Impressive! Awesome! Passionate! These are some of the superlatives used to describe the sermon preached by the Episcopal Bishop Michael Bruce Curry at the celebrity wedding of Harry and Megan. Christians were sharing the message links widely. It is undeniable that Rev.Curry's sermon was a truly moving presentation indeed. But then, not all the buzz has been positive. There have been some who have raised questions about it, only to be mercilessly slaughtered by Christian SJWs policing these statements. “Unloving!” “No Grace!!” “Moral Police!” “Pharisees!” they thunder at the detractors.

Who is right? In a world of half truths, propaganda and vested interests, it is in one’s interests to do a double take on anything we hear, be it a news report or a sermon. A few telling questions will help us see all sides of the matter in question. Since both the supporters and the detractors refer to the Bible, let us see how representative of Biblical truth Rev. Curry’s message has been.

To the question “Is it Biblical?” The answer is “Yes” & “No.” Hold on. Before you accuse me of ambivalence or fence straddling, let me clarify. The qualified “Yes” is applicable to the overarching thesis that it is “Love,” particularly that “Unselfish Sacrificial Redemptive Love,” applied to society is the answer in a world full of unloving people. All the requirements in the Word of God can be fitted into loving God and loving mankind. Also as Rev. Curry correctly noted, God is the Source, the Power behind that Love also.  In that way it is right. You may ask, “why then do you say it is unbiblical?” The message is unbiblical because it is incomplete. The “Love” that God is talking about comes with a context and three characteristics which cannot be left out without mutilating Biblical Truth. Here they are.

The first omission is the fact of the “sinfulness of mankind.” People may experience an emotional high when they hear such messages, but the emotion alone cannot lead you to a place where you turn the other cheek when struck, or share your money with the needy, and leave a lucrative profession to go into impoverished places to bring succour, or to be impartial in justice as Rev.Curry was implying. We are people estranged from God and we need to first recognise that fact and then reconcile with God before we have the true Love that is required to meet these challenges.

The second omission the holy standard of God that was revealed on the cross of Christ. Sin is costly and redemption was purchased with an inexpressively great payment. Outside of the cross of Jesus Christ, there is no way to overcome the selfishness and sinfulness of the human self, teaches the Bible. The problem is primarily not “The capacity to know” but it is the “refusal to do.” That is why the Lord Jesus taught us that one cannot follow Him unless we are willing to take up our cross (symbolising the death to our selfish agendas and passions and lusts) and follow Him on His terms on a daily basis. It is the cross that translates our sinfulness into His beauty as we say no to our ungodly passions and say yes to God. However moving a sermon may be, it cannot provide the required impetus. Our wallets, our prejudices and our lusts will continue to control our decisions. That brings us to the final point.

The third omission is consecration for there is coming a day of Judgment. God’s way is described well in Isaiah 35:8 where it is referred to as the “Highway of Holiness.” Further Micah 6:8 says “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Lest we be left with ambiguity regarding what “walking with God” means Amos 3:3: tells us “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?. In other words, we learn to agree with God and walk with Him agreeing on His terms and rules. The most inclusive Person in the universe is God who has made provision for all people through Christ. It requires a turning around on our part. We cannot straddle both worlds. We need to say no to one to say yes to the other. We can approach Him only on His terms. We cannot hope to smuggle our own sinfulness into our walk with God and hope to call it “walking with God.” If we cannot agree with God’s judgement or assessment of things, we cannot walk with Him.

It is evident that Rev.Curry left out the inconvenient “omissions” because it would make a lot of people seated there uncomfortable, including the couple to be wedded. This is no new phenomenon. In his book "The Kingdom of God in America (1934), Richard Niebuhr wrote about the Christianity preached in his times saying “God without wrath brought man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” Niebuhr was not a fundamentalist, but he was right in this. A "Gospel" which does not deal with sin would be most acceptable to the world!! Dietrich Bonhoeffer had something similar to say about the status of Christian proclamation in his times. He named the kind of mainline religion he encountered in 1930s America as “Protestantism without the Reformation.” It is a lot worse now. This is the category to which Rev. Curry belongs since he left out all the parts that would disturb his audience. Unfortunately by so doing he has denied them the entry to true "Unselfish Sacrificial Redemptive Love" that God is freely offering. So rather than fulfilling the Great Commission, the bishop has made Great Omissions and thus misrepresented the real message of Christ. It is not the whole Truth.