Pope Francis: An Analysis of His Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium

The Pope’s exhortation on the joy of the gospel, which is what Evangelii Gaudium  means, displays a woeful lack of understanding of the true Christian gospel. His gospel is a social gospel, wherein people are saved by helping the poor and getting along with each other. This carries over into his economic theory, which is clearly Marxist, and his view of the role of government, which is decidedly totalitarian and socialist. In talking about the joy of the gospel he never transcends earthly matters to see that Christians have peace with God and are being prepared for a glorious eternal kingdom in his presence. His universalism is also apparent throughout the document. He never gives any indication that there are people for whom Christ did not die, and whom God does not love. At the end he also muddies the waters further with unbiblical Mariology, which even extends in a very significant way to his closing prayer.

It is astonishing that in an over 200-page document dealing with the Joy of the Gospel the Pope never explains what the gospel is. The closest he ever comes to a true definition of the gospel is in his second sentence: “Those who accept [Jesus’] offer of salvation are set free from sin, sorrow, inner emptiness and loneliness.” Although he mentions “salvation” and being “set free from sin” in this sentence, he never says that we are sinners under the just wrath of God, on our way to hell, and that we must repent of our sins and trust in Christ’s atoning sacrifice to cover our sins.[1]

He never mentions the holiness of God or his just wrath against sinners. He never mentions man’s deepest need is to be reconciled to an angry God. In fact, he never uses the words repent, hell or wrath at all (he uses repentance once, in a quote of Luke 15:7) and never talks about redemption in a meaningful way. He never seriously discusses the deepest problem of mankind and the ultimate root of all conflict, poverty and warfare, which is sin. In fact, he only uses the word sin (or sins) a total of 11 times (if you don’t count a couple of Scripture quotations and a footnote quoting Ambrose) and never once in a way that presents the idea that the wages of sin is death and that sinful human beings need to repent and trust in Christ to redeem them from bondage to sin. Instead he presents a social gospel; he essentially equates the gospel with taking care of the poor and doing one’s best to get along with others.

His confusion is apparent in the following examples, which contain some truth, but consistently miss the main point:

In Paragraph 7 he displays an amazing lack of understanding of what is truly important when he writes that Benedict XVI “takes us to the very heart of the Gospel” in writing, “Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” While the statement contains truth, it is far from the “heart of the Gospel” since it says nothing about the problem being solved, which is sin, or the need for repentance, or the unfathomable love of God made manifest by his solution to the problem, which required the sacrificial death of his eternal Son.

Then in Paragraph 36 he writes about the “basic core” of the gospel and says “what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead.” But no mention is made of why or for whom Jesus died.

In Paragraph 39 he writes that “Before all else, the Gospel invites us to respond to the God of love who saves us, to see God in others and to go forth from ourselves to seek the good of others.” In the Scriptures, the thing put first is always our need for repentance (Mat 4:17, Mark 1:15, 6:12, Luke 13:3, 5, Acts 3:19, 17:30, Rev 2:5, 16, 3:3, 19).

In Paragraph 69 he writes that in some Catholic cultures “we can see deficiencies which need to be healed by the Gospel: machismo, alcoholism, domestic violence, low Mass attendance, fatalistic or superstitious notions …” again failing to speak about wrath, hell, repentance or reconciliation with God.

In Paragraph 177 he writes that “The kerygma has a clear social content: at the very heart of the Gospel is life in community and engagement with others.” He again clearly misses the “heart” of the gospel.

In Paragraph 180 he writes that “The Gospel is about the kingdom of God (cf. Lk 4:43); it is about loving God who reigns in our world.” The use of the word “reigns” here is the closest he ever gets to saying anything about the lordship of Christ (he does mention “there can be no true evangelization without the explicit proclamation of Jesus as Lord” in Paragraph 110, but does not explain what that entails; and, in Paragraph 249, in speaking about relating to Judaism, he writes that we “cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah”, but again does not carry the thought any further). But, along with repentance and faith, obedience to Christ as Lord is essential to biblical Christianity (Mat 28:20, Luke 6:46, 11:28, John 14:15, 23, 15:10, Rom 16:26, 2 Thess 1:8, Heb 5:9, 1 John 2:3, 5:3, Rev 14:12).

In Paragraph 297 he says that “the Gospel responds to our deepest needs, since we were created for what the Gospel offers us: friendship with Jesus and love of our brothers and sisters.” But he fails to note that enmity with God and others is engendered by sin, so he is treating the symptoms rather than the cause.

In Paragraph 114 he writes that “The Church must be a place of mercy freely given, where everyone can feel welcomed, loved, forgiven and encouraged to live the good life of the Gospel.” But he fails to say anything about sin, repentance, obedience or reverence for God. Why do we need mercy? On what basis can God justly grant it?

In a number of places he displays an amazing lack of biblical understanding or proper exegesis:

In Paragraph 15 he writes that many who do not know or have rejected Jesus Christ are, nonetheless, “quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face.” Evidently he doesn’t understand Romans 3:11.

His incompetent exegesis is again demonstrated in Paragraph 195. He writes, “When Saint Paul approached the apostles in Jerusalem to discern whether he was ‘running or had run in vain’ (Gal 2:2), the key criterion of authenticity which they presented was that he should not forget the poor (cf. Gal 2:10).” Yet, when you read the passage, Paul speaks of preaching the gospel and says that James, Peter and John gave him “the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to”[2] him. The “grace” spoken of here is the gifting and calling of God to proclaim the gospel, which was evidenced by the fruit Paul had produced. Then, at the end, they asked him to remember the poor. It is absolutely not any “criterion of authenticity,” let alone the “key.”

In Paragraph 229 he writes that “Christ has made all things one in himself: heaven and earth, God and man, time and eternity, flesh and spirit, person and society.” The Scriptures clearly teach that Christians are united to Christ by faith (John 17:20-26, Rom 6:5, Eph 3:17, Phil 2:1) and, as a result, all true believers are united as part of the body of Christ (Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 12:27). In fact, John Murray rightly says “Nothing is more central or basic [to the Christian life] than union and communion with Christ.”[3] But it is simply not biblical to say that every “person and society” is united.

Later in Paragraph 229 he writes, “Peace is possible because the Lord has overcome the world and its constant conflict ‘by making peace through the blood of his cross’ (Col 1:20). But if we look more closely at these biblical texts, we find that the locus of this reconciliation of differences is within ourselves, in our own lives”. It is completely unbiblical to say that anything within man is responsible for the reconciliation of man to God or man to man. In his natural state, man is an enemy of God and it is God who reconciles us to himself by the atoning death of Christ (Rom 3:20-25, 5:10). All conflict between men is also the result of sin and only by being reconciled to God can there truly be peace between men.

His universalism is almost explicit in Paragraph 44 where, after giving an unbiblical list of reasons that he claims mitigate against a person being responsible for his or her own actions, he writes, “Everyone needs to be touched by the comfort and attraction of God’s saving love, which is mysteriously at work in each person, above and beyond their faults and failings.” It becomes more explicit in Paragraph 178 where he writes about “a Father who loves all men and women with an infinite love” and that “To believe that the Son of God assumed our human flesh means that each human person has been taken up into the very heart of God.” And again in Paragraph 274 when he writes, “Every human being is the object of God’s infinite tenderness, and he himself is present in their lives. Jesus offered his precious blood on the cross for that person.” But the Bible is clear that God does not save everyone (Romans 9).

His Marxist leanings are clear in Paragraph 54 where he writes that “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.” But Marxism, or socialism, is a failed ideology.[4] First of all, one must distinguish between absolute poverty and the relative poverty often spoken of in relatively rich nations. Secondly, free-market economies have done more to alleviate poverty than any other economic system. According to the Economist, “The world reached the UN’s ‘millennium development goal’ of halving world poverty between 1990 and 2015 five years early.”[5] And much of that change was fueled by China, which has been moving more and more to a free-market economy since 1978.[6] Anyone interested in knowing more about the Pope’s ignorance on economic issues should listen to The Tom Woods Show, from Dec. 6, 2013.[7]

His socialist political leanings are hinted at in Paragraph 56 where he writes that “This imbalance [between rich and poor] is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.” His socialist and Marxist ideologies are perfectly clear when he approvingly quotes Chrysostom in Paragraph 57, “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.” Also, in Paragraph 189 he writes, “The private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them.” And yet, the Bible clearly defends the right to hold personal property: it commands us to not steal (Ex 20:15), to not covet (Ex 20:17) and to not gain by deceptive or dishonest business practices (Dt 19:14, Lev 19:35). In fact, we are commanded to take care of our neighbor’s property (Ex 21:33-34), even those who hate us (Ex 23:4-5). All that we have comes from God (Ps 24:1), and being generous is a good thing (Prov 11:25, 22:9, 1Tim 6:18, 1Jn 3:17), but the Bible does not command us to give away our property, nor does it say that it belongs to the poor. A good discussion of biblical economics is presented in Chapter 9 of Grudem’s book, Politics According to the Bible.[8]

His Marxism and overemphasis on the importance of helping the poor are abundantly clear in Paragraph 187. He writes that “Each individual Christian and every community is called to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor, and for enabling them to be fully a part of society.” He goes even further in Paragraph 202 and fails to see sin as the cause of all trouble in the world. He writes, “As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.”

He correctly argues against “unbridled consumerism” in Paragraph 60, but then lays at its feet much of the violence in the world. He almost seems to go back to the tired old argument from the late 1800’s that when all people are well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed and well-educated human conflict will disappear. This idea is, of course, completely unbiblical and ignores sin.

In Paragraph 64 he correctly states that “The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and personal.” But he completely ignores that the privatization of religion (the two-story view of truth) is, at its core, a demonic attack on biblical thinking. Similarly, in Paragraph 67 he correctly states that “The individualism of our postmodern and globalized era favours a lifestyle which weakens the development and stability of personal relationships and distorts family bonds.” But he again ignores the spiritual warfare that is present and never once mentions the depraved mind that God deliberately gives to his enemies as a judgment (Romans 1:21-28).

He again expresses a partial truth, which betrays a failure to apprehend the fact that sin is fundamentally enmity against God, when in Paragraph 89 he writes that “The return to the sacred and the quest for spirituality which mark our own time are ambiguous phenomena. Today, our challenge is not so much atheism as the need to respond adequately to many people’s thirst for God, lest they try to satisfy it with alienating solutions or with a disembodied Jesus who demands nothing of us with regard to others.” This final statement also seems to view false religion as something foisted on those who are sincerely seeking God, rather than viewing it biblically as a wicked rejection of God’s authority and spiritual adultery.

He makes several valid points about preaching; for example, that the preacher should be immersed in the text, that the message must first and foremost be believed and lived by the preacher, and that careful preparation is necessary. He also speaks about the need for careful study of the Bible by everyone, all of this in spite of his own terrible exegesis and unbiblical views. He also correctly states, in Paragraph 180, “that the Gospel is not merely about our personal relationship with God.” Yet he never seems to distinguish between the family of God and unbelievers. Near the end of the work he correctly mentions the need for prayer in evangelism, but then his closing prayer is addressed to Mary, which is completely unbiblical! He does correctly note that prayer and personal piety can be used as an excuse for inaction.

He shows that he does not understand the concept of an idol when he writes, in Paragraph 247, that we do not “include Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God”. Does he think that, in spite of having rejected the true Messiah, they are already serving the true God? He makes a similar critical mistake with regard to Islam and, in Paragraph 252, writes, “We must never forget that they ‘profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day’.” He goes on, in Paragraph 253, to incorrectly state that “Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” And, finally, he exposes his confusion about the distinction between biblical Christianity and pseudo-spirituality when, in Paragraph 257, he writes, “As believers, we also feel close to those who do not consider themselves part of any religious tradition, yet sincerely seek the truth, goodness and beauty which we believe have their highest expression and source in God.” These views are a result of his universalism, which is a rejection of the clear biblical teaching about the exclusiveness of Christ, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Jesus himself said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

In Paragraphs 213 and 214 he correctly defends the rights of the unborn and opposes abortion, which is laudable.

In conclusion, the overall tenor of Pope Francis’ message completely misses the mark with regard to expressing the joy of gospel. Christians are indeed “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” (1 Pet 1:8, 1984 NIV), but Peter goes on to explain the reason for this joy; “for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” The ultimate purpose of creation and of the Christian life is to glorify God. This is achieved by God through the salvation of his chosen people, his “treasured possession” (e.g., Deut 7:6) and by the eternal, just punishment of those who refuse to believe in God’s eternal Son, Jesus Christ (e.g., Matt 25:46, Rom 9:22-23, John 3:16-18). While Christians should be, and have historically been, concerned about social justice and actively involved in improving the human condition, these are of secondary importance. They are to be witnesses of God’s grace and mercy and to be used to confront sinners in their need for Christ. Our focus is not to be on this world, “For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor 7:31b) Rather, our focus is to be on the eternal kingdom of God. (e.g., Rev 21:1-8)

[1] A great presentation of the true gospel can be found in: Good News for All People, P.G. Mathew, Grace & Glory Ministries, 2012

[2] quoted from the NIV

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Eerdmans, 1955, pg. 161

[4] A great book to read about the complete and universal failure of Socialism is Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism, by Joshua Muravchik, Encounter Books, 2019

[5] A Fall to Cheer, Economist, Mar. 3, 2012 (http://www.economist.com/node/21548963)

[6] Why is China Growing so Fast?” IMF pub. (http://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES8/INDEX.HTM)

[7] Pope Francis on Capitalism, The Tom Woods Show (http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp)

[8] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, Zondervan, 2010