It began when the current Pope, Francis, succeeded Benedict XVI and proceeded to issue an encyclical dealing with economics.  Many at the time defended him and argued that he could be interpreted in such a way as not to be overly critical of markets and capitalism.  But Francis seems to have continued down an interesting road.  He is from Argentina, known to produce churchmen at least sympathetic to Liberation Theology (Christianity combined with Marxism).  He himself already had a record of attraction to that Left side of the political-economic spectrum.

Once elected he has, besides his initial economic encyclical, engaged in other policy debates, including one recent foray in the climate change issue in which he took the side of man-made climate change and also sided with those critical of “climate change deniers, “ as they were labeled by their critics.  In addition, Francis has just recently called for Palestinian statehood.  He has also criticized globalization and has criticized “inequality.”  Finally, Francis just last week called Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas an “angel of peace,” a label sure to ruffle feathers among conservatives—both Christian and non-Christian—not to mention Israel.

I believe we as Evangelical Protestant Christians ought to have a response to Pope Francis.  But understand that I write from the standpoint of one on the Right, both politically and theologically.  Moreover, I am not saying the Pope should not speak “prophetically” to these important issues.  But my question is:  Is his prophetic voice appropriate?  Is it correct?  Naturally I will get disagreement with many on the Evangelical Left and many Catholics (if they read this blog).  But I nevertheless will dive in, perhaps where I should not go.

First, regarding the pope’s economic views, Francis has been less than favorable to free markets.  He said in 2014:

“It is also painful to see the struggle against hunger and malnutrition hindered by ‘market priorities’, the ‘primacy of profit’, which reduce foodstuffs to a commodity like any other, subject to speculation and financial speculation in particular.”

As Forbes’ Tim Worstall wrote in then, the pope doesn’t understand economics.  He seemed to have forgotten that in those places where people are not starving and malnourished, markets flourish and where markets do not flourish, there we find starvation and malnourishment.  Francis also criticized inequality as a problem in itself, an error many on the Left commit.  Inequality is a problem if those at the “bottom” are in genuine distress, but if they are actually better off, then even though they have less than those at the “top,” there is no real problem.  Moreover, the people at the bottom are a constantly shifting population, so it is difficult to say this is a permanent problem.  Now to be sure, he is right to say money can become an idol and that we as Christians owe a certain duty to the truly poor.  But the question is always “how”?  That is where the pope (and often the Catholic Church) has failed.  Francis has even begun to flirt with Liberation Theology, which has been condemned by previous papal edicts and commissions.  It began in South America where it flourished in the intellectual milieu of political unrest, poverty and Roman Catholic theology.  This ideology combines Marxist revolutionary thought with Roman Catholic theology, especially a particular interpretation of the Bible that God favors the poor.

But Francis also seems to be rash in his praise of people whom others might legitimately believe are (to be charitable) problematic.  Mahmoud Abbas is not paragon of virtue and has done little to try to bring genuine peace to Palestine.  To boot, he also appears to be a kleptocrat and will leave office (if he does—he has consistently canceled elections) a very wealthy man.  What exactly is Pope Francis trying to do?  Is this the way to real peace?  Or is it just a typical Left-leaning position?

Besides the Palestine issue, Francis has embroiled himself in the climate change issue when he endorsed a petition that called world leaders to address global climate change.  There was even a papal encyclical in the works addressing climate change, though it has been halted.  Now I do think the issue ought to be openly and honestly addressed, but despite the lack of “settled science” the pope and his advisors simply assume climate change is man-made and that drastic steps should be taken now to alleviate it.  The pope’s closest advisor, Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, even severely criticized “climate change skeptics” for what he asserted were their too close ties to capitalism.  In January of 2015 the pope himself said:

“I don’t know if it is all [man’s fault] but the majority is, for the most part, it is man who continuously slaps down nature.  We have in a sense taken over nature.”

Where once more I must ask is the “overwhelming evidence” we hear so much about?  Where even is the underwhelming evidence?  It looks more and more like nothing more than models and possible falsified “evidence.”  That is pretty flimsy.  The pope’s heart might be in the right place, as some have said, but his mind has been seized by more radical environmental thinking.

So this is what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church, a long way, theologically, from us , right?  Not so fast.  Many Left-leaning Evangelical Christians have in recent  years been drawn to Catholic social thought, mixing it synergistically with Anabaptist/Mennonite ideas to create an interesting and potentially dangerous intellectual brew that is at the same time populist enough to attract many well-meaning Protestant adherents.

The pope’s ideas and those of the Evangelical Left need to be subjected to a fair but thorough examination before rushing to adopt and adapt them to the church.  If we are to think God’s thoughts after him in the arena of politics and economics, we had better be thinking biblically first.  Only on that foundation can we build a genuinely Christian worldview.