« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Bachmann fails my religious test

By: Reg (Diary)  |  July 10th, 2011 at 06:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t apply a religious test to politicians, as I think folks of any religion can be good and effective leaders. Except, I do watch to see how willing a politician is to defend what should be his or her most sacred principles. If a politician will throw his or her religion to the scrap heap to appeal to voters, that’s how I expect the politician to treat the other principles the politician supposedly espouses.

So, when I heard that Michelle Bachman quit her church because she got flak over a teaching she didn’t understand, I investigated. Apparently, her church holds to the position that the papacy has the marks of the anti-christ. Apparently, Bachman doesn’t want to alienate Catholics, so she quit her church. Upon investigation, the charge is true, sort of, but the explanation for it is wrapped in historical documents and theological distinctions. The claim is about as fair to Lutheranism as asking a Catholic how they can belong to a church that damns all protestants. (look up council of Trent and “anathema”.) Further, well over 3 million Lutherans belong to churches that hold to the same position (WELS, Bachman’s former church, ELS, LCMS, and other smaller Lutheran bodies.) Rather than just refuse to discuss her religion, or say she hasn’t fully investigated or considered every doctrinal position taken by her church, or learn the position of the church and reasons for it so she can offer a reasonable explanation, she cut and ran from the religion she was raised in. I have yet to find any explanation from her about what church she belongs to. That fails my religion test, and really, it should be seen as a slap in the face for all Lutherans that believe their church’s teachings. If she’s willing to bail on her church over a few out-of-context sound bites, I won’t put any faith in her when dealing with Senate democrats to reform social security, or when dealing with bank lobbyists over bailout funds.

Here are the websites I looked at to investigate the Lutheran church’s views on the anti-christ, so you see where I’m getting my information:

http://issuesetc.org/tag/antichrist/

http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2011/07/what_church_does_bachmann_attend.html

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=ANTICHRIST

http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/antichrist?page=0,0

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that you have not made your case. I do think that Rev Jeremiah Wright has been a steadfast defender of his faith for many years.

    • rbdwiggins

      that any politician must pass is straight forward and non-negotiable…

      Subscribe to the Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of the US Constitution and Western Civilization.

      Your “concern” is duly noted and given the appropriate weight it deserves.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        comes to electing reps and leaders. I would vote for an atheist who shares those values over a Bible Believing liberal everytime.

        • rbdwiggins

          you’re not talking about the King James version. I have yet to find where it mandates that Christians must subscribe to wealth redistribution and social justice.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            in this context, by Bible-Beleiving, I mainly mean those liberals that beleive in Christ as savior and Lord, the Resurrection, etc. One is not required to be a theologian to become a child of God in eternity.

            see here re earlier reference

            http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/07/09/2094/

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I posted the response below before I saw your clarification of Bible-believing. I agree.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            of the liberals in the liberal denominations have created a new religion via the social gospel in which politics is their religion. God is merely a tool.

          • rightwingmom52

            I totally agree with your last sentence. However, I do believe that repentance of one’s sins, among other things, is absolutely required, and so far, I’m not seeing any liberals repent of their support of the shedding of innocent blood and other things God hates.

        • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

          I have yet to meet a liberal who also believed in the Bible. I have met plenty of liberals who selectively edit and quote the Bible. I have met liberals who have even recreated Jesus and God in their own image. I have met liberals who treat the Bible like a buffet where they can pick and choose their doctrine. Yet, I have not met a liberal who believed the entire Bible and used it as their foundation for life.

          Values come from a person’s view of the world and humanity. A Biblical view of the world and humanity dictate certain values. A non-Biblical view of the world and humanity dictate other values.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            misguided, useful idiots, not very smart etc…But I would agree that most activist liberals are as you say. But the Bible’s main purpose and message is about salvation, and certainly one can make a sincere commitment to Christ as Lord and have faith in God as Creator and Christ as resurrected and still be misguided in politics.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            My thoughts were on the activist liberals and not the traditional democrats you pointed out. I can even think of several people now who fit your exact description.

            I bow to your correction.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            since age 13, but was also a Democrat until age 38, so I can empathize and I also let them have it with both barrels re politics.

    • Reg

      Bachmann hasn’t told anybody she quit her church or why.

      To go from conservative Lutheran to generic baptist church suggests a change in beliefs.

  • Uma Richie

    He kept his backside parked in his church pew no matter how much craziness Rev. Wright spewed.

    I went through your links and found a mere suggestion that Rep. Bachmann left a particular congregation in conjunction with changing her primary residence. Concluding that she dissociated from her church over doctrinal matters requires a HUGE leap in logic.

    You may stop furrowing your eyebrows with concern now.

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      Neither your article nor the article you site on Mrs. Bachmann prove your main point. There is a lot of assumption and your contention that Mrs. Bachmann jettisoned her doctrinal standards for votes is a bridge too far.

      In the spirit of full disclosure, my vote does hinge on a religious test.

      • gunslingr45

        In the spirit of full disclosure, my vote does hinge on a religious test, rather some good old common sense. What she is or is not doing in church does not matter one iota. Or that Reg can’t make up his mind on making a test or not for that matter.

        If ignorance is bliss, liberal/socialist must be euphoric! I said that.

    • ragstoriches

      as well, that there is no stated reason why Bachmann stopped attending the WELS church.

      Would it bother me if she had, indeed, left the church over such an issue? Yes. But there is no proof she has done so.

      Her refusal to self-identify as a WELS and “witness”, as it were, is a source of sorrow, but I do understand the difficulties of a politician attempting to explain any doctrine in under 30 seconds to people who are hear the name “Luther” and are more likely to free associate with Dr King than the founder of the Reformation. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” My house is glass, I will not throw stones.

      By the way, I found the blog post describing WELS as “unreconstructed” amusing. If that’s code for “consistent and constant in doctrine and unswayed by the arguments of mere mortals against God’s unchanging Word” then as a WELS member, I must remember to say thank you. But I sense it was some kind of veiled insult by the author. I’ll continue to cling, nonetheless.

  • gekster

    Is quickly followed by a diary that applies a religeous test to a politicion.
    Why don’t you tell us what it is about Bachmann that you are afraid of, or don’t like, insted of posting this garbage.
    And as a side note, people in this country are allowed to believe or to not believe as they see fit, because here we have freedom of or from religeon.

    • Reg

      which, presumably, religous beliefs are.

      When Kos attacks her for her budget, will she cut and run just like she ran from her church when Kos made up some BS about that?

      • Gandalf

        Her core value is that Scripture comes over traditions of man, as any Protestant’s core value SHOULD be. She found a fairly significant difference with her church and left. It’s pretty gutsy to leave a church you’ve attended your entire life based on personal convictions.

        I’d say that, if anything, this only shows us that Bachmann does stand by her core commitments. She’s courageous enough to disagree with her church and take the appropriate follow-up action. She’s courageous enough to disagree with Democrats in Congress and the media. I’d wager that she’s even courageous enough to disagree with Republicans in Congress when they aren’t agreeing with her core values as well.

        Ok, you’ve convinced me. This is a pretty dedicated and courageous woman. I’m not all in for her, but you’ve removed any doubt in my mind that she would violate her core values for political or social reasons.

    • blooch

      I’ll take “Conservative Women Who Run Away” for $500, Alex.

      • gekster

        His first words in the article,
        “I don

        • blooch

          What is the main complaint that you hear about Sarah Palin? She’s a quitter. When the going got tough, she ran away, and that may have mortally wounded her politically on the right and among independents. The Left has seen the power of the “Quitter” label, and don’t doubt for a minute that they wouldn’t try to drum up a “quitter” story on another conservative woman.

          We already know that the Left has a morbid interest in church habits on the Right:

          “Although Palin no longer regularly attends the Wasillia Assembly of God church she was a member for nearly 25 years according to an artilce in Daily Kos and was present at a service as recently as June 8 this year as a speaker for the graduation of the contoversial Master’s Commission program at the Wasilla Assembly of God…”

          and if the doctrinal stuff gets arcane and boring to them, they usally come back around to secular ethics or church & state separation:

          “…The visit itself drew fire from Anchorage Daily News which claimed that Governor Plain had paid for the journey to her old church using state funds.”

          http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sarah-palin-church-controversy

          The church stuff didn’t succeed by itself in Palin’s apparent undoing, but the Left sees that its incessant hounding was a large part of her decision to quit as governor.

          “The initial boost to the McCain compaign that Sarah Palin offered, especially amongst female voter could backfire for the Republicans in November as more and more details of Palin’s past come out, gleefully pounced upon by a media deeply angered by the McCain’s attempts to control access to the vice presidential candidate…”

          Notice how nobody cared in 2008 that Palin had quit her church, only that she had ever even been there.

          Now the Left is back dabbling in obscure church doctrine, and they come up with a twofer: “Weird Church Lady” and “Quitter”. This is the first I have heard of this “story”, but you can bet that if the MSM gives it legs, they’ll get bored with the doctrinal stuff quickly and go back to the Secular Ethics, especially as it relates to her trustworthiness as a Known Quitter. Because that’s the silver bullet here.

  • Gandalf

    More ignorance from people who simply don’t understand Protestant history or modern Evangelicals.

    We don’t believe in one denomination. We are more than happy to jettison a denomination that holds beliefs with which we disagree. That was the entire point of the Reformation. Assuming your point is even true (which is far from proved), kudos to Bachmann for leaving her church when she realized it was teaching something with which she couldn’t agree.

    The point of the Reformation, and the point of modern Evangelical thought, is that our authority and source of doctrine and theology is Holy Scripture, not some edict, confession, or statement written by mortal man, no matter how wise or godly they may have been. When those statements go against Scripture, we are obliged to disagree and, when necessary, part company with the issuer.

    So the basic premise of your article is that Bachmann has shown that she has no religious commitment or values because she followed the most basic and highest of Protestant commitments and values.

    Sheer ignorance.

    • rightwingmom52

      .

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      Well stated.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      It’s cool. Just because the author of this piece apparently wouldn’t recognize the concept if it mugged him in an alley doesn’t mean that the average reader here is in the same boat… :)

      • Gandalf

        …confuse the poor guy any more than he already is. ;)

    • Reg

      and the Lutheran confessions are the Lutheran church’s explanation for why the Roman church, along with the Anabaptists and Zwinglians, teach contrary to Scripture. Calvin and Zwingli were humanists who elevated human reason over Scripture and unbroken Christian practice.

      And half right. Bachmann abandoned her church, quietly and secretely, after stupid criticism from Kos, rather than learn and defend her position, or openly change her position.

      • Doc Holliday

        .

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Your claim about Bachmann is still unproven. You have yet to demonstrate any of the assumptions you made in your original post or this one.

        Your claims about the Reformation are ahistorical. I suggest your read your history. Not to refight the reformation but if you want to prove your point you need to provide evidence not talking points.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Markos Moulitsas, in my professional opinion, has about as much influence on conservatism as *I* do on the price of wheat futures. He and his site exist solely to hoover up campaign contributions from profoundly naive idiots and dupes on behalf of the Democratic establishment, which would be the group that he finally sold out to in, oh, 2005 or so. And that’s why I – and the rest of the VRWC – conducted an extremely successful election cycle in 2010 without having to worry overmuch about what that site did or did not do: his presence was irrelevant*, because by now Kos is just punching a time card.

        I’m a Pawlenty guy, myself – but I’d be shocked (and a little disapproving of the waste) if Congresswoman Bachmann actually ever cared enough to learn the proper spelling of Kos’ full name.

        Moe Lane

        *No, I have no intention of saying which Lefty’s presence was relevant.

      • Gandalf

        I’ve never heard your version of the Reformation before, but others have challenged that already.

        Sola Scriptura was one of the few doctrines that all Protestants agreed on at the breaking of the Reformation. From Anglicanism to Germanic Lutheranism to French/Swiss Reformed and back again to German Anabaptists and Dutch Arminians, EVERYONE believed that Scripture was the highest authority over and above ANY written confession or creed. They differed on the interpretation, but they all agreed that the Church should be left when it leaves Scriptural teaching. They did just that. And Evangelicals have been doing it to those new Protestant churches ever since as well.

        Even if your assertions are correct about Bachmann (they are still unproven), who originally brought the issue of difference between Backmann and her church to the fore is ENTIRELY irrelevant. Bachmann discovered her church believed something with which she couldn’t agree based on her interpretation of Scripture. She left the church over doctrinal issues. End of story. Bachmann’s highest commitment, as a Protestant and as an Evangelical, is to Scripture, not some church she grew up in.

        That said, there is a right way and a wrong way to leave a church. Loudly, screaming one’s differences and yelling it from the rooftops, as you seem to be implying she should have done, is immoral and, frankly, uncouth. Even if one disagrees with theological interpretations on specific issues. And as a well-known politician, she has even MORE reason to leave quietly. Any public critiques of her old church would surely have brought more public criticism and problems, possibly causing a church split.

        Can you imagine the field day you would be having with her had she done exactly what you’re proposing? “How dare she rip a community church apart because of her disagreement on a fairly minor theological point! She’ll rip our country apart just like she caused her church to split! Blah blah blah blah blah blah”

        I see no justification for Bachmann openly discussing her decision to leave her church. It’s no one’s business but her, her family, and her God (and ,possibly, her new pastor).

        Get your freakin’ nose out of it and critique her on something worth critiquing her on, like her record or public statements.

        • gekster

          He says the same thing as I, but much better.

          • blooch

            because, in the end, the theology is just a vehicle to get them to the “Quitter”angle. Their fundamental ignorance about evangelicals will probably just delay the realization that their vehicle is a clown car.

            We’re laughing at you Reg. You and the other 49 can come piling out, now.

          • Gandalf

            They are going to find SOMETHING about her, and any conservative, that would supposedly remove them from the ability, in their opinions, to lead our country. We need to be able to figure out if what they’re saying is legitimate in the eyes of the average voter. In this specific situation, since most have left a church at one point or another, I doubt this is an issue for anyone besides Reg, a handful of extreme fundamentalists who wouldn’t vote for because she’s a woman anyway, and the entire liberal wing of our country who wouldn’t vote for her because she wears a skirt and has an R after her name.

          • rightwingmom52

            I submit that God himself tells us that the divine scripture is complete and is all we need. “Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    You’ve just born false-witness.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Haters

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      When Hatred-Powered Howard quit his church over a bleepin’ bike path.

  • Bill S

    Well, isn’t that special?

    Did she fail the Constitution’s religious test?

    Oh, wait. There isn’t one.

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

  • Ned Reck

    If that’s the case… maybe she shoulda took that test down in Atlanta…

    Ya see… sometimes it’s not the test that makes the difference…

    It’s who gives it.

    Ned Reck

    • rbdwiggins

      It’s who rigs the outcome…

  • wilgolden

    The “no establishment” clause would seem to indicate that if you see something in one religion that seems to be at odds with your understanding of the Almighty, you are free to find one more to your liking.