Cross will annul absolutely all sin without exception, except for the ultimate sin of refusing the forgiveness and grace proceeding from Christ and Him crucified. For this is the sin that epitomises and retains all the others.

Another interesting fact about our Lord's statement on the unforgivable sin is that he stops short of saying that his accusers had in fact committed it and were permanently beyond salvation. In John 8 he does say they will die in their sins, but then later adds the qualification "unless you believe". Given that Jesus sometimes used hyperbole to shake up his listeners, and that someone like St Paul may have said many wicked things about Christians and their spiritual source before his conversion, we must be cautious in our practical application of this passage.

Let us then not live in servile fear of this sin or any other, nor look to God as if to a harsh and unrelenting judge. Instead, let us rejoice in the promise that through accepting and receiving Christ by grace, in prayer, word and sacrament, we possess the Triune God, and are eternally loved and kept by Him. +

Third Sunday in Lent

 Spiritual Warfare

(Deut. 6:1-9, 20-25, Psalm 25, Eph. 5:1-14, Luke 11:14-28)

The Scriptures and the Collect for this Sunday draw our attention to the fact of spiritual warfare, a very important theme all year long, not only in Lent. The essence of spiritual warfare, and of the greatest need of every human being, is summed up in the words of Jesus that we have heard already as the Gospel was read: “He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” The real question for every individual is this: Who is your king? Is Jesus Christ your king, or do you obey the prince of this world?        

When I was learning Hebrew at the Baltimore Hebrew College (now the Baltimore Hebrew University), and learning it the way that Jewish people are taught it (Sephardic Hebrew in fact), I found that a verse from the Book of Isaiah is used in basic instruction as an important tool because of how it rhymes. (I will stick to the Jewish tradition of using Adonai whenever the original contains the Name, YHVH.)

כִּי יְהוָה שֹׁפְטֵנוּ, יְהוָה מְחֹקְקֵנוּ; יְהוָה מַלְכֵּנוּ, הוּא יוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ.

Kee Adonai Shoph’tenu
Adonai Makakenu
Adonai Malkenu
Hu Yeshienu

“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he is our Salvation.” Isaiah 33:22

This is the essence of what Jesus said in today’s Gospel. We need him as our only Salvation; so we must acknowledge him to be our Judge, our Lawgiver and our King. In the word for our Salvation, do you see his name? Yeshienu, the plural possessive of Yeshua-or Jesus. He is our Judge, he is our Lawgiver, He is our King, and therefore, he is our Salvation. We gather with him, our only Salvation, or we scatter, lost forever.       

The collect today speaks of God as “the defence against our enemies”. What is meant by the use of the word enemies? Classically, Christians have known there are three enemies: The world, the flesh and the devil.

The image we are given in the Gospel reading is that of the strong man being overcome by One even stronger than he. The devil has dominated the world, and subjected mankind to his will since the Fall. But, when Christ came into the world, He overcame the strong man and spoiled his goods. However, we have yet to see our complete liberation, which will be at Christ’s second coming. At that time even death itself will be destroyed. What we are told is that we who belong to Christ have been set free from the domination of Satan, but that for now our freedom must be completed by enduring a battle. This battle is a defensive fight against the world, the flesh and the devil.    

There is also an offensive fight, one in which the Church attacks, and Satan is forced to be on the defensive. That is another subject, the subject of mission, of evangelism.

To answer one obvious and confusing question, what is the world; that is in the sense in which it is an enemy? St. John tells us to love not the world, nor to love the things in it: Those things are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:15f). The world, in this sense, is defined in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which we hear often. Speaking of Christ, it says : “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” That verse tells of a great tragedy, namely the Fall of Man into sin and death, the state from which Christ redeems us. Because Man is the head of this created order, the fall is the Fall of the whole world. And the definition of “the world” as an enemy, a force that opposes us as Christians if we try to live a holy life, is found in these words: “the world knew Him not.” The world does not know Christ.        

To attack us, the world makes use of our flesh, assaulting us with desires of the flesh, and of the eyes, and with that deadly sin of pride, whereby we place ourselves upon the throne of God. Imagining ourselves upon His throne, in our conceits, we demand and expect a life to which we are not entitled; we think it an injustice when life is not kind to us. We forget that if justice were served, we would be in hell; that what evils befall us are less than we deserve. We forget to be thankful, and instead complain against God. We refuse, indeed despise, the cross.

This is what the world, acting as our enemy, does to us through our senses and through our conceits. It is to this that St. Paul speaks in the Epistle reading. And he does so with direct words about the dangers that surround us, as well as those that come from within our own hearts. Yet all the while he does so with words that give us hope. That hope is because of the fact that we ourselves, though once a part of the very darkness of sin and death itself, are now part of the light of life, because we are in Christ.        

And, we are given practical help in the Old Testament commandment from Deuteronomy, to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This commandment contains the most revered statement in Jewish liturgy, the Sh’mai: Sh’mai Israel, Adonai Elehenu, Adonai echod.  “Hear O’ Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” 

Sh’mai is a very important word in Hebrew. It means two things when translated into English. Depending upon how it is used, it translates as “hear” or as “obey.” The first thing to obey is the great commandment itself. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”  

This is very practical. Consider this simple fact. None of us here will be sinless, that is free of the full dangers and lures of sin and temptation, until we are made perfect either after death or at Christ’s coming again- whichever happens first. We remain in need of God’s grace all the time. We will not achieve sinless perfection in this life. But, we can, nonetheless, practice obedience. And obedience, though it includes saying “no" to worldly desires, that is that it has its "no" (because of God’s commandments that use the phrase “thou shalt not”), has, as well, it’s “yes”. Obedience says both “no” and “yes”. No, to the world, no to the flesh, no to the devil. But, all of these “nos” amount to a far greater and single “yes” to God. And that “yes” is a yes to many things. To charity with its demands and inconveniences, to prayer, to fasting and repentance, and also to the taking up of the cross. Yes to taking up your cross is itself the big “No” to the world, the flesh and the devil. It is the great “Yes” of love to God.       

Jesus did not carry the cross only upon one Friday. He carried it every day, living always to do the Father’s will rather than His own. We say no to the world and yes to God when we give our time to Him, when we give our strength to Him, instead of wasting it upon many pleasure and cares. The world will drain all of our strength, if we give ourselves to every fruitless activity that comes along; or if we destroy our bodies-which are God’s- through drugs, alcohol or immorality, or even through seemingly innocent things. Some people are inordinate about, for example, shopping (we have heard the phrase “shop till you drop”). Our strength must be yielded to God in love, not wasted and spent foolishly.    

What does it mean to love God with all thy mind? For example, in the Grocery stores, I cannot cease to be amazed at how much paper and ink are wasted by tabloids that report news, or perhaps create fiction, or perhaps a combination of the two, about the private lives of celebrities, or something equally meaningless. Remember the slogan of the United Negro College Fund: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”       

We owe God the love of giving Him our minds. When some people use the word “theology” as if it were a dirty word, it tells me that they are afraid to love God with their minds, and in fact that they despise those who try to so love Him. Remember a collect from Advent. Love God and give your mind to Him as you “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the scriptures. 

And, the Lesson from Deuteronomy (at Morning Prayer) commands us to teach our children, to inform their minds in the truth of God’s word. Those who want their children to decide it all for themselves, to come to their own conclusions about religion, sin by neglecting the religious education of children entrusted to their care by God. The scriptures do not give parents the right to neglect the spiritual formation and education of their children. The modern idea that the children should figure it all out for themselves is not an enlightened idea. Failure to teach them the true Faith is a sin. They must be taught God’s word and raised in the Church; for having had them baptized, Christian parents have brought them out of Satan’s bondage into Christ’s kingdom; they do not belong to their parents, nor to themselves. They are God’s children, and parents are entrusted (as stewards) with their care and their godly upbringing. Furthermore, it is not enough that they are taught in just any old church (or new); but that what they are taught is the truth of God’s word.

We must, with God’s grace by His Holy Spirit, withstand these three enemies: The world, the flesh and the devil, because we belong, body, soul and strength, to God. 

The word that fits here is the word “asceticism.” This is a Lenten theme too. Now, if we want to be good modern people, we must react negatively to this word. We must conjure up images of sleeping on desert sands, fasting until we look like skeletons, perhaps of sleeping like Hindus upon a bed of nails. The negative reaction must include a bigoted rejection of the whole monastic life.    But, as followers of the Catholic Tradition, especially the English Catholic Tradition, the word “asceticism” must be understood in a practical way. We say “no” to those things that inhibit prayer and the growth of the virtues, not simply to obvious and gross sin. For example, we should not fit the normal American pattern of watching six hours of T.V. a day every day. I hope that our “yes” to God’s call upon our time for prayer, upon our mind in learning His word, and to serving Him in whatever good works He prepares for us to walk in, simply does not leave us with enough time for inordinate and intemperate, though seemingly innocent, misuse of time. 

This practical saying of “yes” to God, and taking up the cross of Christ, dying to our desires, withstanding the world, the flesh and the devil, is true Christian asceticism. It is also to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and strength. We ought to clutter our lives with the presence of the Holy Spirit so fully that the evil one can have no place in us to call home. These are practical ways to live as people who gather with Christ, and therefore are not scattered.

Let us learn it in Lent. Let us live it always.

St. Thomas Aquinas March 7

St. Thomas Aquinas painted by Fra Bartolomeo

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is remembered for his intellectual rigor more than for anything else. His devotion and humility often are overlooked because of the sheer weight of his achievements as both a theologian and philosopher. It is normal to think of sanctification as something unrelated to the mind. But, on this day it may be wise to speak of the mind as something we are commanded to use, to develop and to feed.

St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome:

"I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."1

In order to practice spiritual worship, as living sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving in a never ending liturgy of daily life, we must renew our minds by feeding them the revealed truth of God's holy word. Only in that way can we know the will of God, and so live a life that aspires to "what is good and acceptable and perfect." So, we are commanded, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy...mind." 

The saintly figure of Thomas Aquinas presents a challenge to us, that we renew our minds, and that we see that no one can love God with a lazy mind. Not everyone has equal intellectual capacity, and very few have intellectual capacity that could begin to equal that of St. Thomas. But, as in the parable, we each have talents to invest for gain, and one of those is the mind. 

St. Thomas does not stand in history as a figure of infallibility. Not all of his ideas have been embraced as the teaching of the Universal Church. But, he provides an example of using Reason, of taking time to learn and think, and to apply logic. He represents the virtuous wisdom mentioned often in Holy Scripture. 

We live in a time when every issue that affects real life, whether political, social or religious, is narrowed down to soundbites. We live in a time when emotional bleating, slogans, mantras and jingles are employed in public discourse. We live in a time of vilification of all opponents instead of debate. Public discourse has become ugly and hostile, venomous and malicious. The use of what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" has replaced reasoned argument. The use of all such methods is employed always to one end: To stop the mind from engaging in actual thought. The purpose is to keep people cheering for some sort of party line. 

Contrasted against that stands the method used by Thomas Aquinas. In his great Summa Theologica Thomas presented all sides of every argument. He presented every side with care and diligence, exercising patience. Whether one comes off agreeing with Thomas' own position or not, on any of the issues and subjects about which he wrote, certainly the mind has been engaged and all sides have been treated fairly.

That alone is in line with loving God and renewing the mind. It stands in sharp contrast to the approved and barbaric methods of public discourse in our own age.

1. Romans 12:1,2 quoted from the RSV