Skip to main content

This is Why Having a "Pope" is a Bad Idea

Scandal seems to be the general theme of Pope Francis's tenure, and this year is no different.  If you've paid attention to the news at all recently, you've probably heard something about the Pope.  You see, it appears that he was privy to information (regarding the sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholics priests) that the civil authorities in Pennsylvania would've probably appreciated being given.  That's not a good look for the Roman Catholic Church, to say the least, nor is it a good look for the Pope personally, which is why many different voices are, both religious and secular, are calling for the Pope to resign.

This, my friends, is why having a Pope is a bad idea.

This is what happens when you don't listen to Jesus.

Allow me to explain.

You see, when I first heard that the Pope was being called upon to resign, I was stunned!  "Can you do that?" I thought.  Can you call the Vicar of Christ to resign?

Now, I'm no fan of the Pope.  I certainly don't believe he is infallible or irreproachable or even a good guy to emulate.  Heck, I come from a Christian tradition whose statements of faith literally label the Pope as "that Antichrist," so I have no special love or respect for the Pope, and if that was my reaction, imagine how other people reacted.  Think of the millions of pious Roman Catholics throughout the world--what must they be thinking?  I respect those who have called for him to resign, but I imagine you're going to find a large majority who zealously defend him, regardless of what he knew/didn't know or did/didn't do (think Trump supporters on steroids!).

Why?  Why are people going to defend him so ardently? 

Idolatry.  That's why.

This is what happens when you take a man and make him God.

I know, I know...the technical doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is much more nuanced that that, but your average Catholic is hardly that nuanced, and that's what is really important in a matter of public perception such as this.  To the good Catholic, Pope Francis is always right.  Pope Francis speaks for God.  Pope Francis stands in the place of God!  Granted, Pope Francis has done quite a bit to disenchant many Catholics with his erratic and "progressive" behavior, but, generally speaking, this is still the view of the Roman Catholic Church and her adherents.

So what do you do when the vicar of Christ commits a crime?  If he were anyone else, he would probably end up facing criminal charges for his lack of action, but how do you press charges against the Pope?  Do you wanna be the guy reading him his Miranda Rights as you slide the cuffs over his slender wrists?  How do you make the voice of God place his hand on a Bible and swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

Hence the Reformation.

The investiture of the Pope with this kind of authority was one of the major factors underlying the Reformers' rejection of the Roman Catholic church.  No man should be above the law.  No man should be above accountability.  Again, I realize that the Pope's infallibility only pertains to his office as spokesman of the Church, but I highly doubt your average Catholic would understand that, and this is the type of situation where public perception could keep justice from being pursued.

We Evangelicals are feeling pretty good about ourselves right now, but we have our own problems.  We may not have a Pope, but we have a history of creating a bunch of little popes.  We left the Roman Catholic Church, but we still have a tendency of putting men into a position of untouchability.  How many times have pastors of local congregations or parachurch ministries assumed a role, officially or unofficially, not unlike Pope Francis?  How many times have Christians allowed, or even forced, their pastors to be above counsel, accountability, and even the law?

Everybody wants a Pope, it seems.

We must fight this urge.  Our spiritual leaders must always be accountable to other men (the multiplicity of coequal elders is a really, really good idea) and the Word of God.  We must never allow any man to reach a position where he is not protected from himself.

The Church, and any individual church, has only one infallible head, and his name is Jesus.  We ignore the words of our Head to our own peril.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary