Hi, my name is George Sinclair. I'm the lead pastor of Church of the Messiah. It is wonderful
that you would like to check out some of the sermons done by Church of the Messiah, either
by myself or some of the others. Listen, just a couple of things. First of all, would you pray
for us that we will open God's Word well to His glory and for the good of people like yourself?
The second thing is, if you aren't connected to a church and if you are a Christian, we really,
I would really like to encourage you to find a good local church where they believe the Bible,
they preach the gospel, and if you have some trouble finding that, send us an email. We will
do what we can to help connect you with a good local church wherever you are. And if you're a
non-Christian checking us out, we're really, really, really glad you're doing that. Don't
hesitate to send us questions. It helps me actually to know, as I'm preaching, how to deal with the
types of things that you're really struggling with. So God bless.
I invite you to pray with me as we begin.
Dear Heavenly Father, we ask that by your Word and your Spirit, you would open up our ears and our
hearts to hear you this morning. We ask that you would help us to rejoice in your goodness,
in your compassion, in your mercy, so much so that we would show that to those around us in our daily
lives, the people we meet, the people we serve, and also that we might walk with you more faithfully.
In Jesus' name, amen.
From 1989 to 94, Stella and I lived in Vancouver. You know we've been around a lot, and so keeping
track of us is not easy. But there we were for those five years. She was studying at Regent College,
and I was working my way through a long list, a long reading list of works in Russian literature.
Now at the end of all that, I must have written something at least semi-coherent, because UBC,
University of British Columbia, gave me a nice piece of paper that I can display in my office.
But that's not what I'm here to talk about with you this morning, but I am going to keep us in
Vancouver. I want to take you to a moment in 93, the summer of 93, in fact the same month that we're in
now. To an event hosted by the then Dean of the Diocese of New Westminster, Michael Ingham. Here's
what Ingham wrote a few years after that event. In July 1993, we held a debate in Vancouver between
John Stott and Bishop Spong. It was held in the cathedral on a hot summer's night, and about 1400
people came. We turned 300 away at the door. It was an amazing event. Both men spoke passionately and
persuasively. They spoke with an evident measure of respect for each other, but what they described
were two fundamentally different understandings of human sexuality, human freedom, the interpretation
of scripture, and indeed the gospel itself. And they were applauded by two quite different sections of the
audience. He continues, and here I can ask for the slide that continues on.
Two things became clear to me that night. First, what a marvelous thing the Anglican church is that
we can hold together such diverse and opposite viewpoints within both our members and our leaders.
Many of us remain in good fellowship, in good relationship with each other, despite disagreement
on these fundamental issues. And second, what a huge gulf divides our church in its understanding of human
sexuality. Now, I concur with nearly everything there that he said. It was a hot day in July.
Many were turned away at the door. I managed to get in. Spong and Stott were quite respectful towards each
other in debate, and it was evident from where I sat that a huge gulf divided the church on issues of human
sexuality. But I'm convinced that it is not a wonderful thing when the church body contains within itself
contradictory views on something so central as the good news itself and what sort of authority the Bible is.
Now, as a matter of historical record, I myself was somewhat sitting the fence on the issue at the time.
In fact, as much as I admired and revered John Stott, I went sort of secretly hoping that Spong's progressive
view would persuade me if this was the way the Spirit was leading the church.
And part of my indecision was no doubt related to the kind of ideas that were floating in the academy
at the time. It was becoming somewhat fashionable to think, at least in my field of literature,
that the meaning of, say, a poem or a short story is really determined by the individual reader.
In other words, it was starting to become fashionable to think that everyone makes up or has their own truth.
And the idea has now, as you know, has become fairly mainstream. In a TED Talk a couple of years ago,
Catherine Marr, who is CEO of the American National Public Radio, could say this,
part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience in all forms of culture is
because we all acknowledge that there are many different truths. I'm certain that the truth exists for you
and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth.
But I believe that it was around that time that God took my heart and made it more teachable in a decisive way
when I wasn't especially seeking Him. He put in me a desire through means I won't try to explain here,
but He put in me a desire to submit to the authority of Scripture.
In terms of the renewal of my mind, here I mark a definite before and after. And so in a sense, I can thank
Bishop, who became Bishop Ingham for hosting that event, because this became a turning point for me.
I was starting to imagine with that theologian I mentioned last time, her name is Lindsay Perez Lopez,
who she writes for Sojourners. I was starting to imagine with her that Scripture
is a mixture of human understanding and misunderstanding as well as divine revelation. You see that lovely mix of human
insight, human misunderstanding, and a bit of revelation thrown in there. Isn't that nice?
But then God let me see why and how that was going to be a dead end. So it wasn't long before I came to be
certain that the man who was going to become our diocesan bishop, Mike Lingham, a senior leader in the
church, called to safeguard the apostolic message, was very wrong. He was wrong to be enthusiastic about the
existence of contradictory views of human sexuality within our church. He was wrong to imagine that we
might really take that on board. He was wrong, in other words, to imagine that the rainbow flag is
compatible with the cross. He didn't say it in those terms, obviously, but that was the meaning. His hope
was not only that Anglicans who believed contradictory things about human sexuality
and other matters could stay together, but that they should. And somehow that diversity
views was supposed to be a healthy thing. For vast numbers of young people today, I'm afraid,
who identify as as a Christian in one way or another, that's come to be almost gospel truth. It's the way
they have been catechized by our culture. But imagine a hockey coach saying something like,
isn't it a wonderful thing that among our coaching staff and among the players, we have
two basically contradictory views about the rules of hockey and about what equipment the game requires and
about how we should train for it. Imagine that. I didn't have a name for that kind of approach to
things at the time, but it has a name. And it's the way of institutionalism. You kind of give way to
the institution itself for its own sake of deciding not to decide about issues that are central to the
Christian faith. And so it was that our pastors in the Diocese of New Westminster let the wolves in.
But let's back up and assume for a moment that we believe that the Spirit is leading the church
to bless sexual intimacy and unions apart from the marriage between one man and one woman.
What is the core value that drives our belief? And I ask you to keep an eye on the next slide. What's
the core value that would drive our belief? Just I pulled out a few points that I think would be help
us make the case for that and why the Holy Spirit is leading us in that direction. Probably the main
reason we would we'd want to be on board with this project would be a sense of compassion towards
marginalized groups. If you were here with us last Sunday or you followed us remotely, you'll recall
the progressive idea that God's love just flows through everything, drawing everything into the divine life,
making the Christian life a road that you make by walking. So Paris Lopez names a second core value
among progressive Christians. Since life in the church, she says, must be an expression of the love that is at the
heart of everything. Any kind of exclusion, except exclusive forms of Christianity, which exclude
themselves from this embrace, is ruled out. Any kind of exclusion is ruled out. The call put to the
church, she says, is to celebrate differences that have traditionally been marginalized, differences with
respect to race, with respect to race, class, sex, and gender preference.
At heart, my motivation would be a concern for justice, I think. And here, there are certain parallels with the
Protestant Reformation. So the progressive message has a certain Protestant feel to it.
Let me explain. If the central theological conviction of the Reformers, like Martin Luther and others,
was that we are justified through faith alone, apart from works, then the new conviction would be that
all without exception are redeemed through God's unconditional love. All without exception are
redeemed through God's unconditional love. If the main concern for justice back then, in the 16th century,
had to do with the sale of indulgences and other forms of corruption, then today's concern has to do with
systems that oppress minorities, in particular sexual minorities. If the main liturgical, ceremonial concern
back then was to reform the Lord's Supper, to get rid of the Mass. Then today, it's to reform marriage and to get rid of
restrictions on who may love whom. Following on these concerns would be the felt need to celebrate diversity.
The assumption here would not be that God understands our weakness and he makes allowances.
Rather, the idea is that God positively intends a variety of forms of sexual fulfillment.
And this argument is often backed by the claim that the Bible really doesn't say much at all about
committed same-sex relationships between consenting adults, of course. To get a sense of what these
convictions look like in the context of the gathered community, I decided to tune in to a few sermons for
Pride Sunday. I don't know, maybe you did too. One pastor spoke of liberation several times throughout
his service to how it is that in Christ we have the freedom not to be bound by the law,
not to be shamed by those in power, those who inevitably appeal to a rigid orthodoxy as a way to just control others.
Another pastor used the word quirkiness to speak of the diversity of sexual preferences and declared that
God shines through our quirkiness in it and with it and not in spite of it.
And he grounded this in the doctrine of original blessing. Have you heard of it? Original blessing,
which speaks of our essential goodness as humans and questions the traditional understanding of Adam
and Eve's fall from grace. So as progressive Christians, what would our attitude, what sort of
attitude would we want to adopt towards those who don't, sorry to give my age and point back to John
Denver, but those who don't come stand beside us and seek a better way? Well, in the context of worship,
I picked up on one attitude that was fairly negative. Those who uphold the church's traditional
teaching on sexuality are, that nasty word, fundamentalists, because they are mainly concerned
for power and control. In the parts of the service devoted to prayer, I didn't hear prayers for our
fundamentalist siblings caught in the darkness of dogmatism and who need God's special touch.
Now, maybe those do happen, but I didn't hear any. The attitude was, was at least through these sermons,
hardly generous. It's not as though traditional Christians at least serve to raise good questions
so that we can refine our progressive message through dialogue. Not at all. In this approach,
traditionalists are, quote, hate-filled. George Conger of Anglican Inc. tells of how a certain bishop
described those who don't support the LGBTQ plus cause, crazy, evil, or stupid.
A bishop in the Church of God. Paris Lopez took a somewhat more generous view. She said this,
by starting with the marginalized and the vulnerable, those traditionally excluded and exploited and radiating
outward, we deepen the love within ourselves and reach out in the love, to the love within others.
We can express agreement where it exists, hold firm to our values when others challenge them,
and show compassion over all. Eventually, compassion wears down callousness and empathy,
erodes enmity. This is how we move from rivalry to relationship, exclusion to embrace.
And that brings me to this final point in the progressive message. For Paris Lopez,
the progressive vision is one driven by that basic desire for community, for fellowship,
which will one day, she's convinced, will embrace everyone without exception. In the meantime,
the circle does have a circumference, but that circumference is only drawn by those who,
for now, exclude themselves from God's embrace. So that's what we're up against. That's the basic shape,
I think, of progressive Christianity as it relates to human sexuality. It's been, you know, I come from
Latin America, and it's sad to see evangelical pastors, formerly evangelical pastors, move so slowly but
surely in this direction. It's heartbreaking to see it happen. And that's why there's a strong desire to
share with you these things as a way that we can together inform ourselves, understand what it is that
we're up against so that we can have a good response. So to a response. Well, one way would be to ask whether the
whole framework can reasonably be called Christian or if it would be better, say, to describe it in some
some other way. But, and of course, that suggestion annoys progressive Christians because they sincerely
believe that the way they are following is the way of Jesus. They believe it is the way of compassion.
But sincerity aside, since sincerity is not a reliable standard for what's right and wrong,
what can we actually affirm about this core value? And where do we begin to see internal problems?
Well, as far as I can tell, every faith system has some impulse or value that reflects something of a
yearning that God has put in the human heart. So in Hinduism, and you know I spent some time in India,
and even though you can talk to Hindus here in Canada, it's another thing altogether when you're just
always around Hindus. So in Hinduism, there's a yearning to be freed from the endless cycle of
reincarnation. And I would say we don't have to agree with reincarnation as a doctrine to affirm that
the desire to be freed from that, that the power of that idea is a good thing. I think we can commend,
I think we can say that's wonderful that you wish to be freed. Let me tell you where we find freedom.
So it is with progressive Christianity. We don't have to affirm its central theological convictions to
agree that it's a good thing to want to pursue fellowship or communion with God and with others.
God has made us for that. He's put it in our DNA.
And in my introduction, I've already mentioned the way in which we make room for progressive values.
Bishop Michael Ingham, when he was dean, was just making room. He wasn't stating his own views openly.
He was saying, isn't it wonderful that we have this diversity of views?
But we can make it not a hill to die on, as they say. I'm referring to that institutionalism and how
our leaders were teaching us to not break fellowship, which was to do injury to the body of Christ. In
other words, they were teaching us that schism was worse than heresy, than the possibility of serious,
grave error in the church. So at this point, I think we can turn directly to our passage of Scripture
and respond to some of its central beliefs about justice, about the human condition, and about
fellowship, because that's the central theme there, fellowship. Fellowship, the desire for it, and I think
guided by what John teaches us here in the beginning of his epistle. And if we can have the next slide.
No, I think we have it already. Thank you. Then guided by this passage, let me just highlight two visions
of fellowship. Two ways to think about what exactly fellowship is, what it's for, how we receive it, and how we
remain in it. So what is fellowship? Well, fellowship, according to John, is restored communion.
Communion with God. In other words, it's a reality that's lacking up until the moment that God grants it.
That's why, that's precisely why, moved by the Spirit of God, John can say to his readers there in the beginning,
let me tell you something, let me tell you something, so that you too can enjoy the communion with God
that we have come to know in Jesus.
Well, with what sort of God do we have communion? Well, God, according to the teaching they receive from
Jesus, John says, is light.
This speaks particularly of God's goodness.
As when Jesus says, no one's good, except God alone.
Mark 10, 18.
But John doesn't leave it there because he adds in verse 5 that in God there is no darkness at all.
And you would think, well, why do you need to spell out the negative?
Well, it speaks of a different attribute of God, a different quality.
It speaks of his holiness, no darkness at all.
When we speak of God's different qualities or attributes as revealed in Scripture,
we have to be careful not to divide him up into parts as if he were partly good and partly holy
or partly faithful, partly just attributes that John mentions in verse 9.
The truth is, God is completely and entirely all these things with no division in himself
as if he were torn in one direction or another.
Quite the contrary.
He is generous and gracious, taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18.23.
Based on an offer of salvation that goes out to all, John can say boldly,
I'm writing about the things we've experienced so that you too can enter into fellowship with us
even as we are in fellowship with God through Jesus.
Now, think about it.
Progressive Christians find the idea that there was a moment in your life and mine
when we were alienated from God,
well, an idea that's just a little bit too hard to accept.
Rather, they prefer to believe that we start off in God's embrace with that original blessing
in harmonious relationship with him, and then at some point we pull away, perhaps,
through this or that influence that's external.
So, along with not knowing what to do with the warning that the truth is not in us,
as John says, if we deny that we're sinners, verse 8,
progressive Christians must find a way to overlook the clear diagnosis of our human problem
in Romans 3, 9, and 22, where Paul says this.
He says that all of us, Jews and Gentiles alike, are under the power of sin.
Under the power of sin.
And that God's righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
So, let's turn to the second question.
What's the purpose of fellowship?
Well, when the bad news, it turns out, isn't quite so bad,
it turns out that the flip side is true.
The good news was really not that great and spectacularly good news either.
At any rate, the progressive Christians' view of the purpose of fellowship
is very much this worldly.
The Jesus-following community, we're told,
exists for the flourishing of society
as we become more and more liberated
from unjust structures that are out there
and that we perpetuate.
But in John, we see that the end of fellowship
is, over here on the one hand,
cleansing from sin.
So the darkness of our past
is dealt with.
As God applies the blood of Jesus,
verse 7,
to our unrighteousness
and gives us a new start,
a fresh beginning.
Now, that's great news.
And our future is also,
if our past is taken care of,
our future is dealt with too
because God's design for fellowship
is also,
is fullness of joy.
Forgiveness of sins.
Fullness of joy.
In verse 4, John says,
he's writing his letter
in hopes for completeness of joy
as more and more people
give their lives to Jesus.
If we've been,
if you sit there and you can say,
I've been privileged to know
something of the joy
of Christian fellowship.
Well,
know this,
it's because God has been kind
to you
in giving you a foretaste
of the blessings
that David was talking about
in, for instance,
Psalm 1611.
He said,
you make known to me
the path of life.
There's last week.
You will fill me
with joy in your presence,
with eternal pleasures
at your right hand.
So as we put our trust in Jesus,
our deepest needs are met.
And I think
that's the kind of response
we would hope to give.
Are our deepest needs
and our deepest longings
really satisfied?
Question 3.
So,
how do we enter into fellowship?
Well,
we've heard about
the exercise of faith
from Paul
made possible
through the proclaimed
word of God.
And so,
we're reminded
that faith
depends on hearing
his word,
the good news of Jesus,
as well as
the special gift
that God imparts
so that we can take hold
of what we hear.
But the ultimate basis
or ground
of our fellowship
is a person.
It's Jesus himself.
Jesus brings us
into fellowship.
It's clear.
It's right clear in John.
See how he begins
the letter once again
in verses 1 and 2.
He says,
that which was
from the beginning,
in other words,
God's word
or the logos,
which we have heard,
which we have seen
with our eyes,
which we have looked upon
and have touched
with our hands
concerning the word of life.
The life,
the life
was made manifest.
The life
was made manifest.
In other words,
John is saying
that the word
took on flesh
and dwelt among us
and there's more.
He continues,
and we have seen it
and testified to it
and proclaimed to you
the eternal life
which was with the Father
and was made manifest to us.
The eternal life
made manifest to us.
It came in
and with Jesus.
So yes,
we take hold of it
by faith,
but the new life
comes in Jesus.
By contrast,
and here's a very sharp contrast,
the progressive gospel message
tells us that the ground
of our fellowship
is nature itself.
We're naturally
in fellowship.
It's our natural condition.
And the idea
that it might not be,
you're to think of
as an illusion.
Last question.
How do we remain
in fellowship?
In the progressive vision,
clearly we remain
as long as we don't
exclude ourselves
through hate
and other
attitudes,
fundamentalistic attitudes
aimed at policing
people's behavior.
But John
tells us
that we remain
in fellowship with God
as we acknowledge
and confess our sins,
expecting his pardon.
How wonderful
that Thomas Cranmer
built that
into our worship,
that we
regularly have
an opportunity
to confess our sin
and to trust
in God's pardon.
So we're always
reminding ourselves
that this is
the truth,
that we need
God's daily
cleansing,
cleanse the thoughts
of our hearts,
we say together,
by the inspiration
of your Holy Spirit.
And it's here
that life
in the Spirit
is not set
against
submission to law.
God cares
about what we do
with our bodies.
And part of what
he commands
is that we run
from a whole series
of things
that draw us
away from him.
And we're all
called to run
from these things
together.
At the top
of the list,
at least in Galatians
5.19,
is sexual immorality.
At the top
of the list.
In Greek,
the word is
pornea,
which is a,
if you like,
a catch-all term,
which includes
forms,
all forms
of sexual intimacy
outside of marriage
between one man
and one woman.
Now,
to be clear,
God's holy law
reveals the darkness
in all our hearts.
That's why
the regular need
for repentance.
But the story,
of course,
doesn't end
with just the law
shining in the darkness
of our hearts.
Because the good news
is that we can be forgiven.
and receive
the fruit of the Spirit,
which Paul says
is love,
joy,
peace,
forbearance,
kindness,
goodness,
faithfulness,
gentleness,
and self-control.
It's given,
Paul says,
to those who belong
to Christ
and have crucified
the flesh
with its passions
and desires.
So you'll notice
in my response,
I have chosen
not to bring
a series
of what
our progressive
friends call
clobber passages,
as though
with seven
or eight
passages of Scripture
that deal
particularly
with homosexual acts
and so forth
would seal the deal.
I have tried
to bring
what we understand
as the whole
overall message
of Scripture
so that we would
recognize
that the idea
that sexual
unions apart
from marriage
are true,
wholesome,
and lovely,
the idea
that sexual unions
apart from marriage
are true,
wholesome,
and lovely
can only be made
by appealing
to something
other than
God's written word.
So,
to pull things
together,
how do the two
views compare?
And then a few
questions
that we might
raise with
progressive friends.
In the progressive
view,
the new birth
from above
has already
happened
for everyone,
and this reality
just needs to be
expressed
in ever greater
ways.
And since
the circle
of fellowship
provides no
standards
for sexual
intimacy,
discipleship
has no
real cost.
So,
we never
quite hear
Jesus'
words in
Matthew 16,
24,
if anyone
would come
after me,
let him
deny himself,
take up his
cross,
and follow me.
But according
to the Bible,
fellowship comes
from above
through faith
in Jesus.
And we can't
generate that,
we can't
manufacture it,
we can't
take it for
granted.
It's the
blessing that
is given
to all those
who seek
the kingdom
that has
foundations,
whose architect
and builder
is God.
So what
should our
attitude be
towards those
who believe
that the
cross and
the pride
flag might
be compatible?
Well,
remembering that
we also
entertain confusion
in one way
or another,
our prayer
should be that
the Holy Spirit
would simply
touch their
hearts with
the simplicity
of the
good news.
To that end,
three questions
as God
gives the
opportunity.
Regarding the
pursuit of
justice,
does that
pursuit of
justice ever
get to the
heart of the
human predicament,
the human
problem,
the human
need?
As we work
hard to
eradicate things
like homophobia
and colonialism,
transphobia,
climate change
deniers,
or denial,
at what
point do
we look
within our
hearts to
examine our
own motives?
I often
recall Dostoevsky
here because
he's so good
at making us
think about
motives,
and in that
he's very
scriptural.
But what
standard would
we know?
By what
standard would
we know
that our
motives are
pure and
holy?
We just
take that
for granted
too?
Question two,
you claim that
same-sex marriage
must have God's
approval because
nowhere does
the Bible speak
to those who
seek committed
same-sex
relationships.
That's one of
the harder
questions to
respond to.
We might say,
but is it not
also true that
the Bible does
not speak
directly to
those who
seek committed
lifelong
polyamorous
relationships?
If you think
I'm inventing
something,
just start
poking around
the internet.
We're back
to the question
of God's
design for
sexual intimacy.
What would
it take for
us to take
him at his
word as well
as to trust
that he's
faithful and
strong to
wrap us in
his love and
shield us from
temptation?
And thirdly,
regarding your
hopes for
lasting fellowship
by being
welcoming and
affirming of
all sexual
orientations,
can the
church for
long welcome
and affirm
people just
as they are
setting no
specific standards
for right
belief and
behavior?
For instance,
when we
read, as I
just did
yesterday, I
think, that
in today's
Episcopal
church in
the United
States, there
is no room
for polyamorous
priests and
that the
clergy who
seek to have
these blessed,
as there have
been, are
being disciplined
by their
bishops.
Is it not
clear that
one standard
or another,
no matter how
provisional,
will always be
necessary?
So I'll
close here.
the pride
flag stands
for self
celebration,
for self
actualization,
for self
salvation in
a city that
is passing
away.
It stands
for arriving
at the
great banquet
with garments
that you and
I have kind
of fashioned
for ourselves.
But the
cross stands
for salvation
that comes
from above.
As we
celebrate
Jesus'
victory over
sin and
death on
the cross,
we come
to know
peace with
God through
his shed
blood,
and as we
put on the
armor that
we need for
the battle,
and we
continue on
our way to
the heavenly
city that
has foundations.
The pride
flag and the
cross do not
mix.
Shall we
pray?
Amen.
that we would seek to win, not through fancy arguments,
but through just love, through good questions,
that we would trust in you, walk with you more faithfully,
that others may too come to know the joy of fellowship with you.
This we ask in Jesus' name. Amen.