Michele Bachmann, the Anti-Christ, and the Political Theologian
Jul 18, 2011
David Mills
Michele Bachmann was once committed to bigotry. Or so claims The Atlantic’s Joshua Green in what seems to be an attempt at the classic “gotcha” article. (Republicans had attacked Barack Obama for his pastor’s rants, and now one of their own has been embarrassed by her religion.) Green doesn’t get her, but she still needs to explain herself, because even the finer points of a candidate’s theology matter, though even religious politicans don't want to admit it.
As most readers will know, she was until recently a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, one of whose doctrinal statements declares that “the Papacy is the Antichrist.” 
Green writes as if this association will damage her, since her political hopes depend upon winning Catholic votes. It won’t do that, because most Catholics just don’t care. Bachman was a Lutheran? Lutherans don’t think much of the pope? Well, who’da thought? So what about those Red Sox? Most Catholics long ago adjusted themselves to the theological peculiarities of Protestant politicians.
Green gamely claims that her association with the Wisconsin Synod has “alarmed prominent Catholics,” but identifies only one, Bill Donohue, who is not exactly representative, and who in any case says something rather mild. Bachmann, he says, is not a bigot—here Green’s “gotcha” deflates with a sharp hiss—though she has to answer for the statement, as Barack Obama had to answer for Jeremiah Wright and John McCain for John Hagee.
She does, but not because she has to defend herself from the charge of bigotry, or of associating herself with bigots. She has to answer for it because as a candidate for office, she owes us an explanation of what she believes, not just about the debt ceiling and Iraq and health care, but about the universe. As G. K. Chesterton wrote in his early book Heretics (it is a passage William James quoted approvingly in the opening paragraph of the first lecture in his Pragmatism, in case you’re interested):
There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run anything else affects them.
This philosophy includes even small questions, like whether the pope is really the Antichrist. Many people, Christians as much as anyone else, will argue that politicians can’t be expected to speak on theological questions, some because they think of politics as purely practical and others because they think of it as purely secular, and many (Christians and secularists alike) because they feel or fear that religion is sectarian and divisive. As a result, their conception of politics is fundamentally secular.
To insist that candidates must not answer for their theology is to say that theology does not matter. It is to say that the revealed content of religion has no relevance to public affairs. This destroys any right that religious people have to participate in the public square as religious people, that is, as people who believe that man has been given a word from outside, has been told something the world needs to know to order itself well and thereby to increase human happiness in this world, never mind the next.
This requires of politicians more than they are used to saying, and a great deal more than they want to say. The observant Christian, Jew, and Muslim believe they have been told something about the world others do not know, and that this knowledge has consequences for public life. The alert ones know that what they know comes to them in a complex and interdependent form, so that its insights can’t easily be divided into “relevant to politics” and “irrelevant,” which generally means “deals with selected moral questions” (sexual for conservatives, economic for liberals) and “everything else.”
The question of the papacy, for example, is not just a matter of a 500-year-old conflict over applying Scripture to then-current events. It is a matter of how Divine instructions are mediated to fallen men living in history, and for us, it is the question of whether we ought to follow Benedict. Some of these instructions address how people live together. It is therefore an intensely political question, though you wouldn’t think so at first glance.
The country does not need religous politicians to collaborate in removing religious doctrine from the public square. We need politicians who lay out their theology and explain how it both binds and directs them, and that theology includes finer points generally considered politically irrelevant. And we need this from secular politicians, who also have a theology, or if they prefer a philosophy, as much as from religious ones.
Not that we will get such disclosures. Religious candidates are happy to argue fiercely about cutting taxes or regulating banks or increasing social spending, but not about anything they can segregate out as “religious” or “theological.” The closest conservatives come is to speak of “family values” or “traditional values,” while avoiding answering the question of what justifies those values and why they should bind anyone else. The closest liberals come is to invoke compassion and concern for the poor without explaining how this justifies their policies.
Bachmann's campaign website, for example, is as free of theology as any secularist could wish. Its biography does not mention her religious commitments at all, and the five “issues” it lists are all economic and political. It does not mention the Wisconsin Synod anywhere. She would do American political life some good if, even in response to a manufactured controversy, she explained what, if anything, she once believed about the papacy.
Religious politicians (on the left and right) are happy to appeal to the religious voter, and many are happy to appeal to culture war divisions, and some to imply that God is on their side without quite saying so. But they want to stay as far away as possible from what Chesterton called philosophy and I’ve called theology, because the clearer they are about their principles and commitments, the less room they have to compromise them. We want to know what they believe, so that we’ll have some idea what they’ll do.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES:
Joshua Green’s Michele Bachman’s Church Says the Pope is the Antichrist.
The WELS Statement on the Antichrist.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the papacy (see numbers 880 to 896).
G. K. Chesterton’s Heretics, chapter one (the quote appears in the fifth paragraph).
Lars Walker’s At the Bottom of the Bachman-WELS Flap.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.18.2011 | 3:13am
Joe DeVet says:
As a staunch and sinful adherent to the "antichrist", I find myself with very mixed feelings.
First, I consider anyone who believes that Benedict XVI (or any of his predecessors), or the office he holds, is really the antichrist is just a bit "teched."
On the other hand, my guess is that Bachmann (when she was one of them) and most other Wisconsiners individually don't hold any such belief. It's my observation that most Lutherans don't believe Luther; most Calvinists don't believe Calvin; most Methodists don't believe Wesley, etc. As a small indicator, if they did they would never embrace contraception, as well as some other modern conveniences, and they would never vote for the likes of Obama.
Rather, I'm guessing that most of these folks believe in some kind of modernized and sanitized Jesus and his disciples. Those who do, find his teaching (as they apprehend it) convincing as a guide to how to live their lives, and they conform their lives mostly to it. If the level of that conformity is around 80 or 90 percent, they are far, far more attractive as political partners in running this greatest nation on God's green earth, than are any of the confirmed secularists.
Much as I would prefer to vote for a bona fide saint, I will place my vote for them.
First, I consider anyone who believes that Benedict XVI (or any of his predecessors), or the office he holds, is really the antichrist is just a bit "teched."
On the other hand, my guess is that Bachmann (when she was one of them) and most other Wisconsiners individually don't hold any such belief. It's my observation that most Lutherans don't believe Luther; most Calvinists don't believe Calvin; most Methodists don't believe Wesley, etc. As a small indicator, if they did they would never embrace contraception, as well as some other modern conveniences, and they would never vote for the likes of Obama.
Rather, I'm guessing that most of these folks believe in some kind of modernized and sanitized Jesus and his disciples. Those who do, find his teaching (as they apprehend it) convincing as a guide to how to live their lives, and they conform their lives mostly to it. If the level of that conformity is around 80 or 90 percent, they are far, far more attractive as political partners in running this greatest nation on God's green earth, than are any of the confirmed secularists.
Much as I would prefer to vote for a bona fide saint, I will place my vote for them.
7.18.2011 | 4:51am
ferd says:
If reporters began to ask a new Fire Chief about his adopted children and religious values, while a vast fire was spreading, it would seem quite normal for such questions to be quickly deflected or even rudely ignored.
Bachmann (and every other candidate) should deflect every silly question from a hostile press by simply invoking the crisis that our President has worsened.
There may have been a time for "boxers or briefs?" sillyness, for probing inquiry into evolution, but that time has passed.
Bachmann (and every other candidate) should deflect every silly question from a hostile press by simply invoking the crisis that our President has worsened.
There may have been a time for "boxers or briefs?" sillyness, for probing inquiry into evolution, but that time has passed.
7.18.2011 | 4:57am
David Nickol says:
There's a very important question that demands an answer: What is religious bigotry? The dictionary says "one obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." Would a sincere, well reasoned conclusion by a Protestant that the pope (or papacy) is the anti-Christ be bigotry? Would a sincere, well reasoned belief by a Catholic that Lutherans don't have an "authentic" church be bigotry? Was the Mormon belief (now jettisoned) that black men could not be ordained priests bigotry? Is the Catholic belief that women cannot be ordained priests bigotry?
Is a person who holds *any* belief, no matter how offensive to others, immune from the charge of bigotry if their belief is a sincere, well reasoned religious one? Certainly, some of the great religious figures of the past would be considered anti-Semites by today's standards. Were they bigots?
Is a person who holds *any* belief, no matter how offensive to others, immune from the charge of bigotry if their belief is a sincere, well reasoned religious one? Certainly, some of the great religious figures of the past would be considered anti-Semites by today's standards. Were they bigots?
7.18.2011 | 5:53am
Brian LeCompte says:
If elected she will one day meet the Pope. Judging from the reaction of the last two presidents, it may change her heart.
George W. Bush was so moved by Blessed John Paul II's courage in the face of Parkinson's, that he was committed to not expanding funding for immoral embyronic stem cell research. It was in fact the first major issue of his presidency, pre-911.
Michelle Obama, recently stated one of the most moving moments of the presidency was, "meeting the pope".
Like it or not, the Pope has become THE moral spokesman and guardian of morality of the present day. "By their fruits you will know them." I pity people today who can ignore the obvious good of the papacy at the service of narrow theology. They look no different th the bizarre sedevacantists and self-appointed "pope" that dot the dark halls of internet cabals.
George W. Bush was so moved by Blessed John Paul II's courage in the face of Parkinson's, that he was committed to not expanding funding for immoral embyronic stem cell research. It was in fact the first major issue of his presidency, pre-911.
Michelle Obama, recently stated one of the most moving moments of the presidency was, "meeting the pope".
Like it or not, the Pope has become THE moral spokesman and guardian of morality of the present day. "By their fruits you will know them." I pity people today who can ignore the obvious good of the papacy at the service of narrow theology. They look no different th the bizarre sedevacantists and self-appointed "pope" that dot the dark halls of internet cabals.
7.18.2011 | 6:59am
Mollie says:
No, I totally look forward to asking Catholics whether they still consider Lutherans such as me anathema and if not, why not.
The author of this article has much more faith in the mainstream media than I do to handle in-depth religious discussions. They've done so brilliantly thus far in discovering the Reformation this week.
The author of this article has much more faith in the mainstream media than I do to handle in-depth religious discussions. They've done so brilliantly thus far in discovering the Reformation this week.
7.18.2011 | 7:22am
David Mills says:
A friend wrote me that "Bachman is playing from a deficit here. It may not be politically savvy for her to engage on this topic. She in particular would have a hard time with this. Her caricature is, 'religious nut'."
That's true, but she’s not going to shed the caricature easily, bec. the media have their settled positions. Remember how stupid Ronald Reagan was supposed to be and how brilliant Obama is supposed to me.
But the way through the caricature is straight through it. This was the way Reagan overcame, at least with the voters if not the media, the slander about his intelligence. He just keep saying what he wanted to say, said it rationally and calmly, and seemed amused rather than threatened by the insults. What politicians think “politically savvy” is often the reverse: it’s not savvy, it’s just cautious, even timid, and has the effect of encouraging the stereotype rather than discouraging it.
That's true, but she’s not going to shed the caricature easily, bec. the media have their settled positions. Remember how stupid Ronald Reagan was supposed to be and how brilliant Obama is supposed to me.
But the way through the caricature is straight through it. This was the way Reagan overcame, at least with the voters if not the media, the slander about his intelligence. He just keep saying what he wanted to say, said it rationally and calmly, and seemed amused rather than threatened by the insults. What politicians think “politically savvy” is often the reverse: it’s not savvy, it’s just cautious, even timid, and has the effect of encouraging the stereotype rather than discouraging it.
7.18.2011 | 7:35am
David Mills says:
Mollie: Oh, I very defnitely did not say that, having no more confidence in the media than you do. How the religious politician speaks about religion is a problem, given the media's limits and many reporters' ill will toward religion. But religious politicians should not collaborate in the denuding of the public square, which they tend to do, and do for self-interested reasons.
It would be a revealing question to ask a Catholic politician what he thinks of other Christians, given how much of his Faith they reject, assuming he answered. He would say something pluralistic, but would say a lot about himself by the grounds he chose to defend his pluralism.
It would be a revealing question to ask a Catholic politician what he thinks of other Christians, given how much of his Faith they reject, assuming he answered. He would say something pluralistic, but would say a lot about himself by the grounds he chose to defend his pluralism.
7.18.2011 | 7:39am
Elizabeth says:
Part of the problem here is that even if Cong. Bachmann could articulate the (in many ways historical-context-specific) theology, she's unlikely to be able to do so in a 7-10 second soundbite.
1) The Bible nowhere references "The Antichrist". The common (as in, not proper) noun "antichrist" is mentioned 3 times in 1 John and once in 2 John. In these contexts, "antichrist" refers not to a specific individual, but to any person who spreads false information about Jesus Christ or in some way leads people away from the truth of Jesus Christ.
2) Martin Luther's declaration of the papacy (the office, and the individual then holding it) as an/the antichrist did not mean what most pop-culture-theologians today think/assume/tell other people it means. Rightly or wrongly, it was an assessment by Luther that the office and the man holding it were leading people away from the truth of Jesus Christ by placing an undue emphasis on the "trappings of religion", as it were, and on rules and regs, rather than the grace of God.
3) It should surprise no one that a denomination as conservative as WELS still holds to this assessment, since it does in fact appear in the Book of Concord, which is theoretically (ahem - ELCA - cough cough) still understood to be the "correct interpretation" of the Scriptures. This statement is rather deep into the BoC, and, I would argue, beyond the average Lutheran's exposure to said Book of Concord. Further, it should surprise no one that modern-day Protestants still have "issues" (whatever they may be) with Catholic theology - otherwise, wouldn't they be Catholic?
4) Most Lutherans I know, even if they personally *do* agree with Luther's assessment of the papacy, rarely join (or leave) a congregation solely over this issue. I highly doubt that denouncing the papacy is a significant element of Cong. Bachmann's religious beliefs and/or practice.
5) Nevertheless, whether or not Cong. Bachmann personally believes that office of the papacy continues to place an undue emphasis on the trappings of religion, thereby leading people towards rules and regs and away from the grace of God is a much less interesting question to the press than whether she "believes that the pope is the AntiChrist."
6) I don't even really like Cong. Bachmann all that much, but this is ridiculous...
1) The Bible nowhere references "The Antichrist". The common (as in, not proper) noun "antichrist" is mentioned 3 times in 1 John and once in 2 John. In these contexts, "antichrist" refers not to a specific individual, but to any person who spreads false information about Jesus Christ or in some way leads people away from the truth of Jesus Christ.
2) Martin Luther's declaration of the papacy (the office, and the individual then holding it) as an/the antichrist did not mean what most pop-culture-theologians today think/assume/tell other people it means. Rightly or wrongly, it was an assessment by Luther that the office and the man holding it were leading people away from the truth of Jesus Christ by placing an undue emphasis on the "trappings of religion", as it were, and on rules and regs, rather than the grace of God.
3) It should surprise no one that a denomination as conservative as WELS still holds to this assessment, since it does in fact appear in the Book of Concord, which is theoretically (ahem - ELCA - cough cough) still understood to be the "correct interpretation" of the Scriptures. This statement is rather deep into the BoC, and, I would argue, beyond the average Lutheran's exposure to said Book of Concord. Further, it should surprise no one that modern-day Protestants still have "issues" (whatever they may be) with Catholic theology - otherwise, wouldn't they be Catholic?
4) Most Lutherans I know, even if they personally *do* agree with Luther's assessment of the papacy, rarely join (or leave) a congregation solely over this issue. I highly doubt that denouncing the papacy is a significant element of Cong. Bachmann's religious beliefs and/or practice.
5) Nevertheless, whether or not Cong. Bachmann personally believes that office of the papacy continues to place an undue emphasis on the trappings of religion, thereby leading people towards rules and regs and away from the grace of God is a much less interesting question to the press than whether she "believes that the pope is the AntiChrist."
6) I don't even really like Cong. Bachmann all that much, but this is ridiculous...
7.18.2011 | 7:50am
hippocrates says:
A tempest in a teapot
This is really just an attempt to smear Bachmann
And maybe provide her with enough rope to hang herself
Politicians typically steer clear of theology
Ask Rick Santorum how things go when they don't
Most politicians succeed by taking Groucho Marx's approach :
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
This is really just an attempt to smear Bachmann
And maybe provide her with enough rope to hang herself
Politicians typically steer clear of theology
Ask Rick Santorum how things go when they don't
Most politicians succeed by taking Groucho Marx's approach :
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
7.18.2011 | 7:57am
David Nickol says:
US REPUBLICAN HOPEFUL [HERMAN CAIN] BACKS RIGHT TO BAN MOSQUES
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday said US communities that want to ban mosques have a right to do so, as he backed opponents of a mosque being built in Tennessee.
"Islam is both a religion and a set of laws -- Sharia laws. That's the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes," Cain told Fox News Sunday.
Asked whether a community, like the one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, should be able to "ban a mosque," Cain replied: "Yes, they have the right to do that." . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/us-republican-hopeful-backs-ban-mosques-183842282.html
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday said US communities that want to ban mosques have a right to do so, as he backed opponents of a mosque being built in Tennessee.
"Islam is both a religion and a set of laws -- Sharia laws. That's the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes," Cain told Fox News Sunday.
Asked whether a community, like the one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, should be able to "ban a mosque," Cain replied: "Yes, they have the right to do that." . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/us-republican-hopeful-backs-ban-mosques-183842282.html
7.18.2011 | 8:20am
Tristian says:
Herman Cain is...well, not a good candidate for the presidency.
Nor is Bachman, in my view. That said, I also think The Atlantic embarrassed itself with this silly piece.
More interesting than any of that is the contention that a candidate's theology should be a matter of public discussion. I think there's something to that, insofar as a person's underlying view of moral matters will help determine the policies they pursue. However, I am also one to think that theological matters are, *in a certain sense* irrelevant politically. That sense is this: when it comes time for defending or advocating for a political/legal position, the arguments offered should depend on principles people of all (or no) faiths can accept. Put differently, the use of state power should not be prejudicial against any particular faith (or lack thereof). It will be if it makes sense or can only be defended by assuming the truth of competing faiths. Pace Mr. Mills, I don't think this amounts to religion from the public square. Rather, think it's necessary if all of us are to have equal standing under he law.
Nor is Bachman, in my view. That said, I also think The Atlantic embarrassed itself with this silly piece.
More interesting than any of that is the contention that a candidate's theology should be a matter of public discussion. I think there's something to that, insofar as a person's underlying view of moral matters will help determine the policies they pursue. However, I am also one to think that theological matters are, *in a certain sense* irrelevant politically. That sense is this: when it comes time for defending or advocating for a political/legal position, the arguments offered should depend on principles people of all (or no) faiths can accept. Put differently, the use of state power should not be prejudicial against any particular faith (or lack thereof). It will be if it makes sense or can only be defended by assuming the truth of competing faiths. Pace Mr. Mills, I don't think this amounts to religion from the public square. Rather, think it's necessary if all of us are to have equal standing under he law.
7.18.2011 | 8:40am
David Nickol says:
Are some people here arguing that religion should be kept out of the public square? I certainly don't think David Mills is.
NOTE: "First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
I thought the whole thrust of First Things was that religion is important in public life and in the public square. Do the various religious denominations have to bracket the doctrines that make one religion different from another before they enter into public debate?
It seems as if some here are saying that questioning a candidate's religious beliefs should be off limits for reporters—that a candidates should be free to bring as much religiosity into their campaigns as they choose, but they must be asked no questions about their religion. Or perhaps they should be asked only softball questions like, "How does your religious faith inform you political beliefs," with no follow-up questions allowed.
I think some here who are upset that this has become an issue (even though, in my opinion, it is a very small one) would largely object to the way "separation of church and state" is interpreted, and are less than happy that our laws must have secular purposes, not religious ones. But here's a candidate who is very openly religious, and she's not supposed to be asked any questions about it.
NOTE: "First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
I thought the whole thrust of First Things was that religion is important in public life and in the public square. Do the various religious denominations have to bracket the doctrines that make one religion different from another before they enter into public debate?
It seems as if some here are saying that questioning a candidate's religious beliefs should be off limits for reporters—that a candidates should be free to bring as much religiosity into their campaigns as they choose, but they must be asked no questions about their religion. Or perhaps they should be asked only softball questions like, "How does your religious faith inform you political beliefs," with no follow-up questions allowed.
I think some here who are upset that this has become an issue (even though, in my opinion, it is a very small one) would largely object to the way "separation of church and state" is interpreted, and are less than happy that our laws must have secular purposes, not religious ones. But here's a candidate who is very openly religious, and she's not supposed to be asked any questions about it.
7.18.2011 | 8:50am
Richard says:
Politicians don't need to tell voters what their theology is. This is a new notion in a new, post modern age where suddenly a large segment of the polity is interested in religion and the celebrity association. It is disturbing because the religion is so shallow and phony. Take the NFL as a classic example. A few decades ago the guys just played football and tried to take their opponents' head off. Now they still try to take the opponent's head off, and with an alarming new amount of speed and strength, but they then get together and pray after the game. And in the middle of the field. It's very simple. Lot's of guilt going on. Too much money. Too much adulation. Too much of a lot of things.
7.18.2011 | 9:37am
Anthony Sacramone says:
I would love to see a serious online panel consisting of confessional Lutherans and traditional Catholics on what this language means both in its original context and in 2011, and also what it means for ecumenical dialogue. I think there are many in both communions who are as clueless as the MSM about this stuff. (Bachmann, obviously, didn't know what her own church taught. Or at least didn't understand it.)
7.18.2011 | 9:58am
S.L. Hersey says:
Elizabeth is on the money, by the way. Luther's use of "Antichrist" is a locution that only a NT Greek scholar could appreciate. In Lutheran theology, the prefix "anti-" is meant in the literal ancient Greek sense of "counter, contrary, corresponding," without the modern English overtones of hostility or enmity. Think of the prefix's use in words like "antonym," "anticlockwise," or "antiparticle."
The Lutheran archaic use of the term does NOT imply that the Pope is the Beast of Revelation, but that the Papacy sets itself up as a "counter-Christ" or "stand-in Christ," assuming powers and privileges that properly belong to Jesus. Now, I wouldn't expect Catholics to like or agree with that sentiment, but perhaps we can agree that given Protestant assumptions, it's not an weird, controversial, or outrageous statement.
The Catholics have gotten into similar trouble because of the old Missal's description of Jews as "perfidious": the word isn't super-offensive if broken down etymologically and interpreted in an old-fashioned way, but it darned well IS offensive and wrong by any ordinary, modern definition. I've also known traditional Catholics who like to play philological games with Protestants, expressing amazement that the word "heretic" should be taken personally: after all, the word's Latin origins aren't pejorative!
So in the end, the Lutherans would be wise to rephrase/retranslate their doctrines so that all the words mean what an ordinary, educated modern reader would think they mean, as the Catholics mostly have.
The Lutheran archaic use of the term does NOT imply that the Pope is the Beast of Revelation, but that the Papacy sets itself up as a "counter-Christ" or "stand-in Christ," assuming powers and privileges that properly belong to Jesus. Now, I wouldn't expect Catholics to like or agree with that sentiment, but perhaps we can agree that given Protestant assumptions, it's not an weird, controversial, or outrageous statement.
The Catholics have gotten into similar trouble because of the old Missal's description of Jews as "perfidious": the word isn't super-offensive if broken down etymologically and interpreted in an old-fashioned way, but it darned well IS offensive and wrong by any ordinary, modern definition. I've also known traditional Catholics who like to play philological games with Protestants, expressing amazement that the word "heretic" should be taken personally: after all, the word's Latin origins aren't pejorative!
So in the end, the Lutherans would be wise to rephrase/retranslate their doctrines so that all the words mean what an ordinary, educated modern reader would think they mean, as the Catholics mostly have.
7.18.2011 | 10:14am
EWH says:
A politician who spoke candidly and intelligently about his religious beliefs? Now that would be news.
I think this article raises a good point: irrespective of the issue explained or discussed, it would be good and useful information for voters to see candidates deal with theology. What Bachmann's church believes about the Pope is beside the point; if she could give an intelligent answer to a question about her church's theology, we would all be better off. For the readers of FT, I think most would like to know if the person is serious about religion or if he just treats it like a civic club.
I think this article raises a good point: irrespective of the issue explained or discussed, it would be good and useful information for voters to see candidates deal with theology. What Bachmann's church believes about the Pope is beside the point; if she could give an intelligent answer to a question about her church's theology, we would all be better off. For the readers of FT, I think most would like to know if the person is serious about religion or if he just treats it like a civic club.
7.18.2011 | 10:50am
Bill Reichert says:
David Mills' points are, of course, very acute. I think that honesty in explaining one's religious convictions is perhaps the surest means of evaluating the moral and intellectual integrity of a candidate. And that's why we're very unlikely ever to see a candidate honestly do so. Religion is seen as beneficial to a candidate's campaign only when the he is preaching to his choir.
I remember some years ago when radio commentator Dennis Prager was contemplating a run for political office. He eventually decided against doing so on the ground that politics would almost certainly preclude him from exercising the forthrightness for which he is known on his show, both on religious and political topics. But he could have also declined on the ground that his honesty as a commentator would equally preclude him from being a successful candidate, for he would have spent too much time justifying every large and small position he had taken for decades in the public square. This is why discretion and vagueness will also be such potent qualifications for the successful politician.
Thanks to David Mills for tossing the fox in the hen house. I think I saw the twinkle in his eyes.
I remember some years ago when radio commentator Dennis Prager was contemplating a run for political office. He eventually decided against doing so on the ground that politics would almost certainly preclude him from exercising the forthrightness for which he is known on his show, both on religious and political topics. But he could have also declined on the ground that his honesty as a commentator would equally preclude him from being a successful candidate, for he would have spent too much time justifying every large and small position he had taken for decades in the public square. This is why discretion and vagueness will also be such potent qualifications for the successful politician.
Thanks to David Mills for tossing the fox in the hen house. I think I saw the twinkle in his eyes.
7.18.2011 | 11:20am
Ken says:
Bill Reichert says:
David Mills' points are, of course, very acute. I think that honesty in explaining one's religious convictions is perhaps the surest means of evaluating the moral and intellectual integrity of a candidate. And that's why we're very unlikely ever to see a candidate honestly do so. Religion is seen as beneficial to a candidate's campaign only when the he is preaching to his choir.
Which makes suckers or worse to all those people on the right who support candidates like this because of their religious convictions. Look at Bachmann's lies about not receiving federal funds for her farm and her husband's clinic. Is anyone here upset about that, or is it, she may be a liar but she's our liar? I wish Christian voters would hold candidates who trumpet their Christianity to Christian standards.
David Mills' points are, of course, very acute. I think that honesty in explaining one's religious convictions is perhaps the surest means of evaluating the moral and intellectual integrity of a candidate. And that's why we're very unlikely ever to see a candidate honestly do so. Religion is seen as beneficial to a candidate's campaign only when the he is preaching to his choir.
Which makes suckers or worse to all those people on the right who support candidates like this because of their religious convictions. Look at Bachmann's lies about not receiving federal funds for her farm and her husband's clinic. Is anyone here upset about that, or is it, she may be a liar but she's our liar? I wish Christian voters would hold candidates who trumpet their Christianity to Christian standards.
7.18.2011 | 11:31am
David says:
I was a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for many years. I also know a good number of people from the Wisconsin Synod. The vast majority of the laity do not take the more extreme positions of those synods that seriously. If you are a member of the Wisconsin Synod you are not even allowed to pray with someone who is not also a member of that Synod. Therefore die hard members will not even pray with other conservative Lutherans whose beliefs are almost identical. Again, many of their own people do not understand these rules or why they came about. Moreover the Wisconsin Synod is dying, in part, due to its sectarian nature regarding "prayer fellowship" and its anti-ecumenical stance. In 1998 there were 500,000 members. In 2008 there were only 400,000 members.
7.18.2011 | 12:25pm
Edward Alleyn says:
I found this concerning the anti-Christ on the website of the Wisconsin Synod:
"This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist."
So, Lutherans, followers of Christ and Martin Luther, believe that the papacy is the anti-Christ. They also believe, again from their website:
"WHAT WE BELIEVE
Christ’s love, which he demonstrated by his perfect life and by his suffering and death on the cross, is the foundation for our relationship with God, the focus of our faith, and the motivation for all we do as Christians. In that same love for sinners Christ not only lived and died to set us free from sin and guilt, but he also rose again in victory on the first Easter Sunday, assuring us that his victory is our victory and that his resurrection is our resurrection. Saved by his grace alone, we look forward to his glorious return as we proclaim the good news of what his love has accomplished."
What could be more Christian?
"This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist."
So, Lutherans, followers of Christ and Martin Luther, believe that the papacy is the anti-Christ. They also believe, again from their website:
"WHAT WE BELIEVE
Christ’s love, which he demonstrated by his perfect life and by his suffering and death on the cross, is the foundation for our relationship with God, the focus of our faith, and the motivation for all we do as Christians. In that same love for sinners Christ not only lived and died to set us free from sin and guilt, but he also rose again in victory on the first Easter Sunday, assuring us that his victory is our victory and that his resurrection is our resurrection. Saved by his grace alone, we look forward to his glorious return as we proclaim the good news of what his love has accomplished."
What could be more Christian?
7.18.2011 | 1:10pm
David Nickol says:
"What could be more Christian?"
Overcoming the divisions and reuniting to form a single Christianity instead of 38,000 denominations.
Overcoming the divisions and reuniting to form a single Christianity instead of 38,000 denominations.
7.18.2011 | 1:57pm
Kevin Offner says:
I think David Mills is right to ask politicians to tell us how their theological perspective informs their political positions. The assumption of the secular press regarding conservative (I would prefer the word "orthodox") Christians is that the *more* one really believes the dogmas about Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation, the importance of evangelism, the authority of the Bible and Church, etc, the *more* one will inevitably be a theocrat politically, attempting to coerce or manipulate everyone into becoming a Christian.
What would be delightfully refreshing would be to hear someone like Michele Bachman say something like this: "Yes, I am a card-carrying evangelical Christian, and this means that I hold to historic Christian convictions about x, y and z. And if I were elected President of the United States, I would no more attempt to 'make everyone a Christian' than would any of my political opponents."
Recently I had dinner with a Buddhist whom I met at a conference. I made it clear to him that I was a "conservative" evangelical in just about every way. And throughout our conversation I sought, personally, to convert him to become a follower of Christ! But at the end of our meal, I told him that while it would be my personal preference to see him become a Christian, I would nevertheless fight publically for his full civil rights to hold different religious convictions from mine. In fact, I told him, it was actually *because* of my religious convictions that I believed it would be a better world where no one was coerced or manipulated to hold religious beliefs, since faith can not and must not be forced. I think we both walked away knowing we differed strongly at certain points in our theological positions, but that there was a mutual respect for the other as well.
Rather than always ducking the full-disclosure religious questions, I think it would take the Press off-guard for a conservative Christian to initiate a conversation about how his/her religious convictions play an important part in his/her political positions.
What would be delightfully refreshing would be to hear someone like Michele Bachman say something like this: "Yes, I am a card-carrying evangelical Christian, and this means that I hold to historic Christian convictions about x, y and z. And if I were elected President of the United States, I would no more attempt to 'make everyone a Christian' than would any of my political opponents."
Recently I had dinner with a Buddhist whom I met at a conference. I made it clear to him that I was a "conservative" evangelical in just about every way. And throughout our conversation I sought, personally, to convert him to become a follower of Christ! But at the end of our meal, I told him that while it would be my personal preference to see him become a Christian, I would nevertheless fight publically for his full civil rights to hold different religious convictions from mine. In fact, I told him, it was actually *because* of my religious convictions that I believed it would be a better world where no one was coerced or manipulated to hold religious beliefs, since faith can not and must not be forced. I think we both walked away knowing we differed strongly at certain points in our theological positions, but that there was a mutual respect for the other as well.
Rather than always ducking the full-disclosure religious questions, I think it would take the Press off-guard for a conservative Christian to initiate a conversation about how his/her religious convictions play an important part in his/her political positions.
7.18.2011 | 1:57pm
Edward Alleyn says:
There is only one Christianity; it comprises all who believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God — all who believe that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
7.18.2011 | 4:24pm
Deb says:
I am not as concerned with what denomination a politician claims to belong to as I am with what beliefs they claim to have. If you claim to be a Christian, yet you are pro-abortion, then you are not a follower of Christ so I can presume you are only using the term Christian for policital purposes.
If you believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, then I can presume you are delusional and I don't want you holding office.
There isn't one Christianity. There are those who use the title but do not live as Christ lived or as He taught us to live. Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are very much required if you wish to proclaim oneself as a follower of Christ, or a Christian. Belief without living as Christ gains one nothing. The bible makes that very clear. Don't tell me you are a Christian, show me.
I don't really care what Bachman's views on the Pope are. She isn't claiming to be Catholic or to speak for Catholics. I am not a big fan of hers, but she is seemingly more honest than the so called Catholic politicians in Washington today. There are several I would trade for Bachman right about now.
If you believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, then I can presume you are delusional and I don't want you holding office.
There isn't one Christianity. There are those who use the title but do not live as Christ lived or as He taught us to live. Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are very much required if you wish to proclaim oneself as a follower of Christ, or a Christian. Belief without living as Christ gains one nothing. The bible makes that very clear. Don't tell me you are a Christian, show me.
I don't really care what Bachman's views on the Pope are. She isn't claiming to be Catholic or to speak for Catholics. I am not a big fan of hers, but she is seemingly more honest than the so called Catholic politicians in Washington today. There are several I would trade for Bachman right about now.
7.18.2011 | 4:34pm
Doug King says:
The author states, "even the finer points of a candidate’s theology matter." For a country committed to religious freedom and separation of church and state, that's a pretty outrageous statement. What matters is the candidate's philosophy of government, not his or her relationship with God. The candidate's history of service to others illustrate his or her attitude about the community and country, not professions of creeds or theology.
How can any answer to the author's question -- "whether the pope is really the Antichrist" -- be relevant to the need to create jobs and restore confidence in the economy and the American Dream?
This whole topic of religion -- Bachmann's, Obama's, Romney's, Huntsman's, Pawlenty's, Perry's, whoever -- it utter irrelevant to the Presidential race. When the stakes are as high such as this election, any red herring is harmful.
How can any answer to the author's question -- "whether the pope is really the Antichrist" -- be relevant to the need to create jobs and restore confidence in the economy and the American Dream?
This whole topic of religion -- Bachmann's, Obama's, Romney's, Huntsman's, Pawlenty's, Perry's, whoever -- it utter irrelevant to the Presidential race. When the stakes are as high such as this election, any red herring is harmful.
7.18.2011 | 4:58pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@David Nickol:
"Is a person who holds *any* belief, no matter how offensive to others, immune from the charge of bigotry if their belief is a sincere, well reasoned religious one?"
*****
I agree that this is a very important question that has been overlooked. If bigotry is simply a strong personal belief regarding the virtues or actions of another person or group of people, then just about everyone is a bigot and the word has lost all meaning.
For me, "bigotry" requires more than this. It has, at least, the following three connotations:
1) It applies most appropriately to an animus that goes beyond mere dislike or disapproval and ventures into militant hatred or at least active discrimination. Under this criteria, people who disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds are not necessarily bigots. But by contrast, it is not inaccurate to describe the Westboro baptist church as "bigots" because their personal beliefs have transformed into hateful action;
2) It applies most appropriately to generalizations against a group or class of people such as people of another race, creed or religious persuasion. In this sense, it is odd to be called a bigot because you dislike a single person based on their personal character; and
3) It is applies most appropriately to judgments of qualities that are fixed, or outside of the ability of the person being judged to control. For example, the use of "bigotry" is hardly controversial when it applies to judgments of a person's race, because race is a fixed characteristic by which no person should be judged. On the other hand, "honesty" is not a fixed characteristic - to judge a person for being dishonest would hardly be "bigotry" because we deem their capacity for truthfulness to be within the domain of their personal control. This is one of the reasons that opponents in the gay rights debate so often talk past each other. They are in disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is a sinful activity or an innate natural quality, no more in conflict with God's design than left-handedness or red-headedness.
I don't know if all of these aspects of "bigotry" are essential to its definition, but if the use of the word were a little more constrained by thoughtful reflection on its meaning, it might not get thrown around so much.
Even where it might apply, it's use is hardly ever constructive. It puts people on the defensive, making communication almost impossible. And in a way, calling someone a bigot dehumanizes them, just as a true bigot dehumanizes the object of their bigotry.
Like most dehumanizing epithets, it's actual purpose is to excite rather than to persuade - to abandon conversion in favor of rallying the troops for battle.
"Is a person who holds *any* belief, no matter how offensive to others, immune from the charge of bigotry if their belief is a sincere, well reasoned religious one?"
*****
I agree that this is a very important question that has been overlooked. If bigotry is simply a strong personal belief regarding the virtues or actions of another person or group of people, then just about everyone is a bigot and the word has lost all meaning.
For me, "bigotry" requires more than this. It has, at least, the following three connotations:
1) It applies most appropriately to an animus that goes beyond mere dislike or disapproval and ventures into militant hatred or at least active discrimination. Under this criteria, people who disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds are not necessarily bigots. But by contrast, it is not inaccurate to describe the Westboro baptist church as "bigots" because their personal beliefs have transformed into hateful action;
2) It applies most appropriately to generalizations against a group or class of people such as people of another race, creed or religious persuasion. In this sense, it is odd to be called a bigot because you dislike a single person based on their personal character; and
3) It is applies most appropriately to judgments of qualities that are fixed, or outside of the ability of the person being judged to control. For example, the use of "bigotry" is hardly controversial when it applies to judgments of a person's race, because race is a fixed characteristic by which no person should be judged. On the other hand, "honesty" is not a fixed characteristic - to judge a person for being dishonest would hardly be "bigotry" because we deem their capacity for truthfulness to be within the domain of their personal control. This is one of the reasons that opponents in the gay rights debate so often talk past each other. They are in disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is a sinful activity or an innate natural quality, no more in conflict with God's design than left-handedness or red-headedness.
I don't know if all of these aspects of "bigotry" are essential to its definition, but if the use of the word were a little more constrained by thoughtful reflection on its meaning, it might not get thrown around so much.
Even where it might apply, it's use is hardly ever constructive. It puts people on the defensive, making communication almost impossible. And in a way, calling someone a bigot dehumanizes them, just as a true bigot dehumanizes the object of their bigotry.
Like most dehumanizing epithets, it's actual purpose is to excite rather than to persuade - to abandon conversion in favor of rallying the troops for battle.
7.18.2011 | 6:37pm
Michael Cashman says:
Edward Alleyn says: There is only one Christianity; it comprises all who believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God — all who believe that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
Edward - did you mean "...concerning OTHER doctrines are not required"? Other than the ones you listed in your statement.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
Edward - did you mean "...concerning OTHER doctrines are not required"? Other than the ones you listed in your statement.
7.18.2011 | 7:00pm
Randy says:
About 500 years ago the positions were taken, and I don't think much scholarly effort has gone into reevaluation by either side's clerical leadership since. Maybe by academics, but not for any revision of doctrine. Not on either side. Both sides see heretics. So what else is new? I was a Lutheran for most of my life. I'm now a Catholic. I can't remember the subject even coming up, in either place.
--------------------------------------------------
Excerpt: "We would make known to all the small store that Martin [Luther], his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every patriarch, archbishop, bishop, on the prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, and on the religious of every Order—even the mendicants—privileged or unprivileged, wherever they may be stationed: that in the strength of their vow of obedience and on pain of the sentence of excommunication, they shall, if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. Three days will be given: we pronounce canonical warning and allow one day's notice on the first, another on the second, but on the third peremptory and final execution of our order. This shall take place on a Sunday or some other festival, when a large congregation assembles for worship. The banner of the cross shall be raised, the bells rung, the candles lit and after a time extinguished, cast on the ground and trampled under foot, and the stones shall be cast forth three times, and the other ceremonies observed which are usual in such cases. The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men." (From: Decet Romanum Pontificem: Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521)
--------------------------------------------------
Excerpt: "We would make known to all the small store that Martin [Luther], his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every patriarch, archbishop, bishop, on the prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, and on the religious of every Order—even the mendicants—privileged or unprivileged, wherever they may be stationed: that in the strength of their vow of obedience and on pain of the sentence of excommunication, they shall, if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. Three days will be given: we pronounce canonical warning and allow one day's notice on the first, another on the second, but on the third peremptory and final execution of our order. This shall take place on a Sunday or some other festival, when a large congregation assembles for worship. The banner of the cross shall be raised, the bells rung, the candles lit and after a time extinguished, cast on the ground and trampled under foot, and the stones shall be cast forth three times, and the other ceremonies observed which are usual in such cases. The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men." (From: Decet Romanum Pontificem: Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521)
7.18.2011 | 7:41pm
A.M. says:
Surprsied to find the wording in the article about ' the small question of whether the Pope is ..'
While it is good to read clarifications of what is meant , it has to be a serious, pitiful error , on the side of those who hold onto such ; the foundation of the relationship , the focus of the belief and the motovation for what we do - seems those are all points in common with the basic tenets of faith and practice of the Catholic Church also ; Church does her apponied role , through St.Peter, of tending and feeding the lambs and the sheep, , in the best manner revealed and inspired through The Spirit , on how so , to develop, sustain, be brought back when errant in that relationship , belief and motivation ; gives guildelines as to what measures can tell one , if one has damaged or lost the focus and relationship.
It will be not quite in accordance to our faith to think that some of these matters of faith has no relevance in how the country might do under a certain leader ; history and The Word gives us enough examples to help us to know otherwise !
Recognising the extent of how much grace and mercy we are in need of , the whole world is in need of , pleading for and offering gratitude for same , in the most pleasing manner to The Father and the adoration He is due - such is what The Church is about .
Too bad that the passion of the period blinded a son of The Church , to make many turn against Her , which is against Her Lord as well !
While it is good to read clarifications of what is meant , it has to be a serious, pitiful error , on the side of those who hold onto such ; the foundation of the relationship , the focus of the belief and the motovation for what we do - seems those are all points in common with the basic tenets of faith and practice of the Catholic Church also ; Church does her apponied role , through St.Peter, of tending and feeding the lambs and the sheep, , in the best manner revealed and inspired through The Spirit , on how so , to develop, sustain, be brought back when errant in that relationship , belief and motivation ; gives guildelines as to what measures can tell one , if one has damaged or lost the focus and relationship.
It will be not quite in accordance to our faith to think that some of these matters of faith has no relevance in how the country might do under a certain leader ; history and The Word gives us enough examples to help us to know otherwise !
Recognising the extent of how much grace and mercy we are in need of , the whole world is in need of , pleading for and offering gratitude for same , in the most pleasing manner to The Father and the adoration He is due - such is what The Church is about .
Too bad that the passion of the period blinded a son of The Church , to make many turn against Her , which is against Her Lord as well !
7.18.2011 | 9:44pm
Mary says:
I'm not nearly so concerned about Michele Bachmann's views on the Pope and Catholicism as I am with her statements regarding Israel. I believe she said that he U.S. will fall under God's curse if we don't stand with or defend Israel.
Bachmann apparently is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Premillenial Dispensationalist. I find her views to be heresy, and she is locked in the Old Testament, believing that Christ did not fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Should she be elected President, her foreign policy in the Middle East would be very dangerous for the U.S.
People need to explore Premillenial Dispensationalism and learn what it is really all about. Many of the GOP candidates subscribe to this heresy.
Bachmann apparently is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Premillenial Dispensationalist. I find her views to be heresy, and she is locked in the Old Testament, believing that Christ did not fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. Should she be elected President, her foreign policy in the Middle East would be very dangerous for the U.S.
People need to explore Premillenial Dispensationalism and learn what it is really all about. Many of the GOP candidates subscribe to this heresy.
7.19.2011 | 12:49pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Edward Alleyn says: There is only one Christianity; it comprises all who believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God — all who believe that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
Michael Cashman asks:
Edward - did you mean "...concerning OTHER doctrines are not required"? Other than the ones you listed in your statement.
I mean that obviously Catholics follow their doctrines, and Lutherans follow theirs: Still, all who believe that Christ was the Son of God and the only way to the Father are Christians. I would not say that Christ laid out doctrines.
Unanimity and conformity concerning doctrines are not required.
Michael Cashman asks:
Edward - did you mean "...concerning OTHER doctrines are not required"? Other than the ones you listed in your statement.
I mean that obviously Catholics follow their doctrines, and Lutherans follow theirs: Still, all who believe that Christ was the Son of God and the only way to the Father are Christians. I would not say that Christ laid out doctrines.
7.19.2011 | 7:40pm
Sarah Triplett says:
Before anyone gets too upset about what Bachmann's church said at some time in the past, had John Paul 2 not died, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Roman Catholic Church would probably have interchangeable communion rights like the Anglican Church and the RCC. The RCC had de-excommunicated Martin Luther in 1998 and the two churches had agreed on a joint statement on salvation by faith in 1999. The two churches were almost there on recognizing each other.
But, Benedict pulled out of the talks almost as soon as he was installed because the ELCA ordaines women.
But, Benedict pulled out of the talks almost as soon as he was installed because the ELCA ordaines women.
7.19.2011 | 11:00pm
David Mills says:
I'm afraid Sarah Triplett is quite wrong about this. The Catholic Church doesn't have "interchangeable communion rights" with the Anglican churches and would not have had them with any Lutheran body. From the Catholic point of view, as *Dominus Iesus*, a statement published with John Paul II's approval and authority and written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, made clear, this is not a case of two churches recognizing each other, because the Lutheran bodies are not churches as the Catholic Church understands the Church.
But you are spot on. She needs to articulate her own views, not those of an illogical and misinformed ecclesiastical conclave.