Luther Place Memorial Evangelical Lutheran Church in Washington, D.C., received its common name after the congregation erected the landmark statue of Martin Luther in front of the church.
Editor’s note: This blog was edited from the author’s original post.
Originally posted July 18, 2011, at Lutheran Confessions. Republished with permission of the author.
In all likelihood, you know that Michele Bachmann is a prominent Republican presidential candidate of the tea party variety.
Like most presidential candidates these days of whatever political persuasion, she is fighting to reclaim America.
What she doesn’t mention on her website, but has come up frequently in the news, is that she is (or at least was until recently) a Lutheran and was a member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minn., (denominational affiliation: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).
In this post, I don’t intend to address her political position per se.
What I do want to write about is the significance of her Lutheranism, and her transition away from it, because I think that’s worth remarking.
Different brands of Lutheran
Lutherans are not often in the national spotlight. There are probably a host of reasons for this, some good and some bad.
On the good side, we don’t think being famous is necessary in order to be of service to the kingdom of God, so Lutherans often quietly just get the work done that needs doing, especially as it relates to social service (think of the very large social service agencies we’re famous for — Lutheran Social Service and Lutheran Services of America, among others.)
On the bad side, well, we aren’t always spectacular at even telling anyone that we are Lutheran or what that signifies.
Michele’s Lutheranism has come into the spotlight as it relates to her ties to, specifically, the Wisconsin Synod tradition. Wisconsin Synod members are the ELCA’s very conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.
I am a pastor in the ELCA. Now that I live in the South, I frequently have to explain to folks who haven’t heard of Lutherans what the differences are between the various Lutheran denominations.
This is always a tedious experience for the hearers. By the time I get done with my long explanation, their eyes have glazed over.
I talk about the ethnic specific origins of many branches of Lutheranism, talk about the history of migration to North America and mention the distinctions between differing methods of biblical interpretation that lead us to our different positions.
Sometimes I throw in the joke my college president used to tell, that he studied the history of mergers of Lutheran denominations in the 20th century and, after all six of the main denominations merged and the dust cleared, they had finally gotten the number of denominations down to nine!
But back to the point. Simply put, Michele’s brand of Lutheranism matches her brand of politics.
Both are socially conservative in their leanings.
Michele first came to the spotlight because of her advocacy of a marriage amendment in Minnesota that would define marriage constitutionally as being solely between a man and a woman.
Similarly, her approach to the founding documents of our nation is not unlike the approach to biblical interpretation her denomination espouses. In the best sense of the term, that approach can be called “fundamentalist.”
Common ground
Wisconsin Synod theologians and I would likely differ today on who or what to label the anti-christ, but we wouldn’t differ on the idea that we need to try and pay attention to the times and places where Christ is attacked and undermined by those who, in his very name, proclaim something other than who he is.
If the Wisconsin Synod wanted to confess this position to the press, I think they’d be better served simply saying that their church tries to be attentive to idolatry and evil in the world and that sometimes they are concerned that idolatry and evil crop up (perhaps they especially crop up) in places that claim to be good and religious.
In its best form, this is a hermeneutics of suspicion Lutherans rightfully cultivate. However, because the Wisconsin Synod is so committed to the historical manifestations of Lutheran confessional theology, and the maintenance of those confessions today virtually verbatim, I doubt they would have the wiggle room to say something more nuanced or “of the day.”
A campaign strategy
Now back to Michele. Six days before she declared her candidacy for president, she verbally requested to leave the Wisconsin Synod congregation where she had been a member but had not attended for over two years. She did not request a transfer to a different congregation.
This leaves in question, at least in part, what her religious commitments are these days. It also goes to show that, once you’re campaigning for president, being Lutheran may be more of a hindrance than a help.
She’ll be much better served (from a vote-gathering perspective) participating in a loose confederation of conservative Bible-believing churches than a specifically confessional conservative Bible-believing denomination. That’s the religious landscape we live in today.
My hope in all of this is twofold. First, if the press continues to trumpet this topic, I hope they do the Wisconsin Synod the honor of getting their faith right and representing it in a fair and honest way.
Second, I hope that political candidates of any persuasion can get a fair hearing precisely as the kind of religious individuals they are.
It’s tiresome to me that candidates for president have to leave the peculiarity of their traditions in order to join whitewashed American religiosity.
Praise God for candidates who are obviously Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist or Lutheran. Martin Luther famously quipped that he’d rather have a good Turk than a bad Christian as his sovereign.
I couldn’t agree more, and I hope a strength of our political system is that you can run for public office precisely out of whatever religious tradition shapes and forms you.
Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about?
Find a link to Clint Schnekloth’s blog Lutheran Confessions at Lutheran Blogs.
Understandable that Rep. Bachman had to suspend her membership in a WELS congregation. They don't permit prayer fellowship. Giving up her church membership is a high price to pay for moving into the "kingdom of the left."
The following is from CNN, in an article by Eric Marrapodi, 7/15/11:
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has come under criticism from some Catholics for its views on the papacy, an institution that the denomination calls the Antichrist.
"We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy," the denomination's website says. "This is an historical judgment based on Scripture."
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann's denomination, saying it's "regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles."
Clint Schnekloth,
I am curious as to why you are talking in what seems to be riddles. Could you interpret what you mean in the "common ground" section; you lost me.
Also, in light of a Mormon leading the Republican primary race, I fail to see the need for Michele to flee from the "horror" of the WELS theology...really?
I would love to see a religious debate between Michele and Mitt Romney. Then we might see some HORROR ;o)
Maybe someone can fill me in on what the good folks in WELS believe in that’s so "horrific"; are they not considered Christians first?.
Davebob: I could be wrong, but from everything I have read and heard on the news, Bachmann "bailed" because of her fear of losing the Catholic vote. I didn't quote the rest of the article -- it explains the matter of "anti-Christ" in more detail.
The Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the anti-Christ for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority - even infallibility - that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being "anti" or "in place of" Christ.
Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church for those who do not recognize the authority of the papacy.
Finally, in emphasizing that salvation must be earned at least in part, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the gospel: that salvation is by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.
Is this the anti-Catholicism we speak of? It sounds a great deal like a lot of stuff I read around here.
who knew?
Thanks, Davebob, that was very enlightening. If we just stick to the facts, we will do just fine. The 16th Century was a mess. What you wrote points up very well what I am trying to say with: "misunderstanding." I actually do have a small amount of hope that there can be reconciliation.
I had in mind to make another comment on Megan Rohrer's post, but it has disappeared into cyberspace. I guess this might be "thread hijacking," but I will write my thoughts here. (As I said before, I am suffering from a "Rip van Winkle" effect.) Yesterday I made a comment about Rohrer's church "Inglesia Santa Mary." Anyone can look up "HerChurch" on Wikipedia or other sites.
Rohrer said her favorite Bible character is Jael. Now we find the story of Jael in Judges 4. It is part of a bloody Old Testament battle story. Jael was a descendant of Moses' father-in-law. The Israelites were fighting against the Canaanites and their commander, Sisera. After a battle, Jael lured Sisera into her tent, and by stealth, killed him violently by driving a tent peg through his skull with a hammer. Lovely. For Ms. Rohrer to choose Jael as her favorite Bible character is mind-boggling to me. This is possibly the worst example of man-hating I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. Rohrer's ministry to the homeless is admirable, but are we justified by works?
Where is "Peter" on this -- and Paul Lutter? Lutter writes about "Grace Alone." What about Scripture? What about Faith? Where are the 4.5 million people who are supposedly still in the ELCA? Are they so numbed down and dumbed down that they can't see the evil right in front of them? This is exactly what happened to the poor German people in the 1930s.
Davebob, thanks for the reply. I'm certainly guilty of talking in riddles sometimes, but I thought I was pretty clear on this one. I'll give it a shorter attempt. I think the WELS applies a hermeneutics of suspicion towards the papacy that they inherited from the reformers. They (and we) should apply such a hermeneutics to ourselves first, and to other institutions, not just the papacy.
Karen V.
You are welcome, and it’s my pleasure.
I did not see the blog post that Pr Rohrer declared her favorite Bible character to be Jael. I don’t know what “thread high jacking is…so. I did just Google Jael to catch up on your conversation. While Jael seems a bit strange to pick as a hero, she was considered “blessed” for her action. I won’t argue with that. She is a war Hero! To each their own, Miss V. ;o)
And you are right. The big “Luther this and Luther that” guns have fallen silent, and now we listen to the crickets ;o). We all use Luther when he agrees with us!
Dear Mr. Davebob:
The Rohrer blog post is on what you guys call "Connect" on Living Lutheran. I did get carried away a bit, but I stand by what I wrote. P.S. I picked up the phrase "thead hijacking" from "Peter."
Peter,
Could you please explain "thread high jacking" for me and Karen V.
We seem to be outdated here…help needed!
Dear Karen V.
“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of REASON than that of blindfolded fear”
Davebob: Yeah, I'm a big fan of Reason. I think that if God is Truth, then reason must be pretty important, and completely consistent with God Himself. John Paul wrote an excellent Encyclical called "Fides et Ratio" -- Faith and Reason.
I just was surfing, and I noticed on The Lutheran Magazine site their August issue. What jumped out at me was the article on the '11 Assembly. At the beginning it mentions "nearly 10,000" congregations. When I started following all this, it was "over 10,300" congregations. Also, this was striking: "Four memorials or requests from ELCA synods go before the assembly, one to reconsider and remove the related actions of the 2009 gathering...." Now if it is true that we must accept homosexual acts because of reason, by what reasoning can we decide, only 2 years later, to reject them? Where is reason here -- in the Lutheran Magisterium???
BTW, did you look at the Rohrer piece on "CONNECT" (top of page)?
I believe John is correct in his analysis. As I understand it from WELS friends, prayer is considered an act of worship, and thus to align with their anti-unionism/anti-syncretism views, prayer can only be individual, or with other WELS believers or in a WELS church assembly. I learned this the hard way in asking some WELS friends to pray together for a buddy, only to find out they couldn't as I was present.
Such would pose a huge problem for a president, or even a presidential candidate. Ie, they could not lead the nation in prayer in the event of a disaster, or even a memorial... or even a campaign gathering if other than WELS members were in attendance.
As far as the anti-Catholic issue, we must be careful with the log in our own eye.
From http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.aspx
This church accepts the other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.
For reference, here is a link to the Treatise.
http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
Granted, "valid interpretation" gives a lot of wiggle room... and its commonly held out to mean valid in the 1500s for specific bits in the Treatise. Ie we have the JDDJ with Catholics, we have apostolic succession / ordination by Bishop as part of the full communion relationship with the Episcopal church etc all of which are significantly in conflict with the Treatise. (Likely a sticking point amongst the more confessional members as much, or more so than CWA09 was).
Ron Amundson: I very much appreciate your thoughtful comment, and I think it is very helpful to our discussion. You used the word "interpretation(s)" twice. This is a key word, I believe. I have asked Paul Lutter to answer my question: "Who has the authority to INTERPRET Scripture." I am still waiting for his answer.
You mention the Episcopal Church. For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be in Full Communion with the Lutheran Church. I know this is a very serious theological matter; after all, our friend, Thomas More, had some trouble because of it, but permit me a bit of levity: The Church of England "divorced" itself from the Universal ("catholic") Church, but it now makes a "marriage of convenience" with the Lutheran Church, as its numbers crater???
Clint Schnekloth,
Thanks for that. It’s all starting to make much more sense now that I am educating myself on such matters.
It does seem that the Roman Catholics are just as anti-protestant as some Protestants are anti-Catholic. But no “horror” is applied to the Papacy these days, even though there is still a degree of self-exceptionalism on his part with regards to salvation.
It is amazing to see how far we have come. JFK had to distance himself from the Catholic Church to get elected. George Bush II was roundly criticized for his faith. Obama had to renounce his church congregation to get elected. And now Michele B has to distance herself from her church, (not to be confused with herchurch). But if you have no official faith, like the Clintons, you sale right through without a question. For some reason, people seem to like Jimmy Carter’s faith. Politics and religion make strange bedfellows. The day is rapidly approaching when only the faithless will be considered acceptable for national elections.
Karen V.
Yes, I found it. Are you talking about her profile, or is there a written "piece” that I am missing?
Sorry, davebob, I meant "profile." (I'm new at all this. I just learned how to use a touch-tone phone.)
Davebob:
If you don't mind, could you be a little more clear about what you mean by: "even though there is still a degree of self-exceptionalism on his part with regards to salvation." I really don't understand what you mean, and I think maybe we could clear up a little misunderstanding. ;o)
Karen V.
Like you, I am new at this to. My hair is starting to turn to antique blond with my age.
As to the clarification of my statement; Catholics have a different Bible (the Apocrypha), they have an elected mediator between men and Crist (the Pope), they have purgatory (punishment before going to heaven), and in many, many ways they teach that Catholicism is the only true church of Christ and means to salvation. My very good friends have grandchildren that are Catholic. My friends are lifetime Lutherans. The other day the children told their grandparents that they were not going to heaven unless they are Catholic. I don’t think this is an anomaly. There are very many denominations that teach “it’s their way or the highway”. The Catholics, or at least the Roman Catholics, demonstrate, by not correcting some of these extra/anti-Biblical traditions (like the infallibility of the Pope), that they still hold themselves above the rest of Chris's church (the unwased masses). The pope is in no better or worse eternal condition than you or I. You and I boldly go directly to Christ and cry out Abba! Father! There is no need for any Pope, outside the needs of structural church organizing, with regard to normal church leadership.
Having said that, I do not believe the extra-Biblical beliefs and practices are to the degree where they are not saved. They are well within what this layman would consider “essential Christian core beliefs” that make salvation possible. There are many Catholics that would not afford me that same Grace.
But I am not the theologian to ask. That’s one man’s humble opinion. Hope we are still friends ;o)
Of course, Davebob, we are still friends. (I just hope I don't get blocked by the editors!) I really liked all your comments & questions, and I will try to respond, but I live in Miami, and I was out this afternoon -- it's really hot -- then I came home and read the news about Norway, and now I have a migraine. So, more later!
@Karen One could infer that no one has such authority in accordance with the Smallcald Articles II(15) ...The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel."
Likewise from the Treatise:
(8) I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles...
(23) In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. ...
Of course such a stance, which is shared by many protestants makes for 35,000 different denominations, and likely hundreds of differing interpretations amongst their individual churches.
Personally, rather than sola scriptura, I tend to agree with Wesley's quadralateral. Interpretation comes down to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, albeit I do weight scripture higher than the others. Luther was appears very much against tradition and reason, being so much of what he railed against was due to such. As far as Luthers' views against experience, I'm less convinced, but i could be in error.
@Karen V The Episcoal church agreement I find little issue with in that the real presence is common to both, but I do understand how the more confessional folks have issues with apostolic succession and the changes to ordination. A bigger issue is the agreement with the reformed churches, where in they deny the real presence. I'm a big fan of ecumenicalism, but thats a huge chasm to try and work through.
@davebob As far as the children telling the grandparents they are not going to heaven, such is likely the case of the nuances of the Catechism not making it into the pew.
See section 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."... Likewise Catholic doctrines of invincible ignorance as well as the sin of presumption enter in. (I ended up a sort of a Catholic apologist in an ecumenical ministries some years back, as we didn't have any Catholics on staff).
Davebob:
I will try now to respond to your questions, and I am very happy that you have the courage and humility to ask them! Religion is not hard if you are diligent and unbiased, and I think you are.
Ron (Pastor?) Amundson has already gone a long way in answering your questions. He is referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you can find in any bookstore or online.
Re. the Apocrypha, or as we "RCs" like to say, the Deuterocanonical Books -- Luther was the one who removed them from the Bible -- he also tried to remove the Letter of James -- because they did not fit his theology. As for the history of the Apocrypha, etc., you can find all that online.
Re. Pope as mediator. This is really a lot of silliness. The Pope is no more a mediator than the Pastor of your congregation.
Re. Purgatory. Also a lot of silliness. "Purgatory" has always been a construct -- a way of explaining what happens to us on the Other Side. It is not some sort of heavy-duty infallible doctrine. Everybody in Purgatory eventually makes it into Heaven, so it is really about Time. This is why it is called "Temporal Punishment."
Everything else, in my ever-humble opinion, can be summed up by answering the question: Who or what interprets Scripture for the Church? My answer comes from Matthew 16:13-20.
Ron Amundson:
Regarding your response (7/23 5:27 AM): If "The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel," then how can the CWA09 say sodomy is OK? Now a bunch of lay people (including a quota of women and Spanish-speaking Blacks) are going to Orlando to sit around the pool and decide more Church Doctrine.
Karen V - Is your objection to the people going to Orlando that they are lay, or that they include "a quota of women and Spanish-speaking Blacks"? Would these "women and Spanish-speaking Blacks" be a acceptable to you if they were rostered clergy?
davebob,
Thread hijacking is where one changes the topic of the thread from the original post to something completely different.
everyone else,
The issue with the Apocrypha is not (just) that those books don't proclaim Christ crucified, but that they also didn't have the same historical/religious status as the other books of the OT in that they weren't as readily accepted by the Jews.
Church doctrine is also not the same as the articles of faith. Church doctrine is how things are done. So long as the way things are done don't get in the way of the articles of faith, there can be a lot of different options. This is why Historic Episcopate is a change we can choose to adopt (or reject, as local need is).
As to the OP, I think it's an interesting take on WELS and a good point that WELS is not our state religion (FROGBA aka the 'folk religion of God Bless America'). I'm not sure there's that big a difference in their respective soteriologies, though. They're both works-based righteousness, even if they disagree on which works are necessary.
Ron Amundson,
I can't argue with your excerpts other that "properly baptized" and "although imperfect". This is basically the point I am making. These statements speak volumes of the "superior nature" the Roman Catholic Church proclaims for itself; which breeds these unofficial declarations from the mouths of babes.
They are very much like the Mormons in this regard.
Thank you Peter,
Chris M.: It doesn't matter what is acceptable to me. 2 years ago, the CWA overturned the 4,000 year-old doctrine that sodomy is a sin. This Assembly consisted of randomly chosen people -- some lay, some clergy -- from across our country. When I say "randomly," I mean they were chosen based on a 20th Century political ideal of quotas -- gender/race/language. In my view this violates the "holiness" of the Church -- it does not take into consideration the Spiritual Dimension of the Church. The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Think about it.
Davebob: I have been a Catholic for 40 years, and I can honestly say that I have never known another Catholic -- well-educated or poorly-educated -- who felt superior to Protestants. This is one more sad, sad, sad case of stereotyping. Do you know what "properly baptized" means? Do you know that the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) comes from the Magisterium -- the Catholic equivalent of the Lutheran CWA?
Peter: I don't think it is a good idea to try to tell people what the Apocrypha is or isn't. Let them go online and read the facts.
@Karen V The bit about lay folks working out doctrine is constitutionally driven, albeit I'm not sure if that was since 87, or was added later. My guess is the process was designed specifically to reduce / limit the influence of theologians and clergy. It makes sense from the point of view of the priesthood of all believers, that no one is above one another, and it also minimizes the potential for a good old boys power structure.
As far as Holiness or lack there of, it does a pretty good job of keeping any Donatistic element out of the picture, although some might argue it goes too far and the lack of continuity and depth of knowledge could be problematic.
Lastly, nope, not a pastor, although I've been mistaken for such quite a number of times.
Karen,
Please list the passages where any of the books of the Apocrypha proclaim Christ crucified. Or even where 1 Maccabees refers to YHWH/LORD or God.
Oh, Peter! For heaven's sake. The Apocrypha was written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah comes from Maccabees. Don't even get me started on the YHWH thing. I wrote very long papers in graduate-level theology courses about that.
Karen V.
You are always asking “who has the authority to interpret scripture”. Well, who has the authority to add to, or subtract from scripture? Would you say the Book of Mormon should be included in the cannon of scripture? After all, the Book of Mormon speaks about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit / Christ / the cross / salvation …etc. Of course you wouldn’t. Why, because it doesn’t qualify?
“For a book to be considered canonical, it must have been written by a prophet or apostle or by one who had a special relationship to such (Mark to Peter, Luke to Paul)”.
“Only those who had witnessed the events or had recorded eyewitness testimony could have their writings considered as Holy Scripture”.
“The Jews have never considered the Apocrypha to be inspired. On the contrary, they denied their inspiration. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books to be inspired by God. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these”.
“The festival of Hanukkah was instituted by Judah Maccabee and his brothers to celebrate this event”. They were neither prophets, or even claimed to be motivated by the Spirit. These books were hastily throw in with much disagreement, and are rife with errors.
I never said Catholic individuals act superior. I said the Roman Catholic Church Bestows superiority upon itself which arguably has an effect on the some of the masses. Can you imagine people groveling to just get touched by a protestant Bishop? No, because by and large we don’t esteemeth one man above another. For Popes to accept this form of extreme acknowledgement tells me that they are good with it. All through the Bible when angels appeared to men, the men instinctively prostrated themselves in worship, only to be quickly rebuked by the angel for worshiping something or someone other than the most high God. The angels were embarrassed and afraid to receive such treatment.
OK, Davebob, I'll give these questions a try. You seem to be quoting from some source. What is it?
"At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books to be inspired by God. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these”.
Why would you believe Josephus? -- he is not in the line of the Apostles, just a good historian. Again, Authority.
Book of Mormon: This is something totally apart from the Christian Church. Just read the history of how Mormonism was founded. That should do it for you.
As far as someone kissing the hem of some Bishop's robe... well, there have always been stupid people everywhere. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with Catholic Doctrine. The thing about the Pope feeling all upity-up and superior -- well, that's just baloney. No truth in that whatsoever. Just observe John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They are (and were) humble men. Just servants. That view comes from just more garden variety misinformation and prejudice.
Karen,
Nice dodge. There are no references to God in 1 Maccabees, at least none that I can find. Also, the version of Hannukkah in 1 Maccabees does not make mention of the miracle of oil, which is why the Jews celebrate it.
Yo, Peter, my friend, I'm kinda busy just now, but I just pulled out my Bible to look for you ref. I immediately opened it to 2 Maccabees 2:7. I am in shock.
Hey Karen V.
Below I found and took the quotes from blueletterbible.
It is a very interesting read. Very Thorough
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
The law, the writings, and the prophets were the threefold division of Old Testament Scripture. Jesus testified to their authenticity.
I don’t see the Apocrypha mentioned by our Lord here.
As to your questions:
There are many ways to obtain truths, that don’t come through the line of the apostles.
The Book of Mormon is an excellent example of how the Bible can be corrupted by men. We should never place our trust in men; Be it the Pope, or Joseph Smith. One of Smith’s main theological claims is that "he" was handed “the keys” that were originally bestowed Peter, James and John.
It doesn't bother me that the Pope accepts people bowing and kissing his robe. By doing this, it seems to me that he is acknowledging his elevated status, that's all.
Hey, Davebob, I told you on "Believing...provide," what happened here, and now I'm catching my breath.
I'm very happy to discuss these things, because as I said from Day One, I think the 16th century thing has all been a family misunderstanding, and I am ALMOST certain that it can be resolved. Of course, it's in God's hands.
What I can do is try to respond to your questions.
1) The Apocrypha is considered part of "The Writings," one of the three parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. With a very small amount of research, you can find out the facts. Just keep an open mind.
2) There are many ways I can answer each and every one of your other questions, but what comes to mind it this:
From the Creed -- one holy catholic and apostolic.
One: John 17:21 "that they may all be one." Do you know the difference between the Perfect Will of God and the Permitted Will of God? John 17:21 is the Perfect Will of God.
Holy: Jesus founded the Church, so we know that it is a Divine Institution. It is Holy. We also can see that, by necessity, it is a Human Institution. Both. From the earliest years, Peter was the Head of the Apostles. This is totally Scriptural. Christ founded the Church patterned on the Roman Empire -- a hierarchy. (God uses human things.) Emmanuel, God with us.
Catholic: This word means "universal" -- for everybody, rich, poor, smart, dumb, gay, straight; you name it. The Catholic Church is Inclusive, truly Inclusive.
Apostolic: This has to do with the Apostles -- the Line of the Apostles. This is why priests are ordained; the laying on of hands; Apostolic succession. This is totally Scriptural.
Davebob: Just one correction -- the Apocrypha is not considered part of The Writings. I just checked. I recommend the explanation in The New Oxford Annotated Bible. In a nutshell, the Apocrypha was accepted by the Early Church Fathers -- this would have to do with "Holy" and "Apostolic" in my explanation above.
Karen,
I said 1 Maccabees, not 2-4. Jerome noted the Apocryphal books as Apocrypha in his translation of the Vulgate.
I have a couple of counter-examples for your description under "holy" and "Catholic". Catholicism as I've encountered it has not been inclusive, despite what 'catholic' means. The easiest proof is that the Catholic church practices closed Communion, to say nothing of including married men and women in the priesthood. It's not very universal when you say 'you can't be a priest, no matter the call you hear from God, your ability to do so, or your desire to do so because you are 'female/in a relationship'.
For 'holy', you seem to completely discount the idea that the church is a human institution. As a human institution, it can (and must) be changed as needed to suit the humans it currently serves. A Church patterned on the culture of the time (ie Roman Empire) might have worked for those living in the Roman Empire. In today's democracies, perhaps it works better to pattern it on the local ruling system.
Also... so far as Apostolic goes, the Episcopalians practice Historic Episcopate and actually brought Lutherans into the fold on that one, ~10 or 15 years ago. If anything, it's making us part of the Apostolic succession that's led to all of the problems ;)
My dear Peter: we seem to have a slight communication problem. i said 2 Maccabees 2:7 (BTW there is no 3 or 4) whether you want to "believe it or not," it is, after all, part of the Septuagint, and that's a big deal. now, i hesitate to write this, "believe it or not," but the little passage i sent you yesterday, according to this Greek doc., contains the location of the Ark of the Covenant.
Karen V.
I got this off of a Jewish web-site. All I did was type in “the writings” and presto! I fact, I am unable to find a single reference to the Apocrypha in any Jewish Bible. I typed in “Jewish bible” and found a plethora of information; none of which confirms your belief that the Apocrypha was included in any OT canon. Can you help?
If you take the law, the prophet, and the writings, and add up all the books; you will find the 22 books mentioned by Flavius Josephus (the Jewish historian). This seems reasonable, since our Lord was also reluctant to make mention of these “holy text”. I believe our Lord quoted from all three law, prophets, and writings many times; but for some reason he neglected the most recent addition to divine revelation. Does that make any sense?
I guess before I would consider the Apocrypha as divine, I would have to understand the when, and why of the matter.
Ketuvim - The Writings
•Psalms, •Proverbs, •Job
Megilot
◦Song of Songs◦ Ruth◦ Lamentations◦ Ecclesiastes◦ Esther• Daniel• Ezra• Nehemiah•
I Chronicles• II Chronicles
The Septuagint was considered “deuterocanonical” which comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon'. The book of Mormon would also qualify for this as “divinely inspired”. I think it is reasonable to conclude here that even the Greeks did not consider them part of the original OT canon, but thought they were worth creating a secondary canon for extra-biblical reading. Why else would they come up with a word like “deuterocanonical”?
Wow, Davebob, I'm blown away (and hurricane season just started down here). You really don't need me, just study. Re. The Book of Mormon, and far be it from me to bash another person's religion (especially Mitt Romney's), BUT that piece of literature came from an "angel." Could have even been an "angel of light" -- do you follow me? Our Canon of Scripture comes from the Magisterium (Line of Apostles, Tradition, and all that good stuff) of the Church from the earliest days -- the Book of Mormon DOES NOT. That's the deal.
Karen V.
You rightfully disregard the book of Mormon as divinely inspired, but neglect to address why it is you think the Greeks would attribute the Apocrypha to a “second canon” literary piece. So let’s review what we can now reasonably assume are the facts. The Jews didn’t consider it part of the canon. The Greeks considered the Septuagint a second canon (extra-biblical reading). Christ never quoted from it. None of the NT writers, even while making the very few references to it, never associated it as holy scripture. I can know fully understand why it was such a controversy. There is a strong case to be made that these books were never part of the Biblical canon. I'm left asking myself; what is in these books that would elevate them to divine status? I guess I’ll just have to read them and get back to you ;o).
Davebob: Just a couple of things -- the "Greeks" to whom you refer are Greek-speaking Jews of the centuries before Christ, living in Egypt. Read the history of the Septuagint. It is very interesting. Really, in the larger scheme of things, the Apocrypha is not very important. The Catholics consider it second-tier, not on the same level as Sacred Scripture -- OT & NT.
Karen V.
I didn't know that. 'Second-tier" a least makes a little more sence...in that case, nevermind. I wonder why they just didn't give the Apocrypha it's own book covers, and put it right next to the Bible, and call it "almost sacred scripture"? Thanks for the educaton, I will read about the history of the Septuagint...now that I know what it is.
Davebob: we are monopolizing this poor blog, but the Catholics DO call it "almost sacred scripture." They call the Apocrypha "Deuterocanonical" -- that means "Second Canon" -- or to use modern parlance, "second rate." (This doesn't mean the Deuterocanonical Books are bad -- they're just not too important. I have always thought [my personal opinion] that they have a different type or level of inspiration, but that's just me.) So, we are back to Square One.
Peter: We are soon going to be out of blog space here -- my computer will not go over 50 comments, but I do want to respond.
You seem to be mixing apples and oranges, and throwing in a few bananas. In my explanation, I tried to be crystal clear in a few words. Maybe, just try to re-read it. You are simply not understanding either the fundamentals of Catholicism or its spirit. My best suggestion would be to read the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church). It's not hard, and it clearly explains everything -- otherwise we will blow out this blog!!!!
Karen,
The problem is that there are fundamentals to Catholicism, and that makes the spirit works-righteousness at the very core. Fundamentally, it comes down to "gospel plus", which is to say that the Gospel-- that God freely promises forgiveness to sinners on account of Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only-- is supplemented by other requirements. That contradicts the "alone and only" which sells the Gospel short.
As to Maccabees, I get mixed up with Orthodox canon and 3 and 4 Esdras. They have a 3 Maccabees and 4 seems to be 'not quite canonical' in the Orthodox. If the Apocrypha is second-rate canon, maybe we have been miscommunicating. This was the status assigned to them by Luther as well-- suitable for reading in church even, but not Holy Scripture.
davebob,
I don't think Jesus quoted from all of the prophets. Also, Jude references the Book of Enoch, which neither Catholics and Protestants take as a holy text.
Peter,
Please note that I said Jesus quoted from all three (law, prophets, and writings); from each collection, not every single book.
Also, I said "None of the NT writers, even while making the very few references to it, ever associated it as holy scripture". I never said anyone claimed that they were holy text. What do you mean?
And as we are finding out Peter, even the Catholics don't consider them holy text even today. This seems like a long drawn out argument for nothing. As I eluded to earlier.
I feel I have wasted much breath with this whole arguement just to have someone say "that's what the Catholics think about the Apocyphra too! It's a considered "second-tier" writing. Who knew!?
I'm going to take a nap now!