Although Vice-President J.D.Vance visited the Pope shortly before he passed away, and although the Internet has many photos of Franklin Graham flashing his smile for the cameras and shaking hands with Pope Francis a year ago, the Pope has not always been such a revered figure. In fact, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, a founding document of the Presbyterian Church, states, “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.” (Chap. XXV, Sec.6) This section was repeated almost verbatim by the Particular Baptists in their Second London Confession of 1689. This reference, however, was removed by the American Presbyterian Church in 1789.
J.V. Fesko, a distinguished professor and pastor, believes that “the proper way to frame the question is not whether the Pope is the antichrist, but whether he is an antichrist. In other words, anyone who leads people away from the gospel of Christ participates in the spirt of antichrist (1 John 2:18)” However, this gentlemanly way of trying to smooth over the harsh accusation is a bit unrealistic. How different is it to say someone is “a devilish and oppressive person” from saying that someone is “the most devilish and oppressive person?”
Pope Francis gradually rose to higher and higher positions within the Roman Catholic Church in his home country of Argentina. He shifted positions but found himself as an Archbishop and Cardinal mainly on the side of what is called Liberation Theology. For this writer, no matter how much one dresses up this “theology” with religious or metaphysical terminology, it is essentially an updated, Catholic version of communist ideology. Liberation Theology feeds into the narrative that the purpose of life is to “meet needs.” But the lefties who advocate for Liberation Theology in Latin America or in Europe or Asia fail to answer the question of how best to have the surpluses and wherewithal to meet the needs of the poor. There are photos of Cardinal Francis kissing the feet of the people in Argentina which is a beautiful picture of personal humility but cannot ever be the basis for political or economic decision-making.
The communists love to quote Karl Marx with the words “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” But in the real world this is just pap that breeds a warm and fuzzy feeling inside some people who are uncomfortable thinking about supply and demand curves and esoteric matters like marginal revenue.
They do not like to think about the Biblical heroes of the Old Testament like King David and others like Josiah who, although they were sinful, were kings and were justified by a holy God in many ways. Abraham was prosperous with many flocks but his faith remains legendary.
Also, in Matthew 20: 8-15, we read “8 So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9 And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11 And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’”
For the Protestant free marketers, the above parable is a clear statement in support of natural rights, and in particular of property rights.
Then in Mark 14: 3-9, we read the following: “3 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. 4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. 7 For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. 8 She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. 9 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
For the Protestants who love the Lord with all their hearts, minds, soul, and strength, the above verses are a clear statement of the priority of giving to the cause of Christ and His church over even giving to the poor.
Of course, the parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that taking care of those suffering and in need is very important in our walk with the Lord, but unlike the left-wing supporters of Liberation Theology like Pope Francis and other leftwing religionists in today’s Protestant Churches, these views are antithetical to the Gospel. We see that with the dilution of the Gospel in the area of the treatment of poverty, we see shifts in acceptance of sin regarding homosexual marriage and cohabitation outside of marriage.
This writer briefly attended a liberal/left seminary with a distinguished reputation 50+ years ago. Even a half century ago, three of the seminarians had their girlfriends sleeping with them in their seminary dorm rooms most nights. Another friend at that time who had attended an Episcopal seminary briefly in Connecticut in hopes of fulfilling his dream of becoming an Episcopal priest observed that homosexuality was rife with students literally goosing other students as they went downstairs to the dining room.
Attachment to communist views about meeting needs or seeing a class struggle (however diluted the view may be) as paramount concerns for Christians is, whether it be a Catholic or Protestant view, a perversion of the Gospel. What does the Holy Bible call someone who claims to lead followers in the name of Jesus Christ in pursuit of these distortions and unholy goals? Yes, it is the “A” word.
Jeffrey Ludwig
Photo: commons wikimedia.org
To read more articles by Jeffrey Ludwig click here.
