What can I say?

In 1521, Martin Luther was brought up on charges of heresy by Pope Leo X. He was ordered to appear before the Diet of Worms. (Seriously, did it have to be called that? Why a "Diet"? And why "Worms"? Both are bad. Together they're ludicrous. But, I can't do anything about it. A Dieta Imperii was held at Worms, Germany. So here I am, tittering to myself over the silly name.) They laid out the books and writings in question and told him he had to recant. Now, we like to think that Luther stood boldly and unflinchingly and defiantly spit in their faces his response. The truth is that Luther was really, really scared. He asked for an extension, prayed overnight, and then stood apologetically in front of the prosecutors and made his famous statement:

Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I cannot and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

In other news, the Pope admitted recently admitted that there is a "gay lobby" in the Vatican who are "vying for power and influence." To which I say, "What???" Not that I'm surprised that such a thing might exist. Not that I would doubt the claim. Not that I would even suggest that the Pope is listening to them. (All his words suggested that his aim is to eliminate it, not embrace it.) But I'm dumbfounded by the concept.

I've heard this suggestion before. One divorced Roman Catholic woman I know told me, "The Church" (by which she meant the Roman Catholic Church) "needs to change its stance on divorce." Like this is something the people get to vote on. As if enough complaints came in they'd alter their position.

I'm not merely talking about the Roman Catholic Church here. It is a very popular position of many in Christendom these days. It's a natural byproduct of the prevalence of democracy, I suppose. Well, democracy and relativism. The suggestion is that our culture and our times and our preferences determine what is or is not true. It was true that homosexual behavior was a sin in the Old Testament and it was true that homosexual behavior was a sin in the New Testament and it has been true that homosexual behavior, based on both Old and New Testament, have been classified as sin for all of the history of the Church, but today we know much better, the Bible is not clear, the Jews first and the Church since have always misunderstood, and we can now vote to remove this sin from the pages of history and Scripture. Just using that as an example. Because you know there are more. Because sex outside marriage, divorce, greed, idolatry, male leadership in the home and at church -- and the list goes on and on -- were all once considered biblically clear and we're now erasing them.

What does the first have to do with the last? Luther was in a bind in 1521. You see, Luther didn't see truth as a matter up for a vote. It wasn't a matter for the Church or Tradition or the Pope to decide. It was Truth. Luther understood this truth to be derived from "Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments", with the basic underlying source being Scriptures. Thus, a "gay lobby" or "I think the Church needs to change its position" is a pointless concept. There is Truth and there is everything else. Truth is that which aligns with reality. Everything else is that which does not align with reality. Thus, lobbying to change Truth is pointless. "I think the Church needs to change" is meaningless. What is necessary for God's people is an alignment with Truth. Sure, there are adjustments necessary when we stray from that Truth. That's what the Reformation was about in the 16th century. Those in the 18th and 19th centuries that argued that slavery was a good thing did so both with Scripture and without paying attention to Scripture (because Scripture is abundantly clear that kidnapping and cruelty and forcible enslavement and such are all contrary to God's laws). That had to change. Not Scripture.

Okay, fine. I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, I know. But if I were to be honest (and I try to be), I'd have to admit that this isn't always easy for me. "Homosexual behavior is a sin??!! How narrow-minded!" Yes, I know. That's how it looks. But, hey, it's what's in there so if I'm going to be a follower of Christ, I don't get to make up things; I have to go with what's in there. "How cruel of you to suggest that divorce is almost always a sin!" Yeah, that's tough, isn't it? But, look, it wasn't me who said, "What God has joined together let no man separate", so what can I do about it? "You are a male chauvinist, suggesting that women shouldn't usurp authority or teach men. Where do you get off spewing nonsense like that?" I know, really. In today's world that comes across as harsh. But, hey, I didn't say it. The Bible said it. I'm just stuck with it because that's what it says. Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I cannot and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.