Well, well, well. The things you learn on these here Internets. Seems that Lutherans no likey the pope. And Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann used to be a Lutheran, a WELSian more precisely (not to be confused with us Wellsians), and so is tainted by the intolerant anti-Antichristism of that congregation.
I, myself, am outraged. Even if I weren’t myself, I’d at the very least be irked. To think that buried deep within the spirit of the first Protestants, nay, the first Evangelicals, lies the hate that dare not speak its name, unless it’s being spoken by virtually everyone in the mainstream media. Sure, Bachmann is no longer a practicing Lutheran, having now graduated to even meaner wards, certificate in hand, no doubt, declaring her free of rum, Romanism, and ratiocination. But the question remains: When she sat under the teaching of those perfidious Lutherans, did she ever speak up in favor of the papacy? Did she ever wax wistful about the triple tiara? Did she ever put in a good word for Alexander VI or Leo X (or Malcolm X, for that matter, but don’t get me started on the race issue)?
In short, can we allow the election of a Protestant to the highest office in the land? Do we want mayonnaise sandwiches served in the White House cafeteria? Could we abide Moose Lodges and inflatable swimming pools and NASCAR logos to dot our fair land? Will we stand for the iconoclastic debaucheries that will be the very ruination of our churches, not to mention our bowling alleys? I think not, my friends.
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama took heavy incoming for having congregated with the likes of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose idea of interfaith dialogue consisted of Holocaust agnosticism. In the interest of fairness, I think Bachmann’s having fraternized with anti-Antichristers like Lutherans and their ilk (and there’s nothing more icky than having an ilk) should also come under the scrutiny of every patriotic American currently off medication without written permission from a board-certified physician.
Granted, I would as soon have voted for that kid Urkel before pulling the lever for Ms. Bachmann, even had her ecclesiastical wantonness never come to light. But now I vow not merely to ignore her as if she were a pimple on a 13-year-old’s forehead, but to lead a charge against her, fearing that pimple a full-blown melanoma. I will scrutinize, analyze, even deodorize, every anti-Antichristy thought, word, and deed Ms. Bachmann has ever thought, worded, and didded, seeing them for what they are, mere cover for the oldest prejudice still eligible for federal aid.
And I will begin that awesome task just as soon as I get closure on this whole Area 51 thing. Weather balloon my . . .
July 15th, 2011 | 10:24 am
Why, I haven’t heard anything this completely crazy from a female conservative politician (who therefore by definition is insane and evil and must be destroyed) since Sarah Palin said that we should pray that we are doing God’s will in Iraq. I am outraged!!!1!!1!!111!
July 15th, 2011 | 11:18 am
It’s a little more serious than Anthony Sacramone makes it out to be.
Michele Bachmann’s former church explains pope ‘anti-Christ’ claims
Now, of course most religions in one way or another consider most other religions to be false, or at best partially true. The Catholic Church claims to be the “one true Church,” and not so long ago declared that Protestant “ecclesial communities” “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.” I don’t remember Protestants being happy with that statement, so I don’t think Catholics need to be mocked for reacting negatively to the idea that the papacy is the anti-Christ.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:34 am
David, I don’t think anyone (least of all Anthony) is mocking the idea that Catholics would “react negatively” to that Lutheran teaching.
What’s being mocked is the tendency for the left to portray reasonably mainstream evangelical/Protestant views as being something roughly equivalent to Area 51 stuff, self-evidently wacky, and constituting a threat to the social order should anyone who is associated with them attain any degree of power in this country.
The fact is, Lutherans (and Presbyterians, as well as many Baptists and others) have believed this stuff for centuries, and most of the Presidents we’ve had have been members of churches with such teachings. It’s not that people won’t disagree, even strongly, with the ideas, it’s that the hysteria over such things is unwarranted.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:36 am
David Nickol: Just out of curiousity, what was your position with regards to how his close relationship with Jeremiah Wright should impact our view of Barack Obama?
July 15th, 2011 | 11:40 am
This isn’t mocking Catholics. Presumably most of them knew that the Reformation had happened.
I know that the Council of Trent teaches that all who believe Lutheran doctrine are “anathema” and I still have Catholic friends.
In fact, Catholics and Lutherans seem to get along quite well — as this magazine shows — precisely because we know what we teach and what we differ on and why.
Remember that Scripture teaches the anti-Christ must come from within the church. Don’t treat it as some devilly-horns Hal Lindsay type thing. Even various bishops in the church and saints have called the pope the anti-christ at various times.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:49 am
Couldn’t we all see this coming? Bachmann did reasonably well in recent debates, seems intelligent, and is polling well.
So now she is The Enemy. She must be Palinized, Borked, and put through the Tolerant Tribal Wringer.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:50 am
“Rum, Romanism, and ratiocination”. Wonderful line, Anthony! Wonderful post.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:02 pm
As an unrepentant papist, I actually find the starchy dogma of WELS to be refreshing – refreshing in this age of milquetoast ecumenism. Its language is certainly more incendiary than that in, say, Dominus Iesus, but not appreciably less in substance and, after all, it has a very, very long pedigree in Lutheran theology.
I don’t think it’s unfair to question Bachmann about her current views on such questions today, but I wouldn’t expend too much campaign time and energy on it. If we can “move on” from Jeremiah Wright, I’m sure we can do the same with this.
July 15th, 2011 | 12:03 pm
@Craig Pyane: Not the T.T.W.! I know, no one expects the T.T.W.
Was there ever a time when hysteria didn’t drive our politics? Or was that just a dream some of us had?
July 15th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
Craig Payne wrote:
“So now she is The Enemy. She must be Palinized, Borked, and put through the Tolerant Tribal Wringer.”
Unless, of course, she repents and becomes Pro-Choice. It is amazing how much that raises a candidate’s IQ, increases their knowledge of foreign policy, their sophistication and their overall fitness for office. ;o)
July 15th, 2011 | 1:53 pm
Just out of curiousity, what was your position with regards to how his close relationship with Jeremiah Wright should impact our view of Barack Obama?
Brian,
It seems to me that it was a legitimate issue, and that Obama dealt with it reasonably well. It also seems to me that the doctrine of Bachmann’s former church is a legitimate issue, and she has pretty much already put it behind her. It is not wrong to ask candidates to speak to religious issues when the candidates themselves publicly profess religious beliefs.
It strikes me as odd that Anthony Sacramone ridicules even raising the question about Michelle Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Here is what First Things is all about:
Sacramone ridicules even raising the question. I think it has been raised in a non-hysterical way, and it seems to me if there is any hysteria, it’s comments like: “So now she is The Enemy. She must be Palinized, Borked, and put through the Tolerant Tribal Wringer.”
I think Richard M. gets it right. This is not, and is not going to become, a burning controversy, but there is nothing wrong in discussing it.
July 15th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
Here is the statement from Bill Donohue of The Catholic League, who, in the opinion of many including me, is combative and often overreacts to small provocations and sometimes makes up things to complain about (like the Empire State Building not acknowledging Mother Teresa’s centenary with special lighting):
If anybody was going to make a big fuss over this, it would be Bill Donohue, and he’s being extraordinarily moderate about it. So there is nothing resembling hysteria.
Of course, it seems to me that it is no more anti-Catholicism for some Protestants to believe the pope, or the papacy, is the anti-Christ than it is for Catholics to believe that Protestant churches aren’t authentic churches. But certainly any candidate who professes religious beliefs may reasonably be asked what the impact of those beliefs will be if he or she is elected to office. Those old enough to remember JFK will also remember that he found it necessary to make a major speech on his Catholicism to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
The religious beliefs of candidates should not be out of bounds, particularly when those candidates give those beliefs a prominent place in their campaigns.
July 15th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
David, Mollie at GetReligion sums it up well:
“I think it’s a fascinating debate. But I think we all know that a thoughtful debate on this topic is the last thing the media are looking for. Do you think maybe they’re just looking for yet another way to go after the devilly-horned Bachmann? A little bit?”
Big Media isn’t running this because they want to have a serious discussion about catholic/protestant belief and what believing the pope is an antichrist means. They are using it to try and drive wedges and weaken a front-runner in favor of one they either support, or think could be defeated easily. (Such as Huntsman, or Romney.)
July 15th, 2011 | 3:04 pm
Did Bachmann leave the WELS church because she had a sincere change in beliefs, or because she found the “pope is the anti-Christ” idea politically toxic?
July 15th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
David, it isn’t the Catholics who would be expected to get worked up over stuff like this. It’s the leftists, who can’t fathom the idea that anybody would actually HOLD beliefs like this, and who have absolutely NO historical perspective on American religion, so therefore anyone holding such beliefs, no matter who the beliefs relate to, must be some kind of a loon.
If you haven’t seen that reaction, it’s because you haven’t seen it, not because it’s not out there.
July 15th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
Most non Catholic Churches have some kind of anti-Catholic thread in their belief system. (If they didn’t why wouldn’t they be Catholic instead of whatever they are?) This opposition to the Catholic Church is very likely to have been officially articulated at some point. Most church-going non Catholic candidates are then vulnerable to the negative political effects among Catholics of the charge that they went to or used to go to an anti-Catholic church, made credible by citing that official articulation of the Church’s position. So why is this just an issue with Bachmann? Because those who are opposed to Bachmann decided to take advantage of that fact.
July 15th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
Big Media isn’t running this because they want to have a serious discussion about catholic/protestant belief and what believing the pope is an antichrist means.
Dave,
It is a perfectly legitimate story, whether “Big Media” is interested in the theological or ecclesiological aspects or not. I don’t remember “Big Media” being mum about Reverend Wright. Perhaps his most off-putting appearance was at the National Press Club. The media like stories. If they played favorites to the extent some conservatives claim, the entire world would not know who Anthony Weiner was.
I will be interested to see your answer to Chris Balducci’s question. Why did Bachmann end her 10-year church membership shortly before announcing for president? Do I think it’s a big deal? No. But do I think Bachmann is being treated unfairly? No. She’s running for president. She’s not stupid. She knows what running for president means. If she can’t handle questions about her church membership, she certainly doesn’t deserve to be commander-in-chief.
July 15th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
It’s the leftists, who can’t fathom the idea that anybody would actually HOLD beliefs like this, and who have absolutely NO historical perspective on American religion, so therefore anyone holding such beliefs, no matter who the beliefs relate to, must be some kind of a loon.
pentamom,
The leftists you complain about are constantly accused of being anti-Catholic by conservative Catholics. The United States is overwhelmingly Catholic and Protestant. If Bachmann’s views are not troublesome to Catholics or Protestants, who is the evil left going persuade Bachmann is a loon?
I think it’s interesting that the attitude here seems to be largely: Sure, Catholic doctrine says the Protestant churches aren’t authentic churches, and Lutheran doctrine says the papacy is the anti-Christ, but who pays attention to that stuff in real life? Who would vote against a Catholic just because his or her ultimate spiritual authority is the anti-Christ?
On some real level, don’t we believe that people who take such doctrines very seriously really are loons?
July 15th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
So why is this just an issue with Bachmann? Because those who are opposed to Bachmann decided to take advantage of that fact.
harry,
As if Catholicism hadn’t been an issue for JFK or Mormonism hasn’t been an issue for Romney or won’t at some point be an issue that Huntsman has to deal with, or if John Hagee’s endorsement wasn’t a problem for McCain, or if the American Bishops did not criticize pro-choice Catholics. This is all part of the process. It is mostly trivial, and it is silly to see dark plots behind every news story.
July 15th, 2011 | 5:20 pm
Hi, David Nickol,
“… it is silly to see dark plots behind every news story.”
Indeed.Which is why I didn’t indicate that there was a dark plot behind the news story.
pentamom pointed out that “… it isn’t the Catholics who would be expected to get worked up over stuff like this” which I for the most part agree with, except that there would be some, probably a few, who would take it seriously. That would be the negative political effect they want. It’s going to be very close in many primaries.
For example, one could cite Orson Pratt, ordained an Elder by the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., eventually ordained a High Priest and was a member of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles under Joseph Smith:
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the whore of Babylon whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255
It would be ridiculous to ask Romney about that, but if the question got into the news, while most would quite simply and very appropriately dismiss it, there would be a few who would begin wondering just what Romney thought about Protestants and Catholics, and this would have a negative political effect for Romney, however small.
Far more absurd political tactics have been used in the past when it looked like it might be a very close race — as well as when it didn’t. It’s just the way we do politics.
July 15th, 2011 | 5:33 pm
As I was reading Mr. Sacramones article and the responses to it a book I read many moons ago came to mind. I remember that the author was jewish and the subject was the inquisition. The name of the book and most of its’ content is a blank. I do remember something that he said in the preface though that has stayed with me. Paraphrasing, he said that it was important to remember that people in those days really did believe in heaven and hell and that the issues that swirled about these central realities were of utmost importance.
He also said that our revulsion towards the excesses of those times, while appropriate, should be tempered by the idea that maybe what we take as tolerance today is actually a derth of deeply held belief.
Which brings to mind a saying that came out of the eastern bloc countries in the bad old days to wit: in the east nothing is allowed and everything matters while in the west everything is allowed and nothing matters.
While certainly an exageration there is something to the notion of the easy grace of freedom that we luxuriate in that runs counter to the particulars of truth and its’ demands.
That being said I pretty much agree with most of the responses even in their differences. David Nickol in particular summed things up well. I think I usually disagree him at the edges.
July 15th, 2011 | 5:40 pm
“Why did Bachmann end her 10-year church membership shortly before announcing for president?”
The way I read it was that she and her family had stopped attending that church for two years already. Everyone knows your name stays on church rolls forever, even if you no longer attend, or even just attended once in 1998 and signed a visitor’s card. That’s how churches with 50 in attendance claim to have 538 members.
July 15th, 2011 | 6:03 pm
David Nickol writes: “On some real level, don’t we believe that people who take such doctrines very seriously really are loons?”
But that’s just the point, David. We do take such things seriously. Yet, somehow we, at least here in America, learned to understand them in theological terms rather than personal terms. Religious freedom has slowly matured. Of course, we Catholics believe that the Protestant faiths are not Churches. If we didn’t believe that we would be some brand of Protestant. Of course Protestants believe that the office of the Pope has undermined Christ’s church, aka was the antiChrist , otherwise they would be Catholic. People believe differently about the Truth. That doesn’t make any of them less serious.
I think Bill Donahue’s point is a bit different than you take it to be. He’s interested in Bachmann’s response from the point of integrity. Will she own up to her faith and find a way to express it that affirms her Christianity? Or will she play the PC game for the media where the words we use are worse than the actions we take?
The issue with Rev Wright was quite different. Some of his sermons were, at base, anti-American. The question was, did Obama agree with him? If yes, one had to wonder why Obama was running for President. Obama answered the question well enough to get elected. Whether or not one believes the office of the Pope is the antiChrist of Revelations is unlikely to affect one’s actions as President.
But the old difficulties with religious freedom do continue. The ancient attitudes that those who do not agree with my beliefs are evil still exists though in a new form. Rather than “antiChrist” or “anathema”, which are no longer personal, the preferred term today is “bigot”.
July 15th, 2011 | 6:54 pm
But that’s just the point, David. We do take such things seriously. Yet, somehow we, at least here in America, learned to understand them in theological terms rather than personal terms.
Mike,
I wonder if you asked the average Catholic voter what the difference was between Catholics and Lutherans, whether they would be able to give you much of an answer. I won’t presume to say what the average Lutheran voter would know.
Also, Americans pretty freely change denominations. There was a poll a few years ago, as I recall, that said about half of adults had changed to a denomination they had not been raised in. Perhaps a Lutheran can tell us where the average Lutheran stands on the issue of the pope.
My impression is that Americans are quite religious, but doctrines that would cause one denomination to be suspicious of another are not very important to the average person of most denominations. I think perhaps Catholics are probably among the most aware of doctrinal differences, but surveys show that Catholics in general are frightfully ignorant of some of the most basic doctrines (like transubstantiation).
Please understand that I am not being anti-Catholic here. I was raised Catholic, but I doubt that many Catholics would consider me a Catholic now. But I spend a lot of time reading Catholic blogs, and it is a constant lament among faithful Catholics how “poorly catechized” (as they say) Catholics are nowadays. So when I say how little I think Catholics know, I am not expressing my own opinion. I am reporting what people like priests and teachers say.
I think any Christian politician, including Michele Bachmann, is not about to get involved in sticking up for any particular religious doctrine over against a doctrine of Christians of another denomination. Religion and politics mix all the time, but religion and doctrine don’t mix at all.
July 15th, 2011 | 6:59 pm
So…are *any* of the GOP candidates currently running for President Catholic?
Romney – no
Huntsman – no
Cain – ??, but I don’t think so
Bachmann – no
Pawlenty – no
Santorum – he might be…I can’t remember…
Gingrich – lapsed?
(Palin) – no
(Perry) – ??
Am I missing anyone? The only two that I’m fairly confident on are Santorum and Gingrich, and it’s my guess that neither of them are going to be in the race too much longer. Which will then leave us with a field in which every candidate belongs to a church that has some sort of problem with some aspect of Catholicism. So….then what? Is the media narrative going to be that “Republicans hate Catholics”? Sigh…
July 15th, 2011 | 8:49 pm
Too bad that our evangelical brethren do not realise that the measure of distrust in the Office of Papacy and against Mother Church are some of the best measures of how much of the fallen nature ( or of spirit of the agent of distrust ) is in one .
That distrust that was set in place in the Garden against The Father ( and Mother ) relationship was meant to be healed by the gift of the merciful Father love and Mother love , in The Lord, through His Church and the sacramental graces that flow through her – even to those who fear /hate her , for She , as a Mother , do her role of interceding for all – ‘bring them to My mercy ‘ is what She is told to do by her Lord .
Glad to hear that the candidate gave up her affiliation to a body that adheres to such falsehood ; if it is an act of no longer being against , may she be blessed for same !
July 15th, 2011 | 10:06 pm
Elizabeth,
Gingrich, raised Baptist, is a practicing Catholic convert as of 2009. I don’t know how he got out of his first marriage (the wife is still alive), but the second was annulled, and he is married to wife #3 in the Church. One of his most recent big projects was a documentary about Pope John Paul II (Nine Days That Changed the World).
Santorum is a practicing Catholic.
Pawlenty was raised Catholic and converted to Evangelical Protestant.
Is the media narrative going to be that “Republicans hate Catholics”? Sigh…
Was that the media narrative with Eisenhower (Presbyterian), Nixon (Quaker), Ford (Episcopalian), Reagan (Presbyterian), Bush #41 (Episcopalian), or Bush #43 (United Methodist)? No? Then it’s not going to be with this year’s Republican candidate, either.
Gingrich and Santorum don’t have a prayer. :P
If Romney or Huntsman is the nominee, the question is less likely how Mormons regard Catholics or other religions than how people (and other religions) regard Mormons.
July 15th, 2011 | 11:06 pm
An interesting observation is that most who have reported offered comment on the Lutheran view of the anti-Christ are (for the most part) working with a very dispensational influenced definition of the anti-Christ and not the Lutheran definition. The Lutheran understanding of this is deeply rooted both in history and in its own confessions (see the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope), and in their (and my own, as a Lutheran) view, Scripture’s definition.
I will say as a Lutheran pastor in the (LCMS) I do confess that the papacy continues to bear the marks of the anti-Christ. That said, I have a great deal of respect for Benedict XIV and pray that as Bishop he would faithfully carry out the Office given to him by the Lord in service to the Church.
July 16th, 2011 | 12:17 am
I think different people will quite legitimately come to different conclusions regarding the religion of political candidates.
It’s fair to say that Bachmann would stand zero chance of election if she was a member of a certain religion that is one of the largest religions on this planet.
Most voters will have some “tipping point” at which candidate’s real or perceived religious belief is disqualifying for political office. I have never heard of the WELS before this but from what I have learned, a candidate’s membership in that denomination is disqualifying for high political office. ymmv.
July 16th, 2011 | 9:26 am
This topic and comments also help one to discern how merciful God is , esp. to the ones who are in need , by gifting The Church with the dogmas on Bl.Mother and the inerrancy in the Universal teaching role of His Vicar .
Seems , The Spirit tended on The Church , to proclaim these , to help to do away with the enemy induced fear in these critical areas ; just that , these too have become part of the stumbling stone for many , while cause for rejoicing for others , in taking in more , as to how good and glorious our Lord and His ways are !
Our Lady of Mount Carmel , pray for us all !
July 16th, 2011 | 11:22 am
I rather like Leo X
He once remarked that every time he made an appointment, he created ten malcontents and an ingrate.
No man that insightful could be all bad
July 16th, 2011 | 11:29 am
Matthew Lorfeld,
Would you care to expand upon your beliefs regarding the papacy bearing “the marks of the anti-Christ”?
July 16th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
Michael PS,
There is a story, quite possibly apocryphal, that when Pope John XXIII was asked how many people worked in the Vatican, he answered, “About half of them.”
July 16th, 2011 | 5:40 pm
See http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/june-2005/pope-has-died for the WELS take on the papacy. It isn’t what you’d expect w/ all the media hoopla.
July 16th, 2011 | 7:48 pm
Chris,
I would refer you to the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which is part of the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions), the normed norm which defines(the whole of the Book of Concord) what Lutherans believe.
http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php (esp. paragraph 39ff)
I would note that what is attacked (eg. paragraph 43) is not the Mass properly, but private masses for the dead, which we do confess are useless, and as practiced in the past (and still to this day) Simony.
Again this confession does come from a fairly complex historical background, without this context much can be misconstrued.
July 16th, 2011 | 7:58 pm
Guest,
However elsewhere on the site, see this:
July 16th, 2011 | 11:09 pm
Guest,
Fair enough.
The pope damned with faint praise. No problem, but I won’t support a political candidate from that background.
July 17th, 2011 | 2:11 am
David:
Look, if you are going to use that, you shouldn’t have voted for ANY of the recent candidates. This is boilerplate protestant language, and I’m sure even Obama would find his church would mention such. It’s part of why they are Protestants, but it never seemed to have been an issue before.
And you know what? It was wrong to blame obama for wright too. It’s part of a pastor’s job to be provocative, and convict their churchgoers. Both are attack non-issues, and it’s getting really old.
Maybe she left her church because she wouldnt be able to attend it while campaigning? Who knows? but if you start ascribing political motives by default, the attack piece has won.
I don’t think we as a country can stand much more of this. We’re already divided as it is.
You also are not going to see it raised again, even if Perry runs. It’s a non-issue. Wright was a non-issue too-you can dig up virtually anything that can be twisted into a scandal that way. “Magic underwear” cracks for Mitt.
As for leaving her church, who knows? It’s obvious you are reading political intent into it, just as you did her church.
July 17th, 2011 | 2:12 am
bleah, sorry for the repeated text. Editing is not my strong point this late.
July 17th, 2011 | 10:49 am
Look, if you are going to use that, you shouldn’t have voted for ANY of the recent candidates.
Dave,
I was merely pointing out that the doctrinal differences between Catholics and and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are quite real and sharp. There is no need to minimize them. This is a religion blog, after all. What would be the point of papering over religious differences?
However, in all the decades I have been voting, it has never even occurred to me to vote based on religious affiliation or to check into whether a candidate’s church has doctrines that I would take exception to. (Actually, there probably exists no religion without doctrines I would take exception to!)
I don’t think we as a country can stand much more of this. We’re already divided as it is.
The Bachmann-WELS story was over before it began. Whether for political reasons (not unlikely) or personal reasons, she quit the church she belonged to. Even if she had not quit the church, she has made a strong statement denouncing anti-Catholicism. In terms of American politics, that was all she had to do to turn this minor story into a non-story.
Since you and I disagree often, I suppose it was only natural you would respond to me, but if I may, I’d like to pick a fight between you and Joe McFaul, who said, “I have never heard of the WELS before this but from what I have learned, a candidate’s membership in that denomination is disqualifying for high political office.”
While it seems to me a great many politicians in the US inject religiosity into their campaigns, I don’t recall any campaign ever waged where a specific doctrine of the candidate’s religion was an issue. Catholicism in general was a factor when JFK was running, but he won, so there is not much point in discussing it. I think Americans in general expect their candidates for president to be somewhere in the “Judeo-Christian” tradition and to whatever extent they bring religion into the campaign, Americans expect it to be pretty general. No Protestant is going to say, “Of course I believe the papacy is the anti-Christ! What do you think I am? A Catholic?” And no Catholic is going to say, “Of course I believe Protestants don’t have authentic churches! I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant!” Whether for good or ill, any serious candidate for president is going to minimize (or disavow) any politically problematic positions of his or her church.
Doesn’t it seem to you that conservative Catholics and Evangelicals see each other as allies rather than enemies as far as politics is concerned?
In short, I find it quite interesting from a religious point of view that some Protestants think of the pope or the papacy as the anti-Christ, but from the political point of view, it is pretty much irrelevant, and as far as Bachmann’s campaign is concerned, the story got minor coverage and lasted a couple of days.
For what it’s worth, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the anti-Christ:
July 17th, 2011 | 8:04 pm
Well I may be about to bring a knife to David Nickol’s gunfight, but my point is not that all religious beliefs are “loony” but that *some* are, at least in the opinion of the American public. A serious candidate for political who holds loony beliefs, whether founded on religion or any other source, should be disqualified from holding office.
The president of the U.S. will be required to handle several difficult issues affecting the course of history over the next four decades. Issues such as global warming, nuclear power, healthcare, access to natural resources, agriculture, macro and microeconomics and infrastructure all require competence at a very high level in each subject area. We cannot afford a president who holds loony beliefs because the risk of that person implementing disastrous public policies based on those beliefs is just too high.
An example of loony beliefs was provided by Jeremiah Wright. He claimed that the US CIA intentionally developed the AIDS virus to exterminate black people. That’s loony territory. A president who implements an AIDS strategy on such a basis would lead us to catastrophe and such a belief should be disqualifying. Obama correctly “vehemently rejected” Wright’s claims.
There have been loony “left” beliefs as well– ie., antivaxxers, big oil conspiracists and George Bush 9/11 conspiracists.
As David Nichol implies, most American voters expect their president to hold “reasonable” religious beliefs. Extreme beliefs in any direction from any source are disqualifying.
Furthermore, certain religious beliefs, not necessarily empirically falsifiable, serve as somewhat reliable “proxies” for inadequate thinking across the board. “Rapturists” and holders of Dominion theology are good examples. The “Pope is the antichrist” is another. Similarly, a belief in young earth creationism is disqualifying. People who hold such positions are on the other side of the “loony” divide from me. I don’t want people who hold such beliefs making decisions on significant national scientific, energy and economic policies. I predict that a believing Jehovah’s Witness cannot be elected president for that reason. A person holding any extreme form of anti-catholicism (See Hagee and McCain) is unelectable as well. Extreme religious anti-catholicism is a reliable proxy for an anti-intellectual rejection of all science, medicine and economic thought in addition to anti-catholicism. (Non-religious anti-Catholicism is a proxy for other, but different beliefs as well, usually associated with promotion of unbridled hedonism).
Protestant objections to Catholic theology are readily distinguishable from the “pope is the anti-chirst” crowd, in my opinion.
Bachmann will certainly face scrutiny on many issues. From what I have heard so far, I have very serious concerns. She will have the chance to address the scope of her religious beliefs. We’ll see if she can do so as effectively as Obama did. For some reason, I suspect she will not be accused of being a closet Muslim.
July 18th, 2011 | 4:27 am
Perhaps, a distinction can be drawn between religious beliefs that are calculated to affect judgments on public policy directly, for example the views on non-violence and pacifism, traditionally espoused by the Society of Friends, or on the nature of disease held by Christian Scientists and those that appear merely irrational or bizarre to the non-believer, which for some would include most of the articles of the Creed. In the UK, many would place any belief in interior divine guidance firmly in the first category. In France, no one takes any interest in a politician’s religious convictions, because the idea that they could influence behaviour is considered inconceivable, a belief entirely compatible with general experience.
July 18th, 2011 | 9:59 am
Joe McFaul,
Involvement in politics is considered evil to Jehovah’s Witnesses, so you won’t see a practicing JW run for office. God bless.
July 18th, 2011 | 11:11 am
Joe McFaul — do you understand that “Pope is antichrist” (properly understood NOT through the Left Behind template) is standard historic Protestant theology that was held by the majority of churches that the majority of American Presidents have belonged to? I think you’re potentially disqualifed every President other than JFK, Herbert Hoover, and Nixon, or at least the vast majority of the rest.
July 18th, 2011 | 3:20 pm
Dear Pentamom: If I remember correctly, even in the “Left Behind” books, John Paul II made it in the Rapture. Evidently, according to the authors, he was a real Christian (as opposed to the other Popes).
July 18th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
Okay, “Left Behind” was a bad choice of example of the type.
I simply meant to distinguish the pop dispensational idea of the antichrist as a singular, exotic, exceptionally powerful character with a unique role in history, from the more historic view of it being anyone deliberately and positionally opposed to the true Christian faith. The latter sense is the Lutheran meaning, and viewing the head of the church of Rome in that category is plain vanilla garden variety Protestantism prior to the mid-20th century. The point being that Joe has pretty much disqualified nearly everyone who ever held the office with a few exceptions among non-garden variety Protestants.
July 18th, 2011 | 7:30 pm
Key point– twentieth century.
Several Nineteenth Century presidents owned slaves or approved of slavery. Most Nineteenth century presidents took it for granted that women had no place voting.
It is now the Twenty-first Century. Once common outdated ideas dumped in the trash bins of time are rightfully rejected by the vast majority of today’s voters. A person holding any of those ideas today is unsuitable for high public office today.
I do understand that the Nineteenth Century was a time of rampant anti-Catholicism, as exemplified by Thomas Nast’s cartoons. But I didn’t live in the Nineteenth Century. I live today. If you tell me today that you believe the pope is the anti-Christ, then, today, I will call you “loony” and unfit for public office. It’s a free country and people can believe what they want, but if they run for office and espouse objectionable ideas, I’ll challenge their leadership qualifications.
July 18th, 2011 | 11:13 pm
Since we were speaking briefly about the “Left Behind” theology: What about someone waiting for the Rapture of the Church, a great and instantaneous “catching away” of believers?
Does that qualify as a “disqualifying” belief, politically speaking? This question is not addressed only to J.McF., but to anyone.
July 19th, 2011 | 11:39 am
Joe, what do you think the Lutheran sense of “the Pope is antichrist” is, and how do you find it to be more “loony” than, say, “Protestant churches are not true churches?”
Believe it or not, properly understood, the former statement is not really more charged or angry or “anti” something than the latter. Believing the pope is antichrist *in the historic sense* is merely to believe that because (as is believed by historic Protestants) the church of Rome is not a true church yet stands in the position of claiming to uniquely be such, the office at the top of the church stands opposed to the Christian faith — the historic understanding of “antichrist.” The Lutheran and/or Reformed view has nothing to do with an all-powerful world leader with supernatural powers who is going to be the singular tool of destruction of mankind.
July 19th, 2011 | 11:41 am
Nor does it have anything to do with denying the human or civil rights of Catholics, or their ability to be law-abiding citizens, or any other such thing. So WHY is it disqualifyingly “loony,” in your view? More disqualifyingly loony, than, say, believing that Jews aren’t Christians?
July 19th, 2011 | 11:43 am
Craig, I would say it depended a lot on what the person’s belief about the rapture motivated him to *do.* For example, someone who believed the rapture would come in God’s time and not as a result of some earthly machinations — why not? It’s not substantially different from any Christian who believes the world isn’t eternal.
But if the belief was tied up with some idea that world events could be/should be engineered in a certain way — that would be a problem, just as it would be a problem to vote for anybody who thought he did/should have the power to control cosmic outcomes — like, say, Woodrow Wilson. ;-)
July 19th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Dear Pentamom: Yes, I see the point.
In the circles in which I often move, it is common to disregard any efforts toward conservation of the environment, since all of this “will be destroyed soon,” anyway. I guess that would be a good example of policy decisions being affected by one’s beliefs.
July 19th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Well spoken, pentamom.
Dave, I agree that most people have half digested religious ideas, myself included. But then that is the point of leaders and teachers, past and present, not to mention the distance between us and God. My point is that the differences are real and serious and believed, if confusedly by a number of the congregation. That doesn’t make them looney. Since the Left Behind popular metaphor seems to be lacking due to Karol Woltyla, then think of the Omen series of movies. That’s what people tend to think of in the popular sense and that’s not the theology of it. Raised Catholic, you might know that the principal Catholic take on the antiChrist of Revelations points to the Emperor Nero, a contemporary of the writer of Revelations, as the model for his persecution of the early church. That might be an easier model to understand, someone who undermines Christ’s church.
I remember, when working for a supercomputer company, one Protestant believer, PCUSA I think, had some negative comments at lunch about the Popes then realized I was present and apologized. I just told him to remember to name names and gave him the example of Alexander VI.
IOW, I think we should understand the meaning given to the words used by the people involved before condemning them because the popular imagination disagrees.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact