In Mollie Hemingway's article, More breaking news from 1537!, she begins by humorously relating a story regarding her congregation's ongoing catechesis, in one instance focusing on the confessional Lutheran teaching regarding the papacy and the "anti-Christ". She concludes:
"It was an informative Bible class, as they always are, and definitely the first I’ve ever been to that was solely devoted to the topic of our views on the papacy. Our pastor joked that if any of us planned to run for office, we should leave so we could still claim we’d never heard about our teaching."
Consider the bolded section, above. Did Michele Bachmann leave the room when this aspect of our confession was taught during her "Bible Information Class" – or was she really taught this at all? Consider Michele Bachmann herself. Being relatively local, I've met her on a number of occasions, both prior to her entrance into politics as a Minnesota State Senator and afterward. I recall several years ago watching the news clip where Mrs. Bachmann was initially challenged by a journalistic shill, who was quite transparently attempting to divide the conservative Catholic vote away from her by pointing out that her church confesses "the pope is the 'anti-Christ'". Her false response was something to the effect, "Oh, that's ridiculous and untrue." Although her response at the time drew shocked criticism by properly catechized WELS Lutherans, I have never really been too critical of Michele Bachman's response. Why? First, whether one agrees with her principles or not, she is, in fact, an ideologue and person of principle. No one can argue with this, as her public performance demonstrates this fact. She defends what she believes is true, even if it is unpopular. If she fully knew of her church's confession, she also knew that joining our fellowship meant that she adopted that confession as her own, and she would have defended it. Second, having met her, knowing others who knew her, and knowing a little of the situation at her congregation at the time she made these remarks, I know that it was very likely she did not know that this was the confession she made when joining our fellowship. How is it, do you suppose, that she might not know about this aspect of our Lutheran confession?
Many WELS congregations follow the procedure of catechizing prospects before receiving them into membership, so that both they and we can be confident that they understand the teachings of Scripture and are united with us in our confession. If standard Synod materials are used, this process usually takes around six months of weekly classes, where the prospect(s) and the pastor go through every teaching of the the Bible – including the politically unpopular ones, like teachings regarding creation, abortion, roles of men and women, divorce and remarriage, scouting, lodges and the anti-Christ (including our end-times teaching of amillenialism). Sometimes, depending on how many and what types of questions a prospect may have, this process of adult catechism can take much longer. I am aware of cases in my own congregation where it has taken up to 18 months. Following such a course, the prospect has every foundation for declaring, "Yes, I agree with your church's teaching, and wish to be counted among you," or "No, I do not agree with your teaching, and wish to remain separated from it and from those who confess it." Likewise, the congregation has every foundation to confidently receive a prospect who consequently wishes to unite with them under its confession.
So the question is, "Did Michele Bachmann go through such a 'Bible Information Class' (adult catechism) when she joined WELS?" Answer: probably not. This much is clear not only from her response, but from her subsequent support of Israel on theological grounds, i.e., because of its popularly regarded "millenial significance" (which is false doctrine according to us Lutherans: our eyes are not fixed upon the earthly city of Jerusalem, but upon Jerusalem which is of above [Ga. 4:21-31; He. 12:22-24], the same Jerusalem which shall descend from the clouds on the last day [Re. 3:11-13; 21:1-13] – the Church, "our mother" as Galatians puts it, or the "Bride of Christ"), and from her use of heterodox pulpits to campaign for office.
More than this, it seems to be the growing fashion to think of doctrine and catechesis as an impediment to "church growth." The objective in greater Evangelicalism has shifted to secure a basic confession of faith before receiving prospects into fellowship, and then to assimilate the new member as quickly as possible through various social programs and other techniques of ingratiating the new member to the congregation through positive relationships. And this necessarily is the thinking absorbed by Lutheran congregations which adopt the methods of the "Church Growth Movement." According to the principles of this Movement, rather than the convictions of conscience, the member's attachment to his new congregation must essentially be social. Instead of a "Bible Information Class" wherein all the teachings of Scripture are taught before a prospect decides to unite with us, it is more efficient to introduce a group of prospects to the congregation, its programs and culture, along with a basic explanation of its teachings and practice, by inviting them to a "membership orientation" event, after which, if they decide they want to join the congregation, they are received on a following Sunday. What about catechesis?, one may ask. How can six months of instruction be condensed into an afternoon? Well, it isn't condensed. It just isn't offered – the idea is that "They'll learn the Lutheran stuff as they become involved in the congregation."
In the case of Michele Bachmann, I don't know specifically if this is the process by which she was brought into membership, and I don't know if this is the process employed today by her former congregation. I do know from firsthand experience, however, that for the greater part of last decade, this sort of practice was employed by her former congregation, as I had to deal with some of its fallout in my role as a leader of my own congregation. The broader and more significant point, however, has little to do with what this congregation did or does now, but with what all Christian congregations ought to do both before and subsequent to receiving individuals into membership: properly catechize them. After all, even if Christians in our society continue in their growing failure to admit that church membership equals public confession, and even if they continue to think that theology is ultimately just a matter of the heart and of personal opinion (all of which is true in greater Evangelicalism), it is clear that at least the World still understands that a Christian congregation's public teaching is equivalent to the beliefs of those who declare membership in it.
We confessional Lutherans are idealistic folks – we have to be. We unite on the convictions of our Christian conscience, as we declare it in our public confession regarding Scripture's testimony, and give all evidence of that confession in word and deed, in doctrine and practice, in a way that positively distinguishes us from the heterodox. How embarrassing it is, then, when an idealistic person, like Michele Bachmann, misrepresents her public confession because she didn't know what it was! And it wasn't entirely her fault! The fault lies mostly with those responsible for properly catechizing her, knowing especially of her role in public office and frequent public representation of her ideals.
Pastors, please catechize those who come to you for instruction in the Word. Congregations, circuits and district presidents, please make sure that they do!
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License
11 comments:
The official ELS Catechism does not really address the somewhat esoteric eschatological doctrine of "antichrist." And I also do not recall ever supplementing the published catechetical material, and exploring this topic to any great length on my own, in the instruction I have given for basic communicant membership. Note, too, that the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession - which are usually the confessions with which Lutheran laymen are expected to be familiar - do not address the doctrine either. So, it does not surprise me that Michele Bachmann was unaware initially that the Lutheran Church does in fact teach that the pope - according to his office - is antichrist.
But when we speak of the shortcomings of Lutheran catechesis in the context of Michele Bachmann, what is of much more concern to me is her departure from a Lutheran congregation to a heterodox "Evangelical" congregation that no doubt repudiates the sacraments that our dear Lord has given to his church on earth, and that no doubt also repudiates - or at least ignores - the deeply incarnational Christology that stands behind the Biblical theology of the sacraments.
I am not here describing any real or perceived shortcomings in the ministry of Congresswoman Bachmann's former pastor, since I do not know him, and assume only the best about him. More than once over the years, people who were catechized under my ministry ended up eventually in sectarian or liberal churches, contrary to what they were taught.
But in general terms, regarding the situation in which Lutheranism as a whole finds itself in our society, I would say that a Lutheran pastor should, more than ever, consciously try with the Lord's help to teach the faith to catechumens in such a way that they could never even consider joining a church in the future that did not confess the Lord's gracious saving operation in the "washing of regeneration," or that did not confess - and regularly celebrate - the blessed sacrament of our Savior's true body and blood. In the sermons that are preached, and in the ceremonies that are enployed in the celebration of the Supper, we pastors should, with God's help, seek to instill into those who hear and see us a deep awareness of the fact that, in the Lutheran Church, God's people have access to extraodinarily miraculous and wonderful sacramental blessings that they will never find in any church that stands in the legacy of Zwingli and Calvin.
The Divine Service in a Lutheran church should be conducted in such a way that those whose faith has been molded and shaped in the context of orthodox Lutheran worship would never be able to "feel at home" in the worship of a sectarian church - modeled after the format of a lecture hall, of a tent-meeting revival, or of a variety show in the entertainment world. And I would hope that people from a Lutheran Church who might end up someday in a sectarian church would undoubtedly know - intellectually, aesthetically, and emotionally - that they have changed their religion at a very fundamental level, and not be able to persuade themselves that they have simply made a slight adjustment in the "style" of their worship and belief.
This is perhaps a "teaching moment." But in the prioritizing of our use of this teaching opportunity, I would say that we should not spend as much time explaining why the pope is the antichrist, as explaining why it is so wrong, and so dangerous to faith, to turn one's back on the sacraments of the Lord, and to make a decision to live out the rest of one's religious life without them in a sectarian church.
Here are two examples from American Lutheran history of what I am talking about regarding how we explain, and how we celebrate, the Lord's Supper...
C. P. Krauth:
Men have talked and written as if the doctrine of our Church, on this point, were a stupid blunder, forced upon it by the self-will and obstinacy of one man. The truth is, that this doctrine - clearly revealed in the New Testament, clearly confessed by the early Church - lies at the very heart of the Evangelical system. Christ is the center of the system, and in the Supper is the center of Christ's revelation of Himself. The glory and mystery of the incarnation combine there as they combine nowhere else. Communion with Christ is that by which we live, and the Supper is "the Communion." Had Luther abandoned this vital doctrine, the Evangelical [Lutheran] Church would have abandoned him. He did not make this doctrine - next in its immeasurable importance to that of justification by faith, with which it indissolubly coheres. The doctrine made him. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is the most vital and practical in the whole range of the profoundest Christian life - the doctrine which, beyond all others, conditions and vitalizes that life, for in it the character of faith is determined, invigorated, and purified as it is nowhere else. It is not only a fundamental doctrine, but is among the most fundamental of fundamentals.
J. A. O. Stub:
My sainted grandfather, Jacob Aall Ottesen, always celebrated the Communion, robed in the colorful, and, as it seemed to me, beautiful vestments of the Lutheran Church. On..."Communion days" and on all festival days he...wore the white surplice or cotta. As he stood reverentially before the altar with its lighted candles and gleaming silver, the old deacon, or verger, placed over his shoulders the scarlet, gold embroidered, silk chasuble. This ancient Communion vestment was shaped somewhat like a shield. As it was double, one side covered his back and the other his chest. Upon the side, which faced the congregation when he turned to the altar, was a large cross in gold embroidery; upon the other was a chalice of similar materials. As a child I instinctively knew that the most sacred of all observances of the church was about to be witnessed. As grandfather turned to the altar and intoned the Lord's Prayer and the words of consecration, with the elevation of the host and the chalice, I felt as if God was near. The congregation standing reverentially about those kneeling before the altar, made me think of Him who, though unseen, was in our midst. I forgot the old, cold church, with its bare walls, its home-made pews, and its plain glass windows. I early came to know some words of that service, such as: "This is the true body, the true blood of Christ"; "Forgiveness of sins"; "Eternal life." I venture that all who, like me, early received such impressions of the Lord's Supper, will approach the altar or the Communion with a reverence that time will but slowly efface.
Thank you Rev. Webber, for focusing discussion on this topic in the direction it really should go.
And now, if you don't mind, I'll quote you on the same subject:
"You should rather die, than receive communion in one of these [sacrament denying] churches!"
You made this statement in a lecture you gave in 2005, which I attended. I was taking notes, and wrote the statement down. At the time, I knew that the sacrament was important, for what seemed to me obvious reasons, but that was the first time – and really the only time – I have ever heard the point made so strenuously. Your words had great impact, not only on me, but others in attendance with me – namely my father-in-law, with whom I conversed at length regarding your statement that day, and on at least a couple occasions since then. No longer just important to me, the Sacrament is vitally important, as is its centrality in the life of the church.
Not to stroke your ego too much Pr. Webber, but I found the information on your Lutheran Theology site to be extremely helpful when I was coming to terms with my identity as a Confessional Lutheran. The sources there are very informative and exceedingly useful when discussing the importance of the Sacrament in the Church. I have used some of the material in discussions at my home congregation regarding the infrequency with which we offer the Sacrament (in the hopes of increasing it).
Back to the Michele Bachmann connection: I heartily agree that the deeper issue here is her 'transfer' to a sectarian Church. There is a widespread notion in the WELS that we are just another member in the grand tapestry of the Evangelical community. Doctrinally speaking, nothing could be more false. We need more Confessional pastors who are able and willing to not only combat this falsehood in word, but also in deed.
According to this article, "Bachmann and her family left WELS for Eagle Brook, a more mainstream evangelical church with four campuses in Minnesota. Bachmann officially left her Lutheran congregation on June 21, six days before she launched her presidential campaign. An aide told the Christian Broadcasting Network that the Bachmanns' decision to leave WELS 'came down to preference issues, as it does for so many evangelical families who occasionally change churches.'"
The web site for Eagle Brook Church is quite depressing - at least to me. Very flashy, but pretty light on doctrine. They don't get into very much detail regarding their beliefs, except for this statement on Baptism:
"Jesus instructed, 'Believe and be baptized.' (Mark 16:16), and that's what those who chose to follow Jesus did. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward conversion experience - and it is a celebration into a new life! Believers' baptism is a very big deal for 3 reasons: It starts the process of obedience. It invites God's blessing on your life. It declares your true identity with Christ. We think it's important to note that while some churches sprinkle, baptism by being dunked was the undisputed church practice for the first 1,300 years of church history. In fact, no early denominational church leaders argued that point. The very word 'baptism' means 'to immerse' and that's what the Bible records, so Eagle Brook believes that if you're physically able, you should get completely dunked."
So again, as I see it, the real story - the tragic story! - is not so much that Michele Bachmann's former church taught that the pope is the antichrist. It's that her current church teaches baptismal law where Scripture teaches a baptismal Gospel; and that the Bachmann family, in view of its new "preference," apparently was able to make a transition from the WELS to this sectarian church, and to this sectarian doctrine, with little difficulty. I find that utterly shocking, to say the least.
"Did Michele Bachmann go through such a 'Bible Information Class' (adult catechism) when she joined WELS?" Answer: probably not.
Is that really a judgment you should be making on a public forum, Mr. Lindee?
I'm with Pastor Webber on this one--I've also used the materials the pastors at Ms. Bachmann's former WELS church use for new members, and it is very thorough. I have also had people go through our thorough class only to leave for no church or a liberal church once their children got out of our school.
In our culture it seems so necessary to blame someone when something like this happens. In this case, you're blaming the pastors of the WELS church she and her family attended. There are times when sinful humans (which we all are) leave their orthodox congregations and they stop sitting at the feet of orthodox pastors for all sorts of reasons. Only the Lord really knows the reasons why. Anything else is just conjecture, and when that conjecture questions the reputation of others in a public forum such as this, we're treading dangerously close to ruining their good name. Enough of that happens on other Internet blogs. I thought it might be different with Intrepid Lutherans. Based on what I've read on here lately, that simply isn't the case.
Pastor Steve Kurtzahn
Pastor Kurtzahn,
I think your comment is representative of a very harmful habit in the WELS--that is, calling any statement of Christian discernment 'Judgement'. Mr. Lindee was merely using his reasoning powers and Christian wisdom to comment about a public figure.
Which is, of course, 100% different than saying something like "Her first WELS Pastor was Bob Smith and he's a schmuck and never requires new members to go through the Catechism, so her ignorance is not surprising". That would a reproachable comment.
I think the WELS culture needs to lose it's fear to speak their minds about problems. Public sins (or issues) need to be dealt with publicly and private sins (or issues) should be handled privately.
To demonstrate: Pastor Kurtzahn, I think you place undue strictures on Mr. Lindee's Christian discernment, and are wrong to do so. And I hope you consider changing your views regarding that. I'm not saying you've sinned, but I think that, over time, your attitude towards discernment would lead to destroying your own or someone else's ability (or Will) to think critically about the most important things. I know you don't want that and I hope I can convince you through this (or future conversations)
Many of the problems in the WELS could be dealt with much more efficiently and honestly if we remove our self-imposed gag order.
David Kreuter
Thank you, thank you, thank you, David! I could not have said that better myself! I applaud your Christian maturity.
Pastor Spencer
Let me also add a thank you Mr. Kreuter. Well said!
You know, this entire issue with Bachmann is nothing new. She was asked about this WELS teaching in a 2006 televised debate on WCCO Davenport, Iowa, and she responded:
"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."
I cannot know what her pastor said to her and will not attempt to guess, but this statement reeks of either doctrinal ignorance, political maneuvering, or both. Probably both.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
Mollie Hemingway has a very good article in today's (22 Jul 11) Wall Street Journal titled "Michele Backmann and the Pope" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458520779260518.html). She concisely explains the Lutheran view on the office of the papacy and, more importantly, "justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone."
P. C. Christian
I would agree wholeheartedly with Pr. Webber. I wonder how many consciences have been pricked when former WELS members (or in general former Lutherans & Catholics) have children or grandchildren that would not receive the sacrament of baptism as an infant because of new membership in one of these believer's baptism churches. Some of my own family and friends have had the pastor of their parents' WELS church perform the baptism and then they proceeded with the infant dedication in their own church. I wonder how many other parents, grandparents or relatives in the same situation baptize the baby privately without a pastor. Instead of leaving the church when their conscience is bothered, they stay and raise their children in the midst of these false teachings. Very sad, indeed.
Tammy Jochman
Post a Comment
Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.
Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile.