1 John 1: The Rainbow Flag and the Cross

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.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

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.