CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

On Michael Curry and the Power of Love

May 20, 2018

Michael who? you ask. You know, the Black American preacher who spoke at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s royal wedding. One thing that did get the attention of many people – for good or ill – was the somewhat lengthy sermon preached by the Most Rev. Michael B Curry. It has caused a fair amount of controversy for a number of reasons.

Many staid and proper Englishmen and women for example who may not be familiar with how Black Americans preach may have found him to be far too lacking in tact, décorum and proper restraint. But that is how they preach! Thus many may not be used to this sort of preaching, and some may have rightly thought it went on a bit too long.

On the other hand, less traditional, and/or more charismatic or Pentecostal Christians may have loved it: he spiced things up a bit in a rather dry church service. Many in fact are praising him and his sermon. They think it was just terrific.

I am not so certain. I sure don’t mind Black preachers when they passionately preach a biblical gospel, but that for me is the real issue here: was he? Michael Curry is of course part of one of the most liberal denominations in the US, and is a theological and political liberal.

For example, he is strongly anti-Trump and pro-immigration. But of course many Black Americans are. However, it is theological views that are even more of a concern to me. We know that he is fully in favour of things like homosexual marriage and has sought to make that case for some time now.

Therefore the real issue is this: was his sermon just a ‘love, love, love’ message, lacking in biblical content which would fit his pro-homosexual theology? I believe that in fact is the case. It seems to have been a much more mushy theological liberalism with a lot of God words and love words thrown in, rather than a full-scale biblical message.

As mentioned, it appears that plenty of less staid and less traditional Christians really liked his fiery and passionate preaching, and got all excited about it. But – and this is a big but – it seems some of them let the presentation and delivery cloud their judgment a bit as to his actual content.

Not that one needs to hear a full-scale gospel message at a wedding, but we should hear some of it from Christian preachers. And we really ought to know how theological liberals operate by now. They always use Christian jargon and even biblical terminology, but they put a much more liberal spin on it.

So simply citing a passage like 1 Corinthians 13 does not make a preacher solidly biblical. This is of course quoted all they time by the activists when they want to insist that homosexual love is just peachy, and love is all that matters anyway.

To say ‘God is love’ is the easiest thing in the world to say. Everyone likes to say it and hear it, even non-Christians. But to make clear what exactly that means from a biblical point of view is a far different matter. To divorce his love from the full biblical message, including the fact that we are all sinners heading to a lost eternity unless we turn to Christ, is to give us a false picture of who God is.

You will be praised by everyone if you tell us ‘all you need is love’. They loved it when the Beatles told us that. But if you want to be biblical and tell us that the love of God is a very specific and demanding thing, and faith and repentance and turning from sin are keys to getting access to God and his love, then people will get quite upset with you.

Thus a discerning Christian listener would have known that something may have been amiss here. They would have seen that an emphasis on love – as good as that can be – without a corresponding emphasis on who God is in his righteousness, holiness and purity, will give us a skewed image of God.

Yes, I guess we can be thankful that many people heard some Bible passages being quoted. But no one will get saved just hearing about how neat love is. Of course that was not his intention anyway. So his talk was at best a mixed bag in my view.

That God might be able to use his words – and many Christians have leapt to his defence already – is always possible of course. As I keep saying, if God can use Balaam’s ass for his purposes, he can use anyone. But if non-believers go away thinking ‘love is all there is’ and whistling an old Beatles’ tune, they will remain far from God and his saving gospel.

When you preach all about love, but fail to properly and biblically define it, then you get exactly the sort of guy he is: a pro-homosexual and liberal pastor. Simply using some God words is not enough. I think his remarks were vague enough to please everyone – except those who expect a Christian pastor to give us much more solid gospel truth.

And in this the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby did far better, at least at this wedding! Often he too can be way off, but here he said the right things for the most part. So in various ways the gospel message was heard, and we can all be thankful for that.

But I do not share all the excitement and exuberance so many Christians have had over the Curry talk. He may have offered us curry in a hurry, with a lot of energy and passion, but it was at the end of the day a rather weak, sentimental and mushy message that is fully typical of all liberal preachers.

It might make some people feel good, but it will not drive them to their knees before a holy and just God. Again, an evangelistic message need not be preached at every wedding, but as I said, Justin Welby seemed to give us a far more biblical message than the American pastor did.

That is just my two cents worth on this. Those who want to drive me out of town – or worse – are advised to please just agree to disagree here thanks! But here is one thing we all can and should agree to: let’s pray that the newlyweds discover not only the real meaning of marriage, but come to know the risen Christ who died for their sins so that they might become new creations and attend the real royal wedding at the end of the age.

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a20754692/royal-wedding-sermon-michael-curry-full-transcript/

[1122 words]

69 Responses to On Michael Curry and the Power of Love

  • I heard the whole thing and thought this has been conspired by the Archbishop of Canterbury to support the liberal [aka Godless] teaching of the false prophets, wolves and hired hands. Welly would have been expected to preach (I think he even said he was going to in GQ magazine of all places). We need to know that NOTHING ever happens in the Church of England by accident. It is all by design. I know the Archbishop is surrounded by homosexuals and social justice marxists and the choice of deferring to the American Episcopalians (of Bishop Gene Robinson fame) is highly calculated. Have no mistake Curry’s sermon would have been looked over by Welby. This is intended to be a lever up for the homosexual/Living Out heart of the Church of England and at the same time a kick to weaken the Biblically orthodox within the Church of England and beyond, to show them who now has power and is best connected. People like GAFCON, REFORM and AIME may as well pack up and quit. The Church of England is totally lost. Did you see the black woman Chaplain to the Queen giving the prayers. How can a young black woman be in anyway a spiritual leader to the Queen ? It beggars belief.

    Going back to the sermon. It was vacuous and empty headed. We can all say love is wonderful in a hundred different ways. But did Curry tell us what love actually is – self sacrificing, faithful unto death,overcoming – no he did not. There were a few Biblical quotes but overall a wasted opportunity but very illustrative of the deception and deceit of the current leadership of the Church in the UK (and America).

  • Hi Bill, I thought it was cringeworthy. I was embarrassed and turned the sound off. It was inappropriate for the occasion, token at best and did not represent the truth of the character of God and His definition of love. Rev Curry was all about Rev Curry and his performance. A clown.

  • While his message upheld love and was even touching a lot of the time, the gospel is also about sin. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more” while Michael Curry says go and have your homosexual marriage and He will bless it. However God does NOT bless it. He says man shall not lie down with man, nor woman with woman and that if you approve of the practice of homosexuality, you will suffer the same fate as the homosexual.

    Read I Corinthians 6:9-11 (which also talks about drunkards and several other sins that He will not tolerate us practicing) and read Romans 1:26-32 to see what God says about homosexuality. I fear Bishop Curry will hear “I never knew you” when he meets God if he does not repent (I kept waiting for him to talk about repentance of sin as part of redemption, but he didn’t).

    Make no mistake, God’s Word will not be mocked.

  • I almost resembled this comment…”As mentioned, it appears that plenty of less staid and less traditional Christians really liked his fiery and passionate preaching, and got all excited about it. But – and this is a big but – it seems some of them let the presentation and delivery cloud their judgment a bit as to his actual content.”…but was saved by my many doctrinally astute friends.
    One comment that he made that I thought decent was, “When love is the way — unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive, when love is the way.” I think it’s good that the wedding is being discussed…even if for unintentional reasons.

  • I so agree with you

  • The ‘message’ lacked Bible truth and understanding. The world witness a mockery of the highest order of HOLY MATRIMONY!

  • The wedding started off really well though with it being repeatedly stated that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman!

  • He started off OK and the message about the redeeming power of love was inspiring.
    I am not sure that people were disapproving of his style of delivery, it was more likely to do with his ramblings about fire and his repetitions that kept taking him further and further away from coherence, biblical truth and a recognisable marriage sermon.
    He included references to Mandela and slavery so I twigged that he was pushing an agenda. When I did more research I saw he was a liberal pro LGBTQ etc and then knew he was chosen to push an agenda.

  • The one thing I keep reminding myself when such things happen and our individual sensibilities are assaulted and maimed by liberal progressives (christian and non), is that these are the last days. We should not be surprised or dismayed that, when weak christians or outright non-believers hold a big lavish wedding, some mushy mixed-up message is going to be preached.

    People inherently attribute behavioural expectations that emenate from their own system of values and beliefs upon iconic personalities and celebrities. One only has to look at Israel Folau. It was expected that he would back down and recant. However, instead of doing that he did three amazing things:
    1. He offered to quit rugby – I reckon someone changed their knickers when he said it;
    2. He wrote an op-ed correcting some public statements about what transpired at the meeting; and,
    3. He doubled down.

    Now onto another matter, the quality of the giver of a message at a public event is only ever a reflection of the quality of believer who chose them. Rather than blaming the messenger one should be looking more at the sender.

    In the OT a prophet would often send a messenger to a king or other significant people. Sometimes the messenger would be killed but more often than not the message would be received as if it was the prophet relating it in person. So the focus should be on the royals and not any diabolical speaker delivering the love fest. Unfortunately this couple are starry eyed and misguided. Harry’s parents were an adulterous couple who did not lay foundations for a righteous belief system.

    As for the message I am not surprised. Perhaps Joel Osteen was busy that day.

    By the way Naomi, what has the age, gender or colour of one’s skin got to do with one’s annointing or ability to be chaplain to the Queen? If it was a young white man would you have said the same thing? One only has to look at the women in the bible.

  • From the transcript of Bishop Curry’s address: “Fire made it possible, there was no Bronze Age without fire, no Iron Age without fire, …”

    Does Bishop Curry really believe the secular world’s re-writing of human history into ‘Bronze Age’ and ‘Iron Age’? Cf. Genesis 4:22 “Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron.”

    So does Bishop Curry believe that Adam, who later died aged 930 years, lived through a ‘Stone Age’ too? Or does he believe it preceded Adam?

    I also wonder if Bishop Curry ever ponders what God thinks of those who bear false witness.

  • Yes, even Satan used “god words”. I guess there will be a number of people feeling all “warm and fuzzy” for a day or two. You expressed my thoughts on this, thank you.

  • 1 Cor 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
    (NIV)

    1Co 13:5 does not behave indecently, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil.
    1Co 13:6 Charity does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth.
    (MKJV)

    The term translated “indecently” in the MKJV and poorly paraphrased in other versions as not dishonoring others or acting “unseemly” is aschemoe and literally means contrary to the scheme of things (from the Greek scheo). Homosexuality is defined in the scriptures, most definitely as being at very least “unseemly” and absolutely, certainly not according to the scheme of things. This scripture tells us very plainly in the original, but watered down in many versions, that to love we should not even think evil (Greek kakon). In many versions this is watered down to simply not bearing a grudge so only refers to evil done against ourselves, not evil as a whole. This well worn and often poorly translated section of scripture is very good evidence as to why we need to study the scripture and especially be aware when different versions put a different spin on things.

    For someone who promotes homosexuality to quote these scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. The U.S. Episcopalians are heretics; they have created falseness and schisms within the church, and very many within that church are very obviously apostate. They promote evil and so are not promoting love. They promote lies and have no love of the truth. They celebrate homosexual “marriages” and so are most definitely delighting in evil; the opposite of what the scriptures define as love.

  • Great oratory. I do not expect an altar call at a wedding but Curry strayed far from the normal marriage themes. He moved to changing our world. Yet he gave the listeners no power to do that rather than human effort and “love” divorced from a relationship with Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Human effort. Humans can change the world. But without repentance and the New Birth.

    How many lost people heard this ear tickling, man-centered, non-gospel? 3 Billion!

    So stay with normal marriage passages or if you go beyond that, give the lost the only source of hope. Personal faith in Christ that comes by Grace thru faith and manifested by repentance.

  • Thanks Bill. Appreciate your summary.

  • A cracking analysis Naomi. Michael Curry is truly the all dancing, singing shaman.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1bE4rjXVaM

    David Skinner UK

  • Agree
    Wesley and others of his like always delivered love in the right perspective. The holiness and righteousness of God first. The state of man. The love of God for repentant sinners trusting in the saviour.
    These guys it’s just love, love, love, but never in the right context.
    They never sound the alarm.

  • Thank you Bill and Naomi King. You have both articulated exactly what I observed as I listened to the service. I suspect he was given a time limit but ignored it – especially has he made his closing “quick” comment, which I suspect was ad lib, after thought.

    Naomi, your comment about the young spiritual adviser to the queen is spot on. I made a comment in the Facebook discussion that, were I presenting this service to a group of young ministry students I would have torn it apart. That is harsh language meaning I would have examined every element with then in view of the scope of Scripture. It was, indeed, lacking, though it had a few strong points. The vows themselves were spot on – and if they are taken seriously by this young couple, they could be stronger voice yet.

    Again, thank you both.

  • My thoughts exactly Bill and Naomi. What an opportunity wasted. If terms are not defined the message is vacuous. If he had quoted I Corinthians 13 4-7 it might have made some sense. It would have also been a wonderful time to mention the analogy of marriage and the love Christ has for his church. Even so, I found the traditional Anglican liturgy very meaningful. The love in Harry’s eyes was lovely to see.
    Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13.10
    1 Corinthians 13:4-7 New International Version (NIV)
    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

  • I oppose homosexual marriage but I thought that what he was saying was very fitting for a godly heterosexual union

  • Curry in a hurry – I like that Bill. Thank you for putting his sermon in the right perspective. A good love story like so many we hear from pulpits these days. Then again we had not really expected to hear a challenging gospel message, had we? I guess we need to be thankful that a lot of decent respect for Christian tradition was put on display at the wedding.
    Personally I found it thoroughly enjoyable to see all the pomp and pride of the English Royalty. The couple displayed a lot of reverence, despite it being a delightful show for entertaining the masses.
    Bill Heggers

  • Good article Bill. The LGBT background to Curry is unfortunate and hugely detracts.

    The C of E does gravitas well but has long ago lost the Holy Spirit. And liberalism – progressive Christianity – is an abomination that destroys authenticity.

  • I agree also and I thought about her previous marriage/s where scripture was ignored as divorce without biblical reason makes them both adulterous. I feel sorry for Harry as his own minister and the queen should have warned him and since Charles married Camilla has now condoned it.

  • Timely and wise commentary expressing concern to be discerning towards the liberal sugar-coated gospel which is dangerous to the soul.

  • I for one thought the Rev. Curry was great, albeit, he did go on a bit too long and repeated himself! Think he figured this was the biggest audience he would ever get, world wide, and he decided to go for it, and he did, and delivered in spades, judging by some of the faces, the style may have shocked some of the normally staid British, but that’s about the norm for American Preachers, nothing wrong with his message, it IS all about Love. But some prefer to get bogged down in complicated Biblical dogma from various interpretations of the Bible, that I doubt Jesus would fathom either? I don’t think religion was meant to be complicated, if you can master the ‘Love and Forgiveness’ thing to the best of your abilities [and it’s not as easy as it may sound], pretty much everything else falls into place, and should that dreaded ‘Judgement Day’ ever come around, you shouldn’t have too much to worry about! And Yes, I do consider myself a friend of Jesus, and I feel deeply that he is of me too!

  • Thanks Girvan, but given that Jesus spoke more about hell and judgment to come than anyone else in the Bible, your spin on his message fully fits in with the theological liberalism of Curry, but not at all with the clear teachings of Scripture. As I said in my article, love – biblically defined – is a far, far cry from the vacuous and humanistic love proclaimed by the world and by liberal preachers. ‘Love and forgiveness’ are empty words without first understanding core biblical realities such as sin, the wrath of God, and the fate of the unsaved. And you of course spill the beans here with your unhelpful talk about “complicated Biblical dogma”. There is nothing complicated about what Jesus said, including the need of repentance to avoid a lost eternity. And the Bible is full of absolutely necessary, life-changing dogma.

    Sorry, but you are just revealing your unbiblical theological liberalism here. And since you have come to my site before, and admitted to being a ‘lapsed Catholic’, and telling us you think God considers atheists to be just peachy, I guess all this sentimental pap is to be expected of you!

  • I do see your concerns here Bill, but I listened to what Bishop Curry preached and I heard an impassioned plee for people to turn to God, who is the source of love, and that Jesus simplified the law to two command ‘love God and love eachother’. He spoke about the fact that love is selfless, sacrificial and redemptive, as demonstrated by Jesus.

    I agree that Curry should have talked about repentence and personal salvation… but you also state that this wasn’t the place for an evangelical message or an altar call, and indeed that he spoke too long in any case. Given these parameters, is it too much to expect a comprehensive explanation of salvation in a marriage address?

    Yes, Bishop Curry supports liberal agendas, but does that mean we don’t see any good in what he spoke? I don’t think so. I hope my friends and family who are not yet Christians heard his message and that God uses it to draw them closer to him. Perhaps the onus is then on us to speak to others about how this ‘power of love’ is applied to our lives personally by repentence and submitting our lives to the Lordship of Jesus?

  • Thanks Joanna. As I said 2 or 3 times in the piece, one does not necessarily expect a full-fledged gospel sermon at a wedding. And I also said that hopefully the little biblical truth presented might do some good – although Welby gave us much more of that than Curry. But some folks here are missing the bigger picture: this is all about the white-anting of the church, and the insidious move to homosexualise the faith. He is a pro-homosexual liberal, who was specifically invited by the couple. And they have made it clear they intend to do all they can to also promote all things homosexual.

    The main issue here is that biblical discernment seems to have gone missing for many believers. We have not learned the lessons of history. Theological liberalism thrives because it uses biblical jargon, but totally stripped of its biblical content. As I have said often now, everyone loves to hear about love. But if it is presented with the full, biblical understanding of love, most would turn away in disgust, just as most turned away from Jesus.

  • Thank Bill, and thanks Naomi for your pertinent comments about how the sermon would have been checked beforehand by Welby (although I do wonder if Curry went further than the script).
    In assessing Curry’s message, we have to think not just about what he said, but what he didn’t say. A wedding message focusing on love seems appropriate, and if we ignore the clear deference to secular views on so-called bronze and iron ‘ages’ (as mentioned above by David Catchpoole), perhaps there was not a lot wrong with what he said (although I’ll get to another concern shortly).

    So what didn’t he say that he should have? Bishop Quigg Lawrence above says that we shouldn’t expect an alter call at a wedding. But how far along the path to a full-on evangelistic message, especially when one has an almost-unique opportunity to preach to literally millions, should he have gone? Further than he did, I’m sure, but we need to be careful to not be overly critical that he didn’t say such-and-such if it’s not appropriate for the occasion.

    One of my concerns was the emphasis on love more than the emphasis on God. Sure, God was mentioned several times, including the point that God is the ultimate source of love, and is love, but to my mind there was too much emphasis on the “power of love” as opposed to the power of God, to the point where an atheist could presumably benefit from the power of love because the power is just in the love rather than primarily in the source of that love. (I’m not saying that an atheist can’t benefit, but that a preacher should emphasise God more.)

    One concerning point that is not in the transcript is his praise of Teilhard de Chardin. The transcript refers to a “French Jesuit”, but omits the name, presumably because the transcriber didn’t catch and recognise the name. The transcript should read (from 1:28:28 in the video; bolded text omitted from the transcript):

    And let me tell you something, old Solomon was right in the Old Testament, there’s fire. Teilhard de Chardin—and with this I will sit down. We got to get you all married—The French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin was arguably one of the great minds, great spirits of the 20th century, a Jesuit, Roman Catholic priest, scientist, a scholar, a mystic…

    His praise of Chardin is enough to show his true colours.

    Of course that’s concentrating on the message itself. As has been mentioned, another problem is in the choice of person to give the message, given his unbiblical views.

    But like Peter Colsell above, I wonder what one’s age, gender, or particularly the colour of one’s skin has to do with one’s ability to be a chaplain to the queen.

  • The world applauds the sermon that is the interesting part. I thank God for believers who can discern this I have been roasted on social media because I did not agree with the sermon by christian friends who think all you need is love

  • Two verses of scripture come to my mind: John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
    2 Timothy 2: 15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Sheep no their shepherds voice, they will not listen to or follow a stranger.
    We who have put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and study daily the word of God will recognize a false teacher instantly and turn away from him.

    I have been a follower of Christ Jesus since 2003. I have learned the importance of staying in the Word of God and I have grown to appreciate how important that is. That’s why I just couldn’t listen to this minister, he wasn’t “rightly dividing the word.” Satan knows the word too and he tried to influence our Lord but it didn’t work. It shouldn’t work with us either.

    When you hear a minister preaching and twisting the word of God, it’s time to make a quick exit. There is so much deception going on today and sadly, a lot of it is happening in evangelical circles. So, to all my facebook brothers and sisters in the Lord, stay in the Word.

  • Agree with Peter re the chaplain comments (made by Naomi). When I read that my first reaction was, “wow what an incredibly inane and rascist” thing to say. I hope and pray I have misunderstood th remarks.
    In this context (a chaplain to the queen) I see no problem with her gender, age (Timothy was young) and her colour.

  • I felt the sermon was an airy fairy talk. I liked that he showed some excitement and passion but his message lacked substance and like you said Bill Biblical truth. While it was good to talk about love at a wedding it was too over the top and when I saw Elton John smiling I suspected he was pro-homosexual and liberal in his stance on moral issues. I wasn’t sure what his denomination was when watching the wedding but now remember hearing about how liberal their teachings are. Thank you for sharing.

  • I’m thinking about the bishop’s hearers.
    Many of them where I go have very little knowledge of scripture.
    They would watch a program like this to see what the bride’s dress looked like, at one end of the spectrum, and criticise his scripture and theology at the other end of the spectrum.
    Give the Holy Spirit a chance to use what might be the only words of God many of those hearers will have heard.
    Where I go I’ve often been misunderstood, misinterpreted, misquoted, and ignored.
    Today for mainline churches is Pentecost Sunday.
    I believe in the holy spirit, the lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son……
    Mary Sutherland

  • And my third, but hopefully last, piece on the wedding! Past warnings about the very real dangers of theological liberalism seem to be falling on deaf ears today, if a recent wedding is any indication of this!

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/05/20/on-weddings-theological-liberalism-and-discernment/

  • Oh it was typically animated, but in the light of day where the reality of both past history can’t be simply swept under the carpet, a more direct message was needed.
    Sadly, given the present direction of both Official Anglicanism in the UK and the Episcopal Church in the USA, the lovely couple heard nothing to help them turn to Christ for salvation.

  • Agreed Bill – The Lord says 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV) Abstain from all appearance of evil. This was a giant ‘nose thumb’ … not just to ‘the establishment’ … but to Father God – so very sad …

  • Yes, I couldn’t help thinking as she said her ‘vows’ she has already said this all before to her first husband !

    In God’s eyes she is one flesh with her husband in America. Sadly for Harry this can only be adulterous.

    I felt great sadness for Harry yesterday in my Spirit and I couldn’t think why but this morning I can put words to it. He was brought up within a marriage which was clearly unloving and would have seen much hatred and destruction as Charles and Diana tore each other apart (because of Charles adultery). Harry was an ‘outsider’ almost certainly not Charles son and Charles knew it, but the son of Captain Hewlett from ‘seed sown in a foreign field”. I thought about Hewlett yesterday how sad for him that he could not and never can be part of his son’s life. He had to watch his son’s wedding on the TV. How devastatingly sad. The cost of Diana turning to adultery too.

    Then there was the death of Diana and all those years without his mother who was the source of all love Harry’s his life. Charles was totally disconnected from Harry and disinterested or worse. Charles looked pretty bored during the service. Now Harry marries a pretty woman who is the age his mother was when she died. He is clearly in love with her but just maybe he is in love with his lost mother as well.

    Harry seems a genuine and kindly young man, no doubt like his father Captain Hewlett was when he got pulled into this mess by becoming ‘a shoulder to lean on’ for the unhappy Diana. None of which was Harry’s fault of course, he was an innocent victim in the sinful nature of his two parents but God does pass on to the children for 3 or 4 generations the curses of the parents. all of which is very sobering to us all.

    It is a cliche to say the wages of sin is death but this story in many ways confirms this. Harry’s life is the fruit of his parents sin. Megan has a family who are also troubled with the curse of sin and I also felt so sad for Megan’s mother sitting there all alone in the choir stalls. The earlier writers are correct we DO NEED to urgently call out sin. Describe it, define it and tell folk what they must do to revile it, hate it, renounce it and turn away from it. It is life and death. Sin causes so much misery, we need to speak it like it is. We are all going to Hell in a handcart, the innocent and the not innocent. Come on Preachers where are you ?

    Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and you will be saved and receive eternal life through the power of the cross, the blood, the Word and the Spirit.

    God bless.

  • Hi Bill,
    Unfortunately a watered down gospel is preached in many churches.
    No mention of Hell, repentance or sin. Only God’s Love. This warm and fuzzy preaching does not convict people of their sins, and so they continue to sin, but sadly think that they are right with God.

  • Spot on Bill. I was alternating between cringing with shame and being mad at the deception.

  • Naomi was referring to the usurping of spiritual authority by a woman. Secondly her reference to black was militant black suprematism.

    As for this witch doctor, Michael Curry banging on and on and on about love, like a cracked record, what he was really talking about was a love and tolerance of all that is a stench in the nostrils of God, LGBTism. The Episcopalian Church of America, ECUSA under the domination of its previous Primate, or presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori who looked and sounded more like something from planet Zog, had so much love that she drove Anglicans who would not tow the line to her Marxist- liberation front ideology out of their churches and then proceeding to pursue them through the courts with litigation. My, they are so loving and peaceful. There is so much love in these tolerant, inclusive, diverse and non- discriminating pagan priests that they will hound, persecute and incited hatred of anyone who opposes the LGBT agenda.
    What Prince Harry, who has slept with a string of loose women, does not realise is that he has come under the authority of the man/ white/ hetero hating ECUSA which in fact has a fascination with the elimination of white males.
    As for the crowds, waving and cheering, they reminded me of the crowds waving and cheering Jesus Christ on his entry into Jerusalem. The next day they were baying for his blood.
    The Jesus Christ of the Bible who died for our guilt, shame and sins was no where to be seen amongst these prophets of Baal.

    http://www.virtueonline.org/whats-wrong-presiding-bishop-elect-michael-currys-understanding-evangelism

    http://www.virtueonline.org/michael-curry-royal-wedding-star-turn-offers-world-christianity-lite

    http://www.virtueonline.org/jesus-movement-michael-curry-racism-guilt-and-white-privilege

    David Skinner UK

  • I thought the reference Welby made to sexual union, implying it be reserved to marriage, a refreshing and laudable statement. I also liked his clear reference to husband and wife, and not those awful ‘2 people’ statements we hear these days.

  • To my detractors

    The Queen should be preaching to this young woman, not the other way round.

    TIT 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    This young woman should be being taught by the older women to love her husband, love her children and to be a discreet keeper at home, obedient to her HUSBAND. Is her husband sending her out to preach to the Queen I doubt it. She as an arch feminist with an racial agenda most probably doesn’t have one.

    Her leading the prayers in a State wedding watched by billions ‘as a clergyman’ is blasphemous. Titus 2:5. Read it for yourself. Where is Christ and His bride in all this ? Where is respect for the Word of God ?

  • David Skinner:

    Naomi was referring to the usurping of spiritual authority by a woman. Secondly her reference to black was militant black suprematism.

    So you’re saying that a woman shouldn’t even be spiritual adviser to another woman? Okay, got that.
    As for the militant black “suprematism”, is there something that you’re not telling us, or is that simply drawing a very long bow?

  • Naomi, we were questioners, not detractors.

    Like David Skinner, you seem to be drawing a long bow. You’ve provided no evidence of her being an arch feminist, Titus 2 gives a role to aged women, it doesn’t exclude young people from helping.

    And you haven’t explained how being black is relevant.

  • I agree with you.

  • Michael Curry represents a Marxist “polymorphously perverse Kingdom of this World

    In analyzing Marxism, historian Arnold Toynbee revealed that it is a distinctly “religious” secular humanist inspiration whose God is the Goddess of Historical Necessity. Marxism, states Toynbee, “is the apocalyptic vision of a violent revolution which is inevitable because it is the decree … of (the Goddess), and which is to invert the present roles of Proletariat and Dominant Majority … in a reversal of roles which is to carry the Chosen People … from the lowest to the highest place in the Kingdom of this World.” (A Study of History)
    In other words, the Christian culture was to be turned upside-down and the chosen ones — the proletariat and their subculture — placed into positions of dominance.The new Kingdom was to be matrist and polymorphously perverse.
    In the pre-Stalinist Soviet Union, Bolshevik religious fanatics — believing they were “scientific high-priests” endowed with “God-like” creative powers — literally attempted to scientifically re-engineer not only a New Man but a polymorphously perverse Kingdom of this World where androgynous beings could move fluidly into and out of sexually-gratifying relationships.Before they could begin this monstrously inhuman project, Marxists first had to deconstruct both man and his existing culture.
    http://herrickreport.com/newsovietunion.html

    The LGBT Episcopalien church worships the Earth Goddess.
    Katherine Jefferts Schori Archbishop of ECUSA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUCx6JszsRc

    In 2007 the battle lines were drawn between the Archbishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and the rest of the American Episcopalien Church.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpBvh9Uf5RA

    The rest as they say is history:

    Bishops Diane Bruce and Mary Glasspool
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wi7tA8xgIc
    Bishop Mary Douglas Glasspool
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycT-mDIK87M
    Rev Susan Russell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ5fvT-Q1VQ

    It gets even better. A bevy of transgender ECUSA bishops have since followed :
    The Rev. Deacon Carolyn Woodall’s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGx-Jbur0E
    The Rev. Vicki Gray
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqnBKYHhtao
    The Rev. Dr. Cameron Partridge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PTp3AiHwc
    Reverend Greg Fry
    http://www.fox16.com/news/transgender-priest-out-at-pine-bluff-church/205341413
    Reverend Dr. Megan Rohrer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vffST19BXX0

    David Skinner UK

  • It appears the Justine Welby’s decision to invite Michael Curry to give the address at the Wedding was politically motivated. ECUSA have been rejected by the Anglican Church World Wide, especially from those living in the Southern Hemisphere, over the issue of gay marriage in the Church. Justine Welby is extremely sympathetic to the same sex marriage and describes some queer relationships whom he knows as being absolutely stunning. What better way to take a swipe at those Anglicans who refuse to go compromise, than to use Michael Curry as a tool of propaganda. This is cultural Marxism.

    David Skinner UK

  • What does this young woman know that the Queen doesn’t already know ? What she learnt at Theological College ? Its a joke.

  • In the Bible we see that the love of God is explicitly mentioned to believers and even this happens a very limited number of times (and these passages are favourites for many and quoted often). It can be inferred in very many, many other places but it’s rarely stated explicitly.

    The word ‘love’ doesn’t occur even once in any context in Acts which is the book that shows New Testament evangelism in action.

    Why does the Church today think we know better than the New Testament Church? Better than those who spent 3 years being taught by Jesus?

    We read in John that when the Holy Spirit comes He will convict of Sin, Righteousness and Judgment not Love, Love, Love.

    There is a lot of Biblical illiteracy today.

  • http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/al-sharpton-royal-wedding-shows-white-supremacy-ending-article-1.3998555

    New York Times says royal wedding shows white supremacy is ‘on its last breath’ .

  • As someone that has studied theology at a conservative college his liberalism was evident. He spoke of ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. Yes Jesus was from Nazareth but he was also, Lord, Christ and the very Son of God.

  • I think we ought to thank Naomi for highlighting the real tragedy played out in the broad light of day. I don’t think I am being over- dramatic or sincere, when I say Naomi has drawn each of the characters in this Greek tragedy with great accuracy: Prince Harry; Meghan Markle; the Queen; Prince Charles; James Hewitt,the probable, real father of Harry, ; the dead princess, Diana and the black female priestess all carry huge burdens, as do the rest of the supporting cast, sat in the pews. As Psalm 73 says, “when I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places…..”
    Instead of judging them we should weep and pray for these lost souls.
    The other tragedy is that this was supposed to have been Prince Harry and Meghan’s day. It is the day when all couples getting married become princes and princesses. Instead of which Meghan’s day was stolen by the all dancing and singing witch doctor, Michael Curry, pumping out Cultural Marxist ideology. Normally when a priest is addressing a couple his message is to them personally. Compare this with the sermon written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when he was in prison awaiting execution to his niece . It is full of personal touches.
    http://lutheranweddings.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/wedding-sermon-by-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html

    Instead this was a sermon straight from the pages of the Frankfurt School and Marcuse, where familiar words, like love, have been repackaged to mean something completely different. Love becomes tolerance, inclusion, diversity, non- discrimination and equality, which mean precisely the opposite of their original meaning . Anyone not subscribing to this new “luuurve”, utopia, will find themselves being exposed to hatred, fined, jailed and having their children taken away. The ideology being preached by Michael Curry over the heads of the wedded couple is designed precisely to destroy marriage, family, the church and the nation.
    This was not so much a wedding as as commissioning service for a couple who are going to act as apostles of militant feminism and LGBTism in 54 Commonwealth countries.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43811523
    https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a19855210/prince-harry-meghan-markle-lgbt-rights/

    As it says in Psalm 73, the wedding day and all the cast in this macabre tragedy will disappear as in a dream, lost for all eternity.

    David Skinner UK

  • “..the Beatles said ‘All you need is love’ & then they broke up…’ Larry Norman, (Readers’ Digest)

  • The thing is you don’t just have curry – you have curry and rice and chillies and pickles. It’s the mix of the service and prayers and address and hymns and sense of majesty all coming together. Over 1 billion people watched the wedding – so if even 0.1% of hearts were nudged open by the spirit of God to hear the Word of God – what a wonderful outcome. Imagine that 1 million people – maybe prodigals in whom the seed had been planted years ago by faithful parents – maybe they heard the God bit. The God I worship can cause all things to work together for good – so I praise God for the wedding and will pray that some hearts were opened by all that went on.

  • It was Marcuse who when asked in the 1950s who would lead the cultural revolution, gave the answer. It would be black militants, feminists and homosexuals. He did not realise that black, lesbian, Mohammedans who also worship the moon would get in on the act.
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/09/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-muslim-lesbians

    David Skinner UK

  • 2 Timothy 4 :3 & 4 – I think that is now.

  • Thanks for the link to Bonhoeffer, David.

    In the sermon Bonhoeffer highlights 5 important points:
    “God is guiding your marriage”
    “God makes your marriage indissoluble”
    “God establishes a rule of life by which you can live together in wedlock” (Col. 3:18, 19)
    “God has laid on marriage a blessing and a burden,” that of children
    “God gives you Christ as the foundation of your marriage.”

  • Dear Bill,

    Thank you for giving us this opportunity to make a comment about the homily given at Harry and Meghan’s wedding.

    I thought I heard him say that if there was enough love in the world there would be no poverty which was something I agreed with. I may be wrong but I thought he was giving a subtle, much needed hint at the many rich and famous in the congregation who live lavish, extravagant lifestyles whilst the poor get poorer and more numerous in today’s world.

    That was before I knew he supported homosexual ‘marriage’ which casts doubt on what his idea of love might be.

  • Bill, thanks for this series of articles. Thanks also to the many commenters, particularly Naomi King and David Skinner, for taking time to share their thoughts, insights and research. It’s a pity one can’t reply to individual comments.

    Peter Colsell:

    Harry’s parents were an adulterous couple

    Surely their similar actions will be judged differently? Charles evidently intended to continue his sexual relationship with Camilla after his wedding to Diana. She was expected to put up with her husband’s ongoing affairs, like Queen Alexandra with Edward VII. Princess Diana was a virgin bride, able to give herself completely to her husband. But Charles had already made this bond with the Camilla woman, so the bond he made to Diana in consummation wasn’t as strong as hers to his. Charles’ adultery with Camilla damaged Diana’s health and moral compass, because it tore part of her “one flesh” away.

    Several commenters have taken issue with the comment questioning the presence and role of the black female chaplain. The ordination of priestesses is really an expression of support for homosexuality, because it violates the created order and denies the authority of scripture. If the Anglican church thinks gender is irrelevant to being a priest, then surely it’s irrelevant to being a husband.

  • Cathie Stawlm, yes, Camila Parker Bowles, is a cruel woman who engineered Charles’s marriage to Diana in order to dispel the gossip of her, a married woman, making frequent visits to see Charles, after he had returned from serving in the Navy. Diana was just a girl, who would putty in the hands of Camila. Charles, Camilia and others in the Royal family all have blood on their hands. They guided Diana to drive in the fast lane which is precisely where she finished her days. .

    David Skinner UK

  • Even though the wedding ceremony begins by affirming that marriage is between a man and a women, the ‘royal’ couple don’t affirm that and support homosexual marriage.
    What a farce.
    So much hypocrisy in the Anglican Communion.

  • None of us knew who he was,

    I thought it was good for those who would have been Muslims, and Hindu or other similar religions. We knew it would be worldly preaching, but I’m sure it woke a few people up and hopefully caused them to think about Jesus for a few seconds …. As for calling it a Fire and Brimstone message, it was the opposite..

    Sure we all knew he didn’t go into the the attributes of real love,

    Re: Never getting offended, Watching what we say with our mouth, Telling the truth in love, Going the extra mile, Humility towards all human beings, Being a peace maker, Never seeing the differences in skin colour. Loving the rich & the poor, Never seeking attention from others by showing off what we have, making others feel less important or of lower standing,,, , Always secretly inwardly in heart wanting the best for others, Never selling a product that is not going to benefit the other person, Wanting the best for the business we may work for…Working out what we own up to every dollar in our tax returns for the betterment of our own country not just for God…,,,Many here could add a few hundred more convictions that we get from reading the Word of God….

  • I feel a bit shallow in adding this link amidst such bristling and substantial discussion, but as Bill mentioned, African-American preachers have a special something. Here’s one with a bit more substance than Rev. Curry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX_7j32zgNw

  • A very good comment, Bill. Also much perspicacity from friends Naomi King and David Skinner.

    I became suspicious of the choice of Abp Michael Curry to be the preacher at the wedding when I read that it was ABp Welby’s idea. Surely not, thought I. He wouldn’t dare, not after the partial suspension imposed on TEC by the Anglican Communion a few year ago. A bold move by Welby,not usually known for boldness, but I was unaware of his cunning side. He used Curry as a mule to carry his own pernicious liberal proclivities that he would not have expressed so eloquently himself .
    Curry softened up the congregation (audience) with impassioned sentiment and racial overtones, to burnish his own credentials as a world spokesman for the modern age. It seems he succeeded. But hopefully some people by God’s grace will have discerned the true message of God’s love
    Another thought. Whose idea was it to emphasise the black (racial ) elements of this ceremony, I wonder? Rose Hudson Wilkins was an obvious choice to do that. A young black cellist..quite a novelty. But why have a cello at all? The piece was lovely but hardly celebratory. As for the Gospel choir…. I have heard much better and their dress —why not a properly robed choir? Far more fitting and elegant. It was only from the service sheet that I learned Welsh soprano Elin Managhan Thomas was the soloist. Don’t get me wrong, there is much I love about black people and black culture, which I’ve experienced living in the USA and visiting many other countries. But I suspect a token-esque factor flavoured the proceedings. Especially the inclusion of ABp Curry, whom the inimical ‘Rebel Priest’ slices and dices in this link.

    https://www.julesgomes.com/single-post/How-a-bad-Curry-gave-the-royal-wedding-a-spiritual-indigestion

  • Thanks guys. And while Welby may have been better on the day, overall he is not much better than Curry! See here:

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/justin-welby-unable-condemn-gay-sex-interview-admits-he-is-struggling-with-issue-201474/

  • I was in the company of many everyday folks as I completed my final days in hospital when the wedding was screened on TV. A number of folks on staff had no interest whatever in the wedding, but remarks I heard from several others about ‘that preacher’ was that he went on far too long and they should have turned his microphone off. They seemed to feel he was far more a frustration than an an inspiration, and I gathered his actual ‘message’ made no impact at all on these everyday workers in the ‘real world’. They probably can’t remember anything about it. Dealing with everyday realities in helping other people to health weigh more heavily that fussing over some preacher – liberal or not – who never bothered learning the lesson that sometimes, ‘less is more’.

  • I’m firmly of the belief that so called “theologically liberal Christians” are so obviously following and worshipping a false Jesus and are therefore simply unsaved. For someone to be pushing for the acceptance of iniquity within the church and to still be of the belief that they are walking in the will of God, it stands to reason that the “god” that they are serving is not the true holy God of the Bible.

  • Agreed with this comment in general Bill, but especially with the insight re Balaams’ donkey. That said what Curry said about love is true though he didn’t say how love comes to us in Christ via the propitiation of the Cross. Re: “Not that one needs to hear a fullscale gospel message at a wedding.” This I disagree. Every wedding is a (ideally) a prefigure of the Marriage of the Lamb and His Bride the church Revelation 19:6-9. That should be centre and gobsmack the lot of us. That is the gospel. The best Jesus got was a side swipe to the intelligentsia that Jesus wouldn’t get an honorary doctorate from them!

Leave a Reply