“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” Hebrews 13:8
WOW — what a bold statement? Do you believe it?
Well, if you’re relying on modern biblical scholastics, you probably have some doubts. “You see, these days you just can’t rely on these ancient religious ideologies, people from those ancient times were not as educated or as enlightened as we are in the 21st century. Those old fogies certainly didn’t under human sexuality with our sense of sophistication.” Sound familiar?
Modern, text critical biblical scholarship has done everything in its power to demystify and devalue Christian faith and values, through casting doubt on the reliability of our sacred texts. The fact is, if you can prove that Jesus wasn’t who he said he was, our whole foundation of faith falls like a house of cards.
It is with this sort of reasoning that homo-heretic priest, James Martin feels at liberty to suggest that biblical authors got it wrong in their condemnations of homosexuality. Martin is relying on human wisdom and faulty logic. (Romans 1:22) This renegade priest is making a couple of false assumptions: 1, That the Old Testament Moral Code is no longer relevant, and 2, that the teachings contained in scripture are merely writings of men. In his understanding scripture is merely cunningly crafted stories, myth and legend. (2 Peter 1:16), not the power of God, leading to salvation of souls. (Romans 1:16)
In Holy scripture, we find Salvation History. These are indeed stories, myth, legend, and a wide variety of other literary styles, but not purely myth and legend not as modern scholastics would have us believe. What we are presented with is not even history, as modern historians or history books portray. Unless you have been graced with the faith to believe, much of what is contained in our holy writings is merely foolishness. (1 Corinthians 1:18)
The biblical texts were written over thousands of years, by a huge multiplicity authors, and preserved for thousands more. Considering their antiquity and the diversity of authors, they are amazing in their consistency and prophetic accuracy. No other collection of ancient writings comes close to the Christian Bible in the sense of historicity.
If we were only to consider Christian scripture from the perspective of prophesy concerning a coming messiah, and the accuracy of their fulfillment in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the odds are staggering, that it could be anything other than accurate. Christians accept this on on faith. But, we can also grasp this with an intellectual belief as well.
Words are powerful, and from the things we say, we can make certain value judgments. Though it is inappropriate to judge an individual person’s state of Grace, whether they are “saved” or not, we can most assuredly make judgments of the validity or veracity of what they are teaching. Truth is not relative or transitional based upon what century we are in. Neither does truth care about your feelings.
I feel like asking both Fr Martin and Pope Francis, “what is your motivation for teaching the things you do?” Sadly, asking them such would be futile, as neither of them respond to such inquiries. With Fr. Martin we see a seemingly un-relenting quest to normalize what both Old and New Testaments consider to be sin — homosexuality. With Pope Francis, and his demands for accompaniment, we have a seemingly endless Pandora’s box of opportunities for error, many like Fr. Martin, and even many bishops and cardinals are glamming on to these errors with glee.
Yes, Jesus and his message are the same yesterday, today and forever. Yes, there may be occasions where our understanding of His messages may evolve, but just like evolution in science, these changes will have a sense of genetic consistency. Something that was considered evil or immoral thousands of years ago cannot be baptized as good today — no matter how much some hope it could be so.
Whether it is Pope Francis, suggesting that God instituted and blesses the multiplicity of religions, or Fr. Martin flipping Christian teachings on sexual morality the finger, you must, at a minimum, ask the question — what’s their motivation?