I recently ran across an article in the London Telegraph reporting on a survey debunking the popular myth of “Catholic guilt.” Combined with several other articles and interviews I’ve heard of late – many filled with opinions about what the Roman church should look for in its next Pope – this got me thinking about how far the concept of “ultimate authority” has fallen in the past decades.

The Telegraph article included several comments from Lancaster University “sociology of religion” professor Linda Woodhead; she commissioned the study upon which the article is based. I’m less interested in the results of her study than the conclusions she draws from the data for the church. Here’s the money quote:

“Most Catholics are taking authority much more from their own reason and intuition than they are from the Catholic Church’s teaching. It doesn’t mean that they are not going to church or are sincere believers but they are not in the mould that the Church hierarchy would like them to be.”

What the data showed was that the people in her sample group didn’t particularly care what their religion taught about sexual ethics. The individuals were, with very few exceptions, able to violate those teachings without experiencing guilt. Professor Woodhead surmises that this is because they see their own reason as a higher authority for their lives than church doctrine. Nonetheless, she refers to these individuals as “sincere believers.” So, for the church she concludes:

“it is particularly concerning for the Church because it has really staked it distinctiveness on sexual morality.”

Likewise, listen to many in the media talk about the selection of the next Pope, and you’ll find a relatively common view: that the church would do well to select a more “progressive” leader than Joseph Ratzinger proved to be. One interview I heard said that the church could be in serious danger if it does otherwise, because “public sentiment has changed over the years and the church risks alienating a large portion of its core adherents.” As with “sincere believers,” that word, “adherents” really caught my attention.

What is assumed in each case is that the church should be a flexible institution that evolves with the times. In politics, many apply this view to the U.S. Constitution, preferring to think of it as a “living document,” that must be interpreted in the spirit of the age, rather than a written standard with absolute or objective meaning. In each case the individual, or group of individuals, should be the authority, and what was previously seen as the standard ought to adjust accordingly.

Conservative monetary views no longer appeal to a modern audience, so those views ought to be changed or abandoned. The church’s sexual teachings seem downright primitive in 2013, so the church needs to change them or risk becoming irrelevant. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality are offensive to modern ears, so anyone who fails to denounce them should be removed from the public square. As the mood of the culture changes these principles and institutions must be flexible enough to change as well. If they do not conform to the spirit of the age they must be left behind in the dustpan of history.

Scripture takes a very different perspective. That humans are prone to wander from the truth is well understood by God, this is why Scripture so often implores us to “hold fast” to it.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
(1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ESV)

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
(Hebrews 4:14 ESV)

Scripture is the firmly-planted pole that never moves or waivers. Public opinion might change, but Scripture, and therefore truth, never does. Whether or not a view is popular has little connection to whether or not it is true.

When the Roman church loses members because it fails to adopt more progressive views, I expect the media to be more troubled than the church. The church hasn’t really lost “sincere believers” at all. It is not possible to be a sincere believer of the Roman church and to see yourself (your “reason and intuition”) as the ultimate moral authority.

If evangelical churches lose members because they refuse to endorse homosexuality in the public square, let the media make hay but the Church need not be alarmed. Adherents are those who support a particular set of principles. If you’re a member of the Christian Church, those principles come from Scripture and not from your own mind. When there’s a conflict between your mind and Scripture, an adherent recognizes that its their mind that’s the problem. We submit ourselves to Scripture because it is the authority over us.

Further, as unimaginable as it may be to the modern mind, this is actually for our good! It is of great benefit to us that in a world where attitudes and opinions are always changing, Scripture is immovable. In a world where change is itself considered a virtue, we should be comforted by the unchangeableness of God’s word.

To ask reality to conform around our wants and desires is a fool’s errand. Many will try, but ultimately no assurance or certainty can be found in the exaltation of self. Thanks be to God that Christianity, instead of leaving us flapping in the cultural wind, offers a sure and steadfast anchor for our souls.

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

(Hebrew 6:17-20 ESV)