The Leftist Legacy of Pope Francis

The entire squabble in Rome is nothing more than progressivism and her attempts to use the church to shape her political schemes. Whether feminism, egalitarianism, or liberationist policies, the Roman church under Pope Francis has been an expose of leftism gone wild.

Growing up in Northeastern Brazil there was a certain gravitas to the Roman Mass. People in my neighborhood would dress up to attend church and a large portion of the mass was in Latin and there was a general consensus that the dogma of the church was something beyond the incense of culture. Though many of my friends were uninterested in studying the Second Vatican Council or attending catechism class, they were serious about the role of the church in the community. Much has changed. Pope John Paul II’s erudition and his theological insights into the theology of the body and then Pope Benedict’s studious and serene nature provided some attempt to return to the old glory of pre-Vatican Council. Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” was a boost to the eucharistic theology of Rome leading many former attendees back to church. But Francis’ emergence revealed several things about the power of politics to shape the Roman church.

First, it revealed that the modern papacy is not eager to preserve the orthodoxy of her history. From the doctrine of universal salvation, hell, purgatory, and a host of other liturgical changes, including the inclusion of women as readers and altar servers assisting the priest in administering the eucharist to a plethora of politically leftist positions clearly shifting the focus away from a classic western view on economic policy to a liberationist pursuit of welfarism and a critique of wealth and capitalism, support of climate agendas that change the landscape of power to a more centralized force, the papacy has slowly been drifting towards the pastures of Argentinian ideology, the same that recently cheered at the nation’s approval of abortion. While Francis still holds dear to the dogma of life, the surrounding features that preserve that structure are slowly corroding.

Secondly, Francis has embraced the theology of inclusivism popularized in our modern world. This ideology shares sympathies with leftist policies that cheer the opinations of what I call, “victimism.” This entails that victims of any cause–genuine or perceived–dictate the realities of church life. The Roman church covered decades of violent crimes against its own, and its result has not been the revivification of a better theology of life to protect such victims but to allow victims to dictate theology without restructuring a better theology of life. The end result is a liturgical structure that makes room for the class of society that is most struggling under the “oppression” of capitalism like refugees, women, and any other “equality-seeking” classes of society. Victimism means that whoever suffers most dictates the rules of society as a way of redeeming their victimization. If women have endured struggles in society, they ought to receive liturgical roles to redeem their cause, etc.

Finally, this entire experience in Francis-ism is the result of a shift in society that is affecting not only Rome but Methodism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism, and other mainline “isms” that are easily swayed by a political liturgy rather than the ecclesiastical liturgy. When the political liturgy of culture takes a hold of a church’s life, then the church’s liturgy needs to mimic it in word and sacrament and make room for whoever the culture’s victims are, whether transgenderism or lesbianism.

Though I hold the courage to be Protestant close to my heart and could spend large portions of writing carefully dissecting my distinctions, I confess I have a soft spot for my old and current catholic friends who are watching this unfolding debacle and lamenting the direction of Rome towards another manifestation of liturgical leftism. Rome has a lot to repent of to ol’ Luther, but among those acts of repentance today is the courage to undo the Francis legacy by assuming a posture of boldness in the local parish against these directives and hold tight to the ancient dogma over the dome of the Vatican.

26 Weaknesses of the Evangelical Church

The evangelical view of the church–my piece of the ecclesiastical pie–is weak on a number of levels. After 40 years on this planet, and growing up in an evangelical home, and as someone who is deeply invested in the success of Gospel churches, I have seen much. These weaknesses, in my estimation, lead to lesser and lesser influence in the modern world and a dysfunctional ecclesiology. Here are at least 26 weaknesses to be followed in another post by its strengths:

a) it views church worship as a funeral procession for Jesus rather than a triumphant resurrection procession,

b) it disincentivizes male participation,

c) it makes the Bible secondary and human creativity primary,

d) it views Jesus’ authority over the world in similar categories to Satans’ (a misunderstanding of II Cor. 4:4), which means it minimizes the power of the resurrection in changing the world in the first century (I Cor. 15:26),

e) it treats the themes of worship as preferential rather than objective (see letter c),

f) it belittles the sacraments,

g) it is not future-oriented, so it’s bound to do theology only for the present,

h) it is content to keep Christians at a basic level of growth, which means it diminishes rigorous theological dialogue for lack of knowledge

i) it forgets its origins, thus minimizing the lessons of history,

j) it doesn’t rejoice enough; in essence, there is a low view of feasting,

k) it fails to view the church using the war-like categories of Scriptures,

l) it begins in Matthew when it should begin in Genesis,

m) it forgets the little ones in the life of the church, who often are only brought back at a much later time,

n) it doesn’t view catholicity in a positive light,

o) it doesn’t read broadly enough (see letter n),

p) it fails to encourage women to pursue good theology,

q) it doesn’t practice church discipline,

r) it doesn’t sing enough; we need a broader repertoire. The church is too rich musically for us to stick with a few,

s) it doesn’t encourage hospitality,

t) it fails to pray for the kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven,

u) it would rather sacrifice at the altar of sports than the altar of God on Sundays,

v) it views food and fellowship primarily as consumption rather than communion,

w) it reads too little Bible, and that parts that are read are incomplete and de-contextualized,

x) it is inconsistent in applying the Gospel to society, education, and culture,

y), it’s too casual or non-interested in Creeds,

z) it is incoherently trinitarian instead of intentionally so.

The Benefits of Lectionary Preaching

When I arrived at my local congregation in Pensacola we were using the Revised Common Lectionary. The RCL is a fine Lectionary and provides a wonderful tour of the Scriptures in a three year cycle. But as time went on I realized that the RCL was fond of omitting controversial texts in its cycles. Through the influence of man like Jeffrey Meyers and Jim Jordan I came to realize that there was an alternative Lectionary, namely, the Lutheran Missouri Synod Lectionary (LCMS) who not only dealt with the difficult passages, but also honored Reformation Sunday. We quickly switched to LCMS a few years ago and haven’t looked back.

N.T. Wright also noticed this trend in his own tradition when he wrote the following:

“Whenever you see, in an official lectionary, the command to omit two or three verses, you can normally be sure that they contain words of judgment. Unless, of course, they are about sex.”

Anyone who has been sitting under Lectionary preaching is often more aware of the flow of the Biblical text since the sermons/homilies cover more territory in a year (on a typical year I will give my parishioners an overview of at least 10-15 books of the Bible. This has been my experience. On the other hand, Sunday School lessons can cover a more long term expository-based look into the Scriptures. Our former Sunday School teacher, James Jordan, spent over 30 Sundays on the “Exodus” themes in the Bible. Naturally, preachers are not bound to the Lectionary Lessons (especially during the Pentecost/Trinity Season). Certain times of the year may demand a more personalized sermons to address particular needs or concerns in the congregation.

As for the Lectionary, when it is not hindered by theological fears, it can serve as a remarkable immersion and re-immersion into the Scriptures every three years. It is incumbent upon pastors as they invest on these texts to provide a clear and fresh perspective on these narratives. Repetition is good. And the constant working through the broadness of the Gospel story can be a fruitful liturgical work.

Pastors too benefit greatly from it. As I navigate through the high church year (Advent-Easter) it is always encouraging to detail and consider these marvelous gospel texts that shape our faith and even our own lives.

Christ is risen!

Peter Leithart, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and One Table

Peter Leithart uses his titanic biblical knowledge to respond to respond to critics of his earlier article I am too catholic to be Catholic. Leithart concludes:

Are we in a “Josiah moment” when the divided church can finally share a single feast?  I believe there are signs that it is such a moment.  If it is, then the agenda for every branch of the church is the double agenda of Josiah: Remove the idols, whatever they are, tear down the high places, and join with all brothers and sisters at the one table of the one Lord.