Posted on 07/15/2011 3:14:18 AM PDT by Cronos
An unusually ignorant story in The Atlantic--with a completely misleading headline—questions the religious affiliation of Rep. Michelle Bachman Republican presidential candidate.
Bachman was—but no longer is—a member of a Minnesota Lutheran congregation that belongs to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The latter, a theologically conservative group, teaches that the Roman Catholic Church embodies the spirit of Antichrist—although a representative of the group reports that this view is rarely expressed today. Columnist Joshua Green asks whether Catholic voters will find Bachman’s beliefs offensive.
But Bachman herself never professed that belief. When questioned about it, she repudiated it, and said that she regards Catholics as good Christians. Moreover, she has formally withdrawn from the Wisconsin Lutheran parish.
Writing for GetReligion, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway (who is Lutheran) finds it remarkable that Green should be shocked by the beliefs of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They are Protestants, after all; if they agreed with the Catholic Church they would presumably be Catholics. She argues that the Synod’s official statement shows only that “they’re still Protestants who still don’t believe in the papacy and still think it sits in opposition to the Gospel of Christ.”
I think it is because it's a delightful little nugget that makes for a sound bite. "Michele Bachmann thinks the Pope is the Anti-Christ," has just enough shading of truth that some explanation is needed.
Actually, I didn't even list all of the WELS connection in my husband's family -- so here is it
1 grandfather - WELS minister in NY since the early 1900's 2 brothers - WELS ministers at times in CA, WI, MI, 2 brothers in law - WELS ministers at times in NJ, NY, WI 1 brother in law - Current professor at the WELS Sem
Last Christmas when we were all together, I brought up this subject out of curiousity (talking about politics is pretty normal with this group) and every one of the ministers agreed that they had never preached on it, and had not even heard of it until they reached seminary.
It's simply not a core doctrine of the church. I mean if people want to really start digging, Luther said some pretty rough stuff about Jews too - but that was hundreds of years ago in a completely different time - it doesn't drive the church politics now.
But it makes for a great soundbite doesn't it?
it makes for a lovely soundbite and for lying about a candidate. it’s sickening and this Catholic intends on telling every Catholic I know about your “on the ground” perspective, if you don’t mind.
The media is clueless! They could have looked at something relevant in WELS and always an issue in any christian denomiation.. women suffarage and the role women...But they looked at that this doctrine...Amazing how clueless and relionless they are.
> It’s simply not a core doctrine of the church.
It is extra-biblical, thus subject to change over time. The Scripture is not subject to any such change.
Only God knows who the Whore of Babylon is, who the False Prophet is, who THE Anti-Christ is.
Yeah, some of the popes of old were pretty tyrannical. I don’t think that applies today. If anything, I would say they need to be more stern and excommunicate nominal “Catholic” politicians that vote pro-abortion and por-homo-agenda.
Also, all churches, evangelical, Catholic, protestant, whatever, must make the distinction between government taking money by threat of force to “help” the poor, and the charity of a “cheerful giver”.
The New Testament does not teach that the people of God must pass laws to compel people against their will, or their capacity, to “help the poor”.
“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly or of necessity [that is, for guilt or threat], for God loveth a cheerful giver.”
2nd Corinthians 9:7
Besides, the efficiency quotient for government distribution to the poor is about 10%. That of Christian charities is about 90%. To whom would you rather give?
The fact that religions and denominations can disagree and believe each other in error, and yet still get along is lost on the Godless/special interest group/Balkanized left.
As I said, that's a topic for a religious discussion. It has no relevance whatsoever to Michele's political campaign. I doubt the WELS church ever preached this from this pulpit and Michele said she disagreed with it.
Trent is relevant as to why Reformation era protestants universally, and their heirs often, saw Antichrist in the Pope and/or papacy. WELS being one of those heirs, it is relevant.
Very disappointing to see this non story being run by catholic publications. I first saw it in the Huff post and laughed b/c the same people calling the Roman Catholic Church evil etc for opposing gay marriage now upset b/c Balchman is “anti-catholic”. What a joke. The issues her church has with Rome have been discussed for 500 years. Why is this news?
You wrote:
“Luther considered the pope the antichrist because at that time, the pope was pretty anti- anything that didnt’ bring in money for the church.”
Sorry, but that is NOT the reason why Luther considered the pope the anti-Christ. Luther felt free to use every possible money connected caricature he could find to attack the pope, but in reality Luther considered the pope the anti-Christ because the pope did not support the heretical doctrines Luther invented. Look at the bottom of this page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html
Luther was more than willing to accept the pope’s authority - and even suck up to the pope - until the pope definitely denounced Luther’s views.
In 1518 Luther wrote to Pope Leo X:
Wherefore, most blessed Father, I cast myself at the feet of your Holiness, with all that I have and all that I am. Quicken, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove, as you will. In your voice I shall recognize the voice of Christ directing you and speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I shall not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. He is blessed forever. Amen.
In 1520, Luther wrote this to the pope:
AMONG those monstrous evils of this age, with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council—fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action—yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, every best gift for you and for your See. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining, which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness; namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that that rashness, in which I am judged to have spared not even your person, is imputed to me as a great offence.
Luther abandoned his loyalty a few weeks later when the document announcing his impending excommunication (unless he recanted) was announced and when talks with a papal nuncio came to nothing.
There are things out there much worse than sharia.
I agree with Mollie Hemingway (whom I know).
I am a Lutheran pastor (LCMS). Yes, the Lutheran Confessions do teach that the pope is the antichrist. He has claimed a position of supreme leadership in the church by divine right; he has deceived millions with his false teaching on justification, the central article of the Christian faith; he has anathematized the true teaching of the gospel; and historically he has claimed power in both civil and ecclesiastical realms. (See, in the Lutheran Confessions, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope for further explanation.) To the extent that the current popes still do the things described in the 1500s, they continue to fit the bill.
However, that Lutherans regard the pope as the antichrist is a *doctrinal* view, not a political position, and it does not have anything to do with disqualifying a Lutheran from holding public office in the state.
If so, then Bachmann is not much of a theologian, for those are two different questions. One can hold, with the Lutheran Confessions, that the pope is the antichrist, while at the same time acknowledging that there are many good Christians in the Roman church.
Moreover, she has formally withdrawn from the Wisconsin Lutheran parish.
That's disappointing, for I think she has left the Lutheran church to join some goofy non-denom church with weak doctrine and poor practice.
But then, if I vote for her, it won't be for Pastor of the United States. Just President, a lesser office.
:: if I vote for her, it won’t be for Pastor of the United States ::
A woman for Pastor! Heresy, anathema! Priestit...
Running and ducking!
< giggle >
Thank you for your voice of reason.
almost everyone in Minnesota is anti-Catholic, including many “Catholics”. The state religion of Minnesota is secular socialistic humanism. I love vacationing there, but hated living there.
What I wrote was a vast VAST over-simplification of the problems Luther had with the Catholic church
The Church Fathers were not bothered by the similarities, because they (rightly) saw that everything, all natural religion, was a preparation for the coming of the Truth, that is, Jesus Christ.
One of the reasons the Church was able to Christianize pagan celebrations such as solstice and equinox celebrations was that it was felt that people who practiced these things had a dim vision of the truth as much as it can be perceived from nature (such things as life, light, rebirth, etc.) and needed to have the true nature of God revealed to them.
This was true of the early missionaries in the US. They Christianized certain Indian feasts by finding in them something that they regarded as a precursor of faith and then explaining the truth to the Indians. This is NOT syncretism (and in fact, the Inquisition put syncretists to death - it was regarded as a very serious heresy) but was a way of preaching to the gentiles.
If you think that man is made for God, and made for God’s revelation in Christ, and made for salvation, then it is easier to understand these things. The people that walked in darkness...
The last thing we need now is acrimony among the brethren.
I agree. The more I thought about this article today, the angrier I got, because it is very obvious that the left is trying everything possible to divide us and sow mistrust.
Are you hip? Cool, man.
Exactly -- we'd be fools to think that these guys are really concerned about what one group of Christians in 1500 said about another.
Does the WELS have sermons on this? According to regular attendees this is not even mentioned, forget about being preached.
The left is going to use it to stir the pot and get Obambi re-elected.
It shows that the Left is afraid of Bachman and is trying to tar her with anti-Catholicism. But if we want that all we need do is read the National Catholic Reporter, a liberal Catholic rag that hates the present pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.