In recent years, the debate on revelation and liberal Christianity has become central for those seeking to uphold the authority of God\u2019s Word in a world that absolutizes culture. I recently preached on Luke 20:27\u201338, a passage that raises profound implications for our understanding of the present world and the world to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jesus teaches that \u201cthose who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection\u2026 neither marry nor are given in marriage\u201d (v. 35). These words contain an eschatological revelation: marriage belongs to the order of this age, not to that of the consummated Kingdom. Marital union is a sign of divine love that will one day be replaced by full communion with God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If marriage has an earthly value, then it cannot be considered a universal vocation. Jesus speaks of those who \u201cThey became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.<\/em>\u201d (Mt 19:12). The apostle Paul, following this line of thought, affirms that both marriage and celibacy are gifts from God distributed according to grace (1 Cor 7:7). However, many churches\u2014especially in Hispanic contexts\u2014have reduced the Christian ideal to the marital model, interpreting Genesis 2:18 (\u201cIt is not good for man to be alone.<\/em>\u201d) as a universal mandate. In practice, we have canonized a social structure and forgotten that Christ and Paul, precisely because of their total commitment to the Kingdom, embodied another form of fullness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This pastoral observation inevitably leads us to the question of homosexuality. The usual response in Christian orthodoxy has been to recommend chastity or voluntary celibacy to believers who experience same-sex attraction. However, the\u00a0liberal Christianity<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0rejects both possibilities, interpreting them as cruel denials of personal identity. His conclusion is that both homosexual inclination and practice can be integrated into the faith, provided they are framed within a loving, free, and responsible relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My intention is not to caricature that approach, but to explain its theological roots. During my years of\u00a0doctoral studies<\/a><\/strong>, I had the opportunity to study the work of the Jesuit\u00a0Roger Haight<\/a><\/strong>, particularly his book\u00a0Jesus Symbol of God<\/em>\u00a0(1999)<\/a>. Haight attempts to reinterpret the Christian faith in dialogue with modernity, arguing that all revealed truth must be understood within its historical context. In his view, dogmas and moral norms are not permanent expressions of the divine will, but rather cultural symbols of the human experience of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach, though intellectually sophisticated, raises a serious theological problem. If revealed truth depends on the cultural context in which it was expressed, in what sense can it be revelation and not merely human projection? The consequence is clear: history ceases to be the stage where God reveals himself and becomes the criterion by which God is judged. The authority of revelation is subordinated to historical consciousness. What appears to be an opening to the modern world ends up being an epistemological capitulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From this framework emerges the contemporary version of the liberal argument on sexual ethics. It is claimed that biblical authors condemned homosexual practices linked to idolatry or the abuse of power, not the egalitarian affective relationships we know today. Therefore, it is argued, the Gospel does not prohibit love between people of the same sex; it simply did not recognize its modern form. Under this scheme, what was once a sin ceases to be so, because morality evolves with culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The underlying problem is hermeneutical. It's not just about how Scripture is read, but about who has the authority to interpret it. Revelation and liberal Christianity are opposed on this essential point: for the Christian faith, the Word interprets history; for the liberal view, history interprets the Word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.<\/em>\u201c (Mt 24:35). Revelation is not an echo of the human spirit: it is the Holy Spirit interpreting human history.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In Genesis 1\u20132, sexual difference is not a social construct, but part of the theological language of creation. Male and female, in their complementarity, manifest God\u2019s creative communion. When Paul argues in Romans 1, he is not referring to local customs, but to a deeper theological disorder: the exchange of the natural order established by the Creator for an order invented by the creature. \u201cThey abandoned the natural use of the body\u2026 and burned with lust for one another\u201d (Rom 1:26\u201327). Here, \u201cnatural\u201d does not mean \u201cfrequent,\u201d but rather in accordance with God\u2019s purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n