Bachmann Is Not Anti-Catholic, But Salon Is Anti-Bachmann
Posted By Lisa Graas on June 4, 2011
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
At Renew America, Matt Abbott defends Michele Bachmann against a charge from Alex Pareene (See McCainipedia entry for Alex Pareene) that she must be anti-Catholic because she’s a Lutheran.
That’s like saying Joe Biden must be pro-life because he’s Catholic…and we all know how wrong that is. Where are the articles at Salon going after Joe Biden (and Nancy Pelosi, etc.) for his “pro-life” positions? Funny.
Matt writes from the perspective of an examination of Michele Bachmann’s own actions, but does Bachmann’s church really think the Pope is the anti-Christ? Lets’ take a look.
Their website has a Frequently Asked Questions section that includes an explanation about what they view to be the difference between Catholics and Lutherans. I’m not seeing anything there about the Anti-Christ, however, a book by John Brug is recommended. I could not find the text of the book online but did find some other things online about John Brug’s view of the papacy. He does claim that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
Here’s a specific reference (.pdf).
When we discuss the doctrine of the Antichrist, we usually focus our attention on an exegesis of 2Thessalonians 2 and on the explicit confession of the Smalcald Articles that the Pope is the true Antichrist. This is appropriate since these two texts are respectively the most important scriptural testimony to this doctrine and, for us Lutherans, the most important church confession of this doctrine.
The Smalcald Articles is basically the doctrine of Martin Luther. Luther claimed that the Pope is the Anti-Christ based on 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
“…who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God[c] in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
I answer to Lutherans of all stripes…the “man of sin” who is the Anti-Christ has not yet been revealed. It says in the previous verse:
“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,…”
We don’t know yet who the Anti-Christ is. Since we don’t know yet…it can’t be the Pope. The popes have been doing what they do since the time of Christ…notably in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council…and since St. Paul said “the Anti-Christ has not yet been revealed”…well, do the math, Lutherans.
That’s not to mention the fact that no faithful Catholic would ever offer sacrifice to the Pope, the Church does not teach that we should offer sacrifice to the Pope, and the Pope would himself be horrified if anyone offered sacrifice to him…which is how we Catholics would define the worship that is due only to God. We offer sacrifice only to God; no one else.
But…does Michele Bachmann understand that Martin Luther professed (and her synod professes) as doctrine that the Pope is the Anti-Christ? Apparently not. Here’s the quote from Bachmann that Pareene links to…without giving her any credit for the substance of what she actually said.
Pat Kessler of WCCO: We’ll start with Senator Bachmann. Religion and politics that has crept into this campaign over and over again. The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune reports today, Senator, that the church you belong to is affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which, it says, regards the Roman Catholic pope as the Anti-Christ. Is this true, do you share the views of your church, and why should any Catholic in the Sixth District vote for you if it is true?
Bachmann: Well that’s a false statement that was made, and I spoke with my pastor earlier today about that as well, and he was absolutely appalled that someone would put that out. It’s abhorrent, it’s religious bigotry. I love Catholics, I’m a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that’s absolutely false.
Apparently, the particular congregation that Bachmann is a member of does not, at least, hold to that belief. It’s noteworthy that she indicates that she was upset enough about it upon hearing it that she went to her pastor about it and was relieved to be told that it is not the case, at least in her particular congregation. This, then, is no more than an attempt to falsely accuse Michele Bachmann of being an anti-Catholic when she is no such thing, and it is clearly done for political reasons.
This is the challenge that Christians running for office have faced for many years and will face in the upcoming campaign cycle. It is a “divide and conquer” mentality. It makes no more sense to accuse Michele Bachmann of being John Brug than it would to accuse Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of being Osama bin Laden.
It seems more than fair to ask whether Michele Bachmann is anti-Catholic, and whether, should she be elected president, she’d purposefully sabotage a Middle East peace deal in order to bring about the Second Coming.
I think it seems more than fair to ask Pareene if this unfair attack means that Salon is now simply paying people to smear conservatives. This “Bachmann/anti-Christ” nonsense is not a “connection” to anything substantial. For something meaty, check out the profile at Discover the Networks on Salon Founder David Talbot.
I’m supporting Rick Santorum for President, but this is a case wherein Catholics need to defend Michele Bachmann…and I’m happy to do it.
Thanks to Peace of Work in Progress for linking back: San Francisco’s Intactivist Anti-Semitism
About the author
[...] The only other thing in the news that I can find that approaches that level of dumb–including elaborate theories in defense of Weiner–is Alex Pareene’s argument that Michele Bachmann must be anti-Catholic because she’s Luther…. [...]
[...] Pareene, last seen accusing Michele Bachmann of being anti-Catholic on the basis of her being Lutheran, plays Monday Morning Quarterback for Anthony [...]