Yesterday Pope Francis died. As with the death of any public figure, the politicians and media were ready with their long prepared statements, eulogies and obituaries. I was, admittedly surprised to see Evangelical outlets such as Evangelicals Now and The Gospel.Coalition had articles ready to go. To be honest, this didn’t feel like something we had personal skin in. However, if you are going to turn to anyone for comment, I would go to their choice of Leonardo De Chirico and his articles are well worth a read. He writes as someone serving as a pastor in Rome so someone with direct experience of a Catholic context and better able to speak with real knowledge and experience than those commenting from a distance.
I was more bewildered though by two things. First, the gushing responses of some Evangelicals is something you wouldn’t have expected in the past. Whatever we think about the Pope, he was not our church leader and in fact represented the institution that is both the antithesis of what we stand for and the very reason why protestant/reformed evangelicalism is needed. Indeed, the late Pope was very clear in his own animosity to the protestant reformers.
Secondly, the reality was that the analysis offered in the TGC and EN articles was gentle. However, the reaction I’ve seen from some both to the articles and those sharing them was striking. You would think that the author was inviting us to dance, sing and celebrate as some shockingly did in response to Margaret Thatcher’s death.
Now, there is the challenge about when and how to respond to a death. Those responses to Thatcher’s passing were vile and yet it surely permissible to respond to what a person represented, especially when others are attempting hagiography in order to advance their own ideological agenda. So it was legitimate for people to offer their own negative assessment of Thatcher just as it was legitimate for Republicans to challenge place of the monarchy following the death of Queen Elizabeth.
So, in this case, I think it is legitimate for us to respond to Francis’ legacy. Nor do I think we need to hunt to find nice things to say about him. Personally, he may have been a nice guy, I didnt know him and can’t comment on his character. I also don’t know what might have gone on between him and the Lord in his last moments, death bed conversions are possible. At the same time, I think we need to be clear that what he taught was not the Gospel. This seems to have become the unspeakable thing but it was exactly why the Reformation was necessary and why it is hard for Evangelical churches in Catholic contexts today. I am also not sure why we should be more concerned about pronouncing the eternal destiny of an elderly stroke victim in Rome than those who have suffered at the hands of Boko Harem.
But it is important to be clear that the Roman Catholic Gospel is not the Gospel because it imposes mediators including priests, Saints and Mary between us and Jesus and because it denies the exclusive role of grace in salvation.
The reality is that despite the PR imagery, Catholicism often remains harsh and so has pushed many away from God. My own father in law as a cradle Catholic believed that God existed but considered the god he has been taught about to be a monster.
Further, it is worth noting that whether or not the Pope was personally humble, the message he represented was not. Some were quick to suggest that critiques of the Pope’s legacy lacked graciousness and humility. Couldn’t we at least say one positive thing about this dearly departed brother?
It was deeply concerning then to see motives attacked with one conservative Evangelical leader being accused of saying things with an eye on their backers. Surely we should prioritise charitably and gracious attitude to the living over a tyranny of the dead which insists we must only speak well if those recently departed whilst saying whatever we like about actual brothers and sisters still with us.
The articles I’ve mentioned pick up on a concept within modern Catholicism which seems to encourage ecumenism and so looks loving and accepting. The reality is that it does two things. First that by silencing theological debate, it silences both the voices that date to challenge the problems with Catholicism and it silences voices that point to the unique and sufficient atonement of Christ.
Moreover, it denies the reality of non Catholic belief. We are all to be co-opted as anonymous and ignorant Catholics. That is anything but humble.
The death of anyone is a cause of sadness for their friends and family. We should respect that in this case and others. However, this shouldn’t lead to sentimentality on matters central to the salvation of others. Again we should not allow a tyranny of the dead to numb our concern for the eternal wellbeing of the living.
Faithroots 