Mollie Hemingway, our favorite Lutheran journalist, over at GetReligion has alerted readers to a Lutheran slur against Michele Bachmann (who grew up in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod — who knew? — which is a communion to the right of the Missouri Synod). Mollie herself does not think much of Lutheran theology stuck with Michele:
I’m a confessional Lutheran. Ostensibly, Michele Bachmann was a member of a more conservative but also confessional Lutheran church body. And for years, whenever I heard her speak, she never sounded even mildly Lutheran to me. The “the Lord put it on my heart” type language. The “the Lord anointed me” stuff. This is not how Lutherans speak, although I won’t bore you with all of the why. Her other affiliations have always been more evangelical than Lutheran, going back decades.
But the point of Mollie’s piece is a story in The Atlantic which attempts to make Bachmann look bad because of her former church’s teaching (chances are the reporter could not find a confession or creed from Bachmann’s current church):
Michele Bachmann is practically synonymous with political controversy, and if the 2008 presidential election is any guide, the conservative Lutheran church she belonged to for many years is likely to add another chapter due to the nature of its beliefs—such as its assertion, explained and footnoted on this website, that the Roman Catholic Pope is the Antichrist.
Mollie responds:
Now, as anyone who knows anything about church history can tell you, the papacy is not a feature of Protestantism. And if you followed the Reformation or knew anything about the abuses of Pope Leo X or the anathemas of the Council of Trent, it’s not really newsworthy that the reformers looked at what Scripture says are the marks of the anti-Christ and basically said “yep — the papacy has those.” What makes the church to which Michele Bachman was once joined slightly different is that while most Lutheran church bodies will talk about the historical context into which they were made, the Wisconsin Synod says that basically they’re still Protestants who still don’t believe in the papacy and still think it sits in opposition to the Gospel of Christ.
And, again, if you don’t know that Catholics and Protestants have very strongly held different views on whether the papacy is on the whole a really good or really bad institution, you should repeat 8th grade or whatever.
The irony, of course, is that if the reporter had studied Lutheran theology further, he would have discovered a doctrine of the kingdoms what would allow a political candidate to affirm that the pope is the anti-Christ and also promise to serve Roman Catholic citizens according to the laws of the United States. In fact, there is a better chance that Bachmann’s studies with Francis Schaeffer, not the teaching of WELS, make her less flexible in negotiating the the claims of Christ’s lordship over greatest nation on God’s green earth.
Old Life 
DGH says: “The irony, of course, is that if the reporter had studied Lutheran theology further, he would have discovered a doctrine of the kingdoms what would allow a political candidate to affirm that the pope is the anti-Christ and also promise to serve Roman Catholic citizens according to the laws of the United States. In fact, there is a better chance that Bachmann’s studies with Francis Schaeffer, not the teaching of WELS, make her less flexible in negotiating the the claims of Christ’s lordship over greatest nation on God’s green earth.”
Love it.
LikeLike
Bachman update: On Sunday morning she gave her testimony at an Assembly of God church in Iowa.
Francis Schaeffer…there’s a blast from the past. I don’t know how he got away with omitting “I got all this from Herman Dooyeweerd” when he did the history of philosophy. I suppose he was trying to reach a broad audience, but still…
LikeLike
I wonder if Bill Mahar will suggest that Bachmann is unfit for political office due to her religious beliefs and practices the way he did of Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign. I also wonder if religious theonomists and secular fundamentalists ever realize that their shared enemy in 2k makes their own political existence possible.
LikeLike
As a Mpls/St. Paul Evangelical, I am saddened and weary of seeing the great energy that Evangelicals pour into “taking back” the fictional Christian nation that we were. If only they’d channel all that money and energy into building the kingdom that will live forever.
LikeLike
I actually believe those evangelicals insist on candidates that muddle the kingdoms. Really, I think they are extremely suspect of any candidate that refuses to muddle them. The evangelicals in Iowa have given great head starts to both Pat Robertson and Mike Huckaby in the past. As the field stands right now, I am predicting a second-place finish for Bachmann in Iowa.
LikeLike
Actually, Zrim, you’re an evangelical aren’t you? Then perhaps you can tell us why you folks were so enthused about the candidacy of Pat Robertson. Or maybe Rev. Strange can tell us. Rev. Willour? One of you should be able to tell us why you voted that way.
[The above combines this thread and the “Why Do Reformed Think They Are Evangelical?” thread.]
LikeLike
It is also ironic that the papacy was rejected in part because of its explicit confusion of the kingdoms, i.e., the pope Bachmann’s old church rejected claimed to have Lordship over all politics. I.e., Bachmann’s church has a view of church and state far more in line with The Atlantic than the pope ever has had, and definitely more than the Popes of the Reformation.
LikeLike
Hardy-har-har, Mike. But I voted the way I did because the Lord just really laid on my heart that the gays would take over the world if I didn’t vote for his annointed one. Plus, my Magic 8-ball told me to.
LikeLike
No wonder Schaeffer was confused about the Two Kingdoms- he was drawing most of his philosophical thought from Dooyeweerd. I don’t know how anyone would not end up confused if they spent too much time with Dooyeweerd, VanTil and Barth. I got confused just reading those sections in VanDrunen’s book. I also found myself scratching my head alot when I tried to read books by them, along with Wolterstorf and Platinga. Machen and Hart make much more sense to me. Perhaps IQ’s get raised with glorification- maybe the philosophers and neo-Cals will make more sense in the next life. I am not trying to raise the ire of the philosphers and logicians. I am still trying to figure out if it is worth the mental effort it takes to understand these guys this side of eternity. I have my doubts and sense that my mental efforts should be placed elsewhere- like understanding the scriptures, theology and the confessions better.
I know Darryl spent some time at L’Bri- I wonder what that was like?
LikeLike
My mental efforts are being exhausted trying to figure out how to operate and set up the 30 CNC machines I have to learn in the next 3 months. Tackling the major philosophical problems of life seems a bit unrealistic to me at this point. At 53 I think it’s too late for me.
LikeLike
BTW, here is a good explanation of why Lutherans think the Pope is the Anti-Christ!!
http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html
LikeLike
Spot on DGH. The Reformers had the two kingdom thing done pretty well. Pointing out the buffet approach that too many utilize in criticizing theological positions of others is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Nice aim. A whole lot of ironies out there. Thanks again for highlighting them.
Jack
LikeLike
spelling correction… done should be down.
Don’t you wish one could edit their posts?… 😉
LikeLike
In Iowa, a group called the Family Leader is demanding that GOP candidates sign a vow that includes the following:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
• Personal fidelity to my spouse.9
• Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13
• Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14
• Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15
• Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16
• Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18
• Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20
The Vow of Civic, Religious, Lay, Business, and Social Leaders:
We the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* that no U.S. Presidential primary candidate – nor any primary candidate for the U. S. House, Senate, Governor, state or municipal office – will, in his or her public capacity, benefit from any substantial form of aid, support, endorsement, contribution, independent expenditure, or affirmation from any of us without first affirming this Marriage Vow. Furthermore, to uphold and advance the natural Institution of Marriage, we ourselves also hereby vow* our own fidelity to this Declaration and especially, to our spouses.
__________
I don’t see much appreciation for the nature of vows – solemn, unto the almighty God, therefore to be taken rarely and for sober reasons. As you can see, the candidates are being asked to vow loyalty to their spouses (as if a vow to Family Leader is more weighty than the previous marriage vow), to recognize that married people have better sex, to affirm that children born of intact families have fewer legal problems, to support federal laws on marriage, and to affirm that robust childbearing is good for our economy. And, of course, any candidate who doesn’t quickly sign this will be impugned as an anti-family RINO.
Folks, here is the evangelical influence on our next presidential election. “Sloppy” would be too kind a word to describe what is happening here.
LikeLike
…Bachmann signed it.
LikeLike
But, Michael, my Christian Ouji board is giving me a word of knowledge that this is exactly what the institution of the family needs. It’s simply insufficient that heaven ordained the home to be the cornerstone of society; it needs legislation to really make things work right and make sure the gays don’t eat all our firstborns.
Was that too snarky? It felt a little too snarky.
LikeLike
Zrim, when a group uses the name of God in vows to manipulate others into taking unwise or unlawful vows for the goal of political conquest, snark is too kind.
So, snark on.
LikeLike
MM, there goes my vote.
LikeLike
I wonder if Bachmann considers her marriage to be complementarian. If she is and holds to 1K would this make her husband the de facto president? Perhaps she’ll need to ask the question WWJFKD?.
LikeLike
FYI, MB won Iowa’s “straw poll.” Her tent featured Randy Travis. Ron Paul was a close second, just 150 votes behind; his excellent barbecued ribs helped tighten up the race. Some people visited Pawlenty’s sparsely populated tent out of mere midwestern compassion. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin showed up at the state fair over in the livestock area (there’s no joke there, just a fact), but she did so merely because she has been invited to the state fair, and finally had a chance to do it.
LikeLike