Francis and the New Emphasis
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
The Bible does not mention any such individual as a pope, and therefore there are no Scriptural qualifications for an office that does not exist. We read of elders and deacons, and they have qualifications. We read of preachers (also called evangelists). But the Bible makes no mention of cardinals, archbishops, or popes. To be sure, some allege that Peter was the first pope, but he could never meet the current qualifications of the Roman Catholic Church since he was married (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). Furthermore, he refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25-26).
However, the idea of the papacy did develop over a period of about 500 years, being built upon the desire for pre-eminence (3 John 9-10; Acts 20:30-31). In A.D. 606 Boniface III proclaimed himself universal bishop over the entire church, which by this time bore little resemblance to the church that Christ established, which is described in the pages of the New Testament. Actually, Jesus said that He had been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Acts 20:28); it is therefore presumptuous for any human being to claim that he is the head of the church on earth (cf. 2 Thess. 2).
Francis assumed this non-existent position earlier this year and has been raising eyebrows ever since. Early on, he took issue with the idea that those who do not have the truth cannot do good. Most people have known for a long time that anyone can do good. In using the word people, of necessity Calvinists are excluded. They believe that only God’s elect can do good. Anyone else is a depraved sinner who has no ability or innate capacity for goodness or righteousness, according to them.
The pope knows that many Catholics would deny that non-Catholics could do good; so he insists that they can. This affirmation is, for the most part, a departure from traditional Catholic teaching, which is interesting, but what he further affirmed is mind-boggling.
Instead, the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil.
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!
While it is true that God created man in His own image, what proof does Francis have that God gave us a commandment in the depths of our hearts to do good? Certainly, He gave such a commandment to Christians (Gal. 6:10), but men do not have an inborn commandment to do good; this is a concept that is taught and that men learn. Similarly, Jesus did die for all mankind—no matter what religion they were born into—or if they have no religious upbringing at all. His sacrifice is not universally applied, however—it is only universally available. The question is, “Which of these did Francis mean?” Or does he intend to say that Jesus died for all, and that salvation is accessible through good works? An additional quotation seems to tell us:
And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.
What does this mean for the atheist? Suppose someone says, “But I’m not Catholic; I’m an atheist.” Can he be saved? Francis suggests that he will be: “But do good: we will meet one another there.” So the basis for salvation is good works? The New Testament leaves no doubt about the importance of good works, but it is equally clear that one’s sins are not forgiven by good works but by the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5).
For salvation to occur, a person must repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins (Acts 2:38). He is created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2:10), must walk in good works (Eph. 2:10), is to be zealous for good works (Titus 2:14), and must be careful to maintain good works (Titus 3:8, 14). But “…without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The idea that an atheist could be saved by doing good works is totally foreign to the Scriptures.
So are we misquoting the fledgling pope or putting words into his mouth? No. Others have understood him to mean the same thing; one mother named Rebekah (from the Washington, D. C. area) responded to His message in the following way:
Yes. Oh yes. Those words bring tears to my eyes. They sound like Gandhi to me, like Martin Luther King, Jr., like Sojourner Truth. They sound like words meant to unite us all. Those words could start tearing down walls among faiths, or between the faithful and the faithless. Those words call us all to do good that we might meet our fellow man there.
Life is not a team sport and we don’t need to declare our allegiances. It doesn’t need to be about what church we attend, what political party we favor, what passport we carry. It can be about doing good and reaching out to others who do good. It can be about meeting one another in the places we do good and joining forces to do even more good. Pope Francis sees this and is able to articulate it so simply, so well. I hope other religious and secular leaders hear the truth in his words and follow suit.
I will continue trying to do good in my life, in my fumbling, all-too-human way. Will you meet me there?
We must decline Rebekah’s invitation because she does not have the authority to offer it. Jesus invited people to meet Him there, but those who reject Him as the Son of God do not get into Heaven (John 12:48; 14:6). Rebekah is one of a growing number of people who thinks that all people should be saved regardless of what they have done wrong (universalism). All faiths are never going to be one—unless they are one in standing against Christianity as defined in the Bible.
Uniting the faithful with the faithless just shows that Rebekah has listened to John Lennon’s “Imagine” too many times. The only time such “unity” takes place is at the point we are all fighting for survival, as in World War II, or as victims of a hurricane or tornado. The fact that God destroyed the Tower of Babel demonstrates that unity is not God’s highest priority. It is one of the highest, since Jesus fervently prayed for it (John 17: 20-21) and Paul commanded it (1 Cor. 1:10-13), but it is not a higher priority than truth, without which no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). Francis is not speaking truth, but contradicting it.
“Small-Minded Rules”
A more recent interview with Francis was published in the Orlando Sentinel on September 20, 2013. He actually made this statement: “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules” (A1). “Whatever could he mean?” the reader might wonder. He explains:
The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. We have to find a new balance; otherwise, even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.
We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods (A3).
Of course, the Catholic Church’s stance against contraception is one that they have taken mostly alone. But when they have opposed abortion and homosexual marriage, they have upheld what the Bible teaches (although maybe not for that reason). Are these two issues what the pope has in mind when he speaks of “small-minded rules?” No command of God ought to be referred to in such an irreverent manner, since they come from the largest mind in the universe. The taking of a human life (abortion), and the perversion of marriage, which was instituted by God (Gen. 2:18-25), cannot logically or morally be referred to by such a fantastic description.
Over the past four decades, Christians (and Catholics) have incessantly opposed abortion. It has been a long and difficult fight, but at long last, the pro-life position is held by a slight majority of the population Many have written books and articles; spoken on numerous occasions, and sacrificed a great deal of their time and energy in an effort to open people’s eyes on this subject. But is that all we have done? Of course not. Speaking out on one moral issue continuously would cause us to forsake a much-needed emphasis on the gospel. But failure to keep the issue before people would be to neglect a Divine duty.
In the past ten years, many have probably discussed homosexuality and homosexual marriage more than any other subject. Why? The answer is that it is constantly in the news. Are we to be silent while state after state considers the issue and citizens vote on it? “Oh, but I’m tired of hearing about it.” Who isn’t? Will our weariness make the issue go away? No. We are constantly bombarded with homosexual characters on television and in the entertainment industry. Victory after victory on behalf of the perversion has been gained. It is likely that individuals and churches will be persecuted for opposing homosexuality. Some are already calling opposition “hate” speech. Now is not the time to be silent about this moral blight upon humanity. Is it all we talk about? No, but it must be an ongoing priority.
Love and Mercy
The new pope, according to his defenders, is simply trying to get the Catholic Church to have a new emphasis. He wants to move away from the culture wars and concentrate on love and compassion—to accent mercy. He wants to emphasize, “Love your neighbor.” To be sure, these are among the loftiest of Biblical teachings. Loving one’s neighbor is termed the second greatest commandment by Jesus (Matt. 22:37-40). He also said, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6; Matt. 9:13; 12:7), which needs to be understood in its context.
One wonders, however, how many people in modern society do not know these teachings. Because of their emphasis over the centuries, is it not rather the case that people are relying on God’s love and mercy to cover their selfishness and sinfulness? It seems that these wonderful themes, along with grace, have been oversold—to the point where most think God will save them no matter what they do or how they behave. Who has been to a funeral in the past 20 years where it was not asserted that the deceased was in heaven? These marvelous attributes of God need to be kept before people, but can we afford to quit accenting the things that people do not understand correctly?
According to the newspaper article, “a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, tweeted a photo with the words, “Dear Pope Francis, thank you. – LGBT people everywhere” (A3). That should tell him how people are understanding his words. Those who stand for truth would never receive commendations from groups such as that one.
Are people reading too much into the change in emphasis? Are conservative Catholics upset for no reason? Have the homosexuals who are patting him on the back simply been misinformed? Probably, they do understand him correctly, as evidence by the words he spoke which are republished below:
“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘When God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” (A3).
What kind of a question is that? To say that God loves all people (John 3:16) is not the same as endorsing the existence of every person with love. God did not endorse the existence of Nadab and Abihu with love. Fire came down from heaven and destroyed them (Lev. 10:1-2). Neither did He endorse Ananias and Sapphira with love when they lied to the Holy Spirit; both of them fell dead at Peter’s feet (Acts 5). The fact that God loves people and gives them an opportunity to accept the salvation Jesus made available at Calvary does not mean that He does not and will not condemn them. God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), but every person can choose destruction.
Fortunately, we do not need to wonder how God views homosexuality. As He considered Sodom and Gomorrah, He said that their sin was “very grievous.” Why did He not say, “Perhaps I should emphasize loving one’s neighbor and mercy more”? The fact is that God had been merciful and given them an opportunity to repent, but they had only grown worse. (Think there might be a lesson in that for us today?) God destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone (Gen. 19), and that destruction still serves as a warning today (Jude 7).
“Who Am I to Judge?”
Is anyone still not convinced that the new pope is soft on sin? According to this article, two months ago, he said: “If a person is gay, seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” Come on. Seriously? Can’t anyone think of an original line anymore? First of all, substitute any sin in the Bible for the misnomer gay and see how that works out. “If a person is an adulterer, a fornicator, a polygamist, or a harmless drunk, seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” This is soooo bogus.
Paul wrote that the homosexual does that which is “against nature” and “vile” (Rom. 1:26). Do we need to be metaphorically slapped upside the head in order to see this point? No one needs to offer a personal judgment concerning this matter; God has already passed judgment on the sin. Jesus will also render a verdict on the Day of Judgment, and those who have defiantly continued in transgressing God’s law in the sin of homosexuality, instead of repenting of it, shall be cast into the Lake of Fire. No human being needs to make a judgment concerning the sin; God already has.
It sounds as though Francis is going to let society dictate his policy on this matter instead of the Word of God (which probably should not surprise anyone). Various leaders of false religion, such as Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong (rhymes with wrong, which he perpetually is), have held up the banner for the homosexual cause. Such men have no respect for the Word of God, or they would uphold it rather than challenge it.
It is most ironic that Francis would balk at judging those who commit a sin that the Bible clearly defines as such while heading an organization that tells people how to do penance over sin. Members of the Lord’s church neither accept nor practice penance and possibly know very little about the way it works. But when a Catholic goes to confession and is told to say so many, “Hail Marys” or so many “Our Fathers,” was not a judgment made on the part of the Catholic priest?
What’s the penance for getting drunk, for having an abortion, for committing adultery? So now, if a homosexual goes to confession, all of a sudden it’s, “Who am I to judge?” Is there no punishment suggested in the penance handbook for that sin? It sounds as though Francis is being disingenuous. Will he downgrade homosexual acts from mortal to venial sins? Whatever he or his successors do will have no effect on Christians. Religions may change, but the Bible stays the same.