For orthodox/historic/evangelical/Bible-believing Christians (pick whichever moniker you like), there must be occasions of unequivocal repudiation of prominent errors within the Church, including from those presuming to be leaders, like Francis of Rome.
In another train-wreck of an interview, Francis (who has admirable humility and compassion) offered more comments of at least an ambiguous nature, if not tending toward heretical: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-stirs-debate-yet-again-with-interview-with-an-atheist-italian-journalist/2013/10/01/9e7a6790-2acb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_print.html
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his quotes were taken out of context or misunderstood. Even so. As someone claiming to represent the Church, he must clearly take a stand for the truth of God's Word, especially as it concerns our one hope of salvation: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the God-man. The Rev. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention offers a helpful response to Francis' latest remarks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-stirs-debate-yet-again-with-interview-with-an-atheist-italian-journalist/2013/10/01/9e7a6790-2acb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_print.html
Some might suggest that we leave Francis and his remarks alone. Shouldn't we claim the mantle of unity and help people "know we are Christians by our love, by our love. Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love?" No, we shouldn't. Unity is itself means nothing. Several million Rwandan Hutus were united in their desire to massacre over a million Tutsis. There are two types of spiritual unity--that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or that of Nebuchadnezzar and his unholy, antichrist anthem to the glory of man (Dan. 3). Jesus' call for unity amongst believers and the witness of love to a watching world had the Gospel and its explicit proclamation and embrace at the core (John 17:23). As Luther was reputed to have said when standing against the antichrist-like teachings and coercion of the papacy (paraphrased): I cannot sin against my conscience. Here I stand.
Others might suggest that such issues are not even worth our time. Francis presumes to sit upon a throne that can only be occupied by Christ alone, who sits at the right hand of God as Head of His Church (Col. 3; Eph. 4). Knowing that, why bother to engage him? The reality is, however, that for better or worse (definitely worse), when Francis speaks, much of the world thinks he speaks for the Church. In coming days, people may rebut your claims to the Lordship of Jesus Christ by saying "Why should I believe you over the pope?" To which we must be ready to reply "God's truth is revealed in Scripture, not the pope, and if he doesn't adhere to its teachings, then he does not represent orthodox Christianity." Even so. Because of the pope's undue influence, he can and likely will do great damage to the testimony of the Church.
I am sure that many nominal believers in Daniel's day were willing to submit to paganism in order to avoid the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar. But what is man's wrath compared to that of a holy God? It is one thing to be civil, charitable, and loving. We should all do that. But when we obscure man's problem with God and the only hope for salvation, we betray love. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were willing to endure the flames of this earth for the sake their true Savior and King, knowing that He would walk at their head through the flames that truly matter and deliver them unscathed by His own blood and righteousness. By God's grace, we should do no less. Here we stand.
