Katiie’s Beer

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) has posted an opinion piece by a WELS theologian on the recent focus on the teachings of its synod in relation to Minnesota District 6 candidate Michele Bachmann. It is a good commentary, although not a formal statement by the synod. It is a long piece and I’ve tried to only post highlights. Please read through it at the WELS website.

First, the commentator compiled a good summary of the situation so far:

First, a few disclaimers.

1) We do not as a church become involved in political campaigns or endorse candidates. We have WELS members running for office as both Republicans and Democrats. We deal only with the moral issues involved.

2) Answers on this page are not official statements from our church. They are the viewpoint of the answerer and are similar to a response given by a pastor in Bible class, applying Scripture to a practical issue.

3) We do not have first-hand knowledge of any of the events and have not spoken to the candidates or media people involved. Our knowledge of the situation is from media accounts forwarded to us by questioners. The following is based largely on an article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune by Pamela Miller. This article seems to be a good-faith attempt to summarize the situation, but without a full understanding of the theological issues. The reporter refers to the “the labyrinthine doctrine of a theologically conservative Lutheran denomination.” The article is found here: Star Tribune. We cannot verify the accuracy of everything in the article but for sake of discussion of the principles involved we will assume its accuracy.

4) Because we cannot be sure of the facts of the case our comments should be regarded as addressed more to the spiritual and political principles involved in the case rather than as a judgment of the specifics or the individuals involved in this case. What can Christian citizens learn from this sad spectacle?

According to media reports this is what happened.

1. Supporters of the campaign of DFL candidate Patty Wetterling (or enemies of the campaign of Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann) placed on their blogs statements that Bachmann’s church, the Wisconsin Synod, believes that the pope is the antichrist. This seems to have been a transparent attempt to turn Catholic voters against the candidate by introducing religious differences into the campaign.

2. The issue surfaced on other Internet sites last week, including www. faithfuldemocrats.com, got a mention on Saturday’s Star Tribune opinion page, and was the subject of a weekend debate question that WCCO-TV’s Pat Kessler put to Bachmann.

3. Kessler asked: “The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune reports … that the church you belong to is affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod which, it says, regards the Roman Catholic pope as the antichrist. 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?”

4. According to press reports Bachmann denied that her church believed the pope is the antichrist.

5. This led reporters to look into WELS documents and to accuse her of lying.

6. Media sources began to seek to bring the churches into the debate. Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, said the archdiocese “tries to stay out of political stuff.” But Catholics United for the Common Good, an online group based in Massachusetts, demanded that Bachmann denounce any association of the pope with the antichrist.

7. Accusations have been made that “the Wetterling camp has been shopping this one around for some time,” but the Wetterling campaign denies responsibility. “Not true,” said a Wetterling spokesman, “the blogs are going heavy on this stuff, but we have nothing to do with it. We don’t want to make this campaign about religion.”

Assuming that this is basically what happened, what should Christian citizens learn from this?

The commentator introduced a good point:

First of all, if press reports are relatively complete, everyone involved in this discussion, at least in the beginning stages, has missed what the real issue is here and is getting caught up in irrelevant issues. There is a very serious issue here that has both religious and political implications. It is an issue which affects not just this campaign but the way political campaigning will be done in America. It raises a threat against every religious candidate, most of all against Roman Catholic candidates. Are there going to be religious tests for public office? A constitutional principle of our nation is that no religious test is required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States. As law this prohibition applies directly to the government. However, it is against the spirit of the constitution for individuals in a political campaign to seek to insinuate such tests through the back door. Religious tests for public office are not a legitimate part of American politics and those who introduce them should be ashamed.

Now I am wondering if I should feel badly for bringing up the issue on my blog. I wish I had thought to look beyond the questions and ask whether those questions should have been asked in a debate. The commentary closed with this admonition to all:

…Though we can’t make judgments about the specifics in this case, we have spoken about the principles of the case at some length, because given the increasing nastiness and divisiveness of American politics, we can expect that this type of campaigning will be an increasing problem in American politics. Politicians of all faiths and parties need to be acting strongly against it. This is the issue people should be talking about in Minnesota. Most of the discussion seems to be oblivious to the real issue.

Still, what about my concern of unionism? That is a real concern for me as a Lutheran, but not for most other denominations. Is it wrong for me to bring up the question of unionism during campaigning on my blog? Am I submitting Ms. Bachmann to an unfair test of religion? I certainly haven’t asked this of any other candidate. However, I think the whole issue came up (though not for the first time) because of her own actions and statements. She is the one who continues to insert religion into the campaign in ways that I don’t think are pertinent to the issues. Therefore, I don’t think the WELS theologian addressed that issue very well, although s/he may be waiting until after the election to comment.

There were a couple of side issues raised by the incident. One questioner asked about campaigning in churches. A church building could be used as a site for non-partisan informative political events, such as debates or questions to the candidates. We are not in favor of church services or church meetings being used for campaigning or partisan political activities. This used to be more of a phenomenon of Democratic candidates but now seems to be done by both parties. The churches should be taking stands on moral issues but not on partisan politics. Members of churches are, of course, free to participate in partisan politics.

Tags: politics, Lutheran //