A Kind Word for the Pope?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Pope
A Kind Word for the Pope?
By Dr. Mark Braun
Dr. Braun is Professor of Theology at Wisconsin Lutheran College and Religion Editor for CHARIS.
During the last days and death and memorial observances for Pope John Paul II, many Protestants
apparently no longer agonized over something that would have troubled their 16th- and 17th-century
denominational forebears. Could they say a kind word for the Pope?
Lutherans are not alone in subscribing to Reformation-era statements such as that of the Smalcald
Articles: “The Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself
against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power” (SA II, IV, 10–
12). Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and Baptists possess similar historic documents.
The Second Scotch Confession of 1580, which appeared the same year as the Lutheran Book of Concord,
declared, “In special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist” over
Scripture, the church, civil rulers, and individual consciences. With that, it offered a litany of
everything detestable about the Pope: he undermined Christian liberty, attacked the sufficiency of the
Word of God as the source of Christian teaching, corrupted the doctrine of original sin, destroyed
the certainty of justification by faith alone, established “five bastard sacraments,” instituted the
“blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation,” maintained the “blasphemous priesthood,” and
supported justification by works, merits, and purgatory.
The Westminster Confession of 1647, after asserting that there is no other head of the Church but the
Lord Jesus, protested that the Pope cannot “in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that
man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is
called God.”
The identification of the Pope as Antichrist also became a point of conflict among 20th-century
Lutheran synods in the United States. The old American Lutheran Church, a predecessor body to
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, had since its founding in 1930 regarded the
Confessions’ statement on the Antichrist as only a “historical judgment.” While the ALC considered
the teaching about Antichrist “indeed a doctrine clearly defined in Scripture,” it objected that
Scripture had not in so many words identified the Pope as the fulfillment of that teaching.
This identification was, however, an integral part of Missouri and Wisconsin Synod teaching.
Missouri’s Brief Statement of 1932, with which Wisconsin agreed, stated that the scriptural prophecies
of Antichrist “have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” All the features of the
Antichrist were visible in the Papacy, chiefly that “he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of
Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone.”
But by the 1940s, some Missourians seemed disinclined to continue making this identification. A
Missouri pastor, writing in the American Lutheran in 1942, charged his synod with unscriptural
teaching regarding the Antichrist. Missouri’s acceptance of the Common Confession in 1950 (a
statement meant to bring about union between Missouri and the ALC) included endorsement of the
Confession’s weakened statement on the Antichrist. The Report of Missouri’s Advisory Committee on
Doctrine and Practice in 1951 concluded that Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the
Antichrist, but, using language similar to that of the ALC two decades earlier, called it a historical
judgment rather than a clear scriptural teaching. A resolution at Missouri’s 1953 convention to
8Pope
reaffirm that the Pope is the Antichrist was defeated. Valparaiso University’s Cresset observed in
1958 that “few non-Roman Christians find it as easy as did their fathers” to make that identification.
No such deviation appeared in the Wisconsin Synod’s public statements. The author of Wisconsin’s
1954 pamphlet The Antichrist wrote: “It was because Luther cherished the Gospel so dearly that his
faith instinctively recoiled and protested in unmistakable terms when the Pope put himself in the
place of Christ and declared His work insufficient and in vain.” For Luther, “the tenet that the Pope
is the Antichrist was an article of faith.”
Against this background, and with other doctrinal disagreements taking center stage, the Joint
Doctrinal Committee of the Synodical Conference (Missouri, Wisconsin, the Evangelical Lutheran
Synod and the Slovak Synod) adopted a “Statement on the Antichrist” in October 1958. Wisconsin
approved the statement at its 1959 convention, as did the ELS. Missouri never adopted it.
A generation later, it was obvious that official Missouri embraced the very view it had rejected in
1932. In its notes on 2 Thessalonians 2, the Concordia Self-Study Bible (1986) says, “Lutheran tradition
sees the papacy as the ‘man of lawlessness.’ But this tradition must remain a historical judgment, not
a scriptural truth.” The Concordia Self-Study Commentary’s notes (1979) on the same passage, authored
by former Wisconsin Synod Professor Martin Franzmann, say that “the men of the Lutheran
Reformation” acted responsibly when “they looked upon the papacy and saw there the marks of the
man of lawlessness. A responsible church is called on to do in this our day what they did, with faith
and fears, in theirs.” Which means—what, exactly?
Fast-forward to the present. When John Paul II died, the outpouring of admiration was unabashed.
Garret Keizer, in The Revealer, an online commentary on religion, observed that after the Pope died,
one was tempted to ask, “Is the media Catholic?” Journalists seemed “caught up in a contest to see
who [could] achieve the most sublime level of reverence.” As news anchors turned toward the
cameras a moment before their voices went live, their faces achieved “baroque expressions of dolor.”
Criticism came mostly from unhappy Catholics. Contrarian German theologian Hans Kueng
charged that with the death of John Paul II, “the credibility of the Catholic Church has been left in a
true crisis.” Opponents repeated their opposition to the Pope’s stubbornly maintained positions on
birth control, abortion, women’s ordination, and mandatory celibacy for priests. Yet, as Newsweek
columnist Anna Quindlen observed, the most telling thing about JPII’s papacy was that “he has been
mourned by millions who acted contrary to his directives.”
Protestant commentators were effusive in their praise. Associated Press religion reporter Richard
Ostling called John Paul “probably the most popular pope ever among America’s evangelical
Protestants.” During his era many Evangelicals became not only more aware of the papacy but also
“much more favorable toward it.” Rev. Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School in Alabama said
that on moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia the Pope “didn’t speak for evangelicals, but he
spoke with evangelicals.” Wheaton College historian Mark Noll suggested that while Protestants
would dissent on matters such as reverence for the Virgin Mary, people who have read the Pope’s
doctrinal pronouncements “should come away impressed with his classically orthodox Christian
stance.”
President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly acknowledged how his Evangelical faith informs his
thinking, called the Pope “a man of peace,” “a good and faithful servant,” a “hero for the ages,” and
“unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100
years.” On that last statement, the president may have been citing Billy Graham, who was credited
with an almost identical comment. Similar assessments came from the 700 Club’s Pat Robertson,
9Pope
National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard, and Focus on the Family’s James
Dobson.
As for Lutherans, the ELCA’s Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson called John Paul “a religious leader of
inordinate conviction, courage and compassion who bridged the gulf between intellect and spirit,
party and poverty, church and synagogue to leave the world a better place.” Missouri Synod
President Gerald Kieschnick praised the Pope’s “strong voice in confronting issues crucial for our
age with courage and conviction” and for providing “inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman
Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond.” While acknowledging that “historic
differences between our churches remain,” Kieschnick urged that the Pope be remembered for his
call for churches to “work out their differences in faithfulness to their convictions and to their
doctrinal heritage.” Lutheran editor Uwe-Siemon-Netto said simply that John Paul was “my Pope—
and I didn’t have to be a Roman Catholic to claim him as mine.” Not much about “the very
Antichrist” in those statements.
Even non-Christians joined in. “The name Goldberg might be a hint,” began National Review Online
editor Jonah Goldberg. “I’m not Catholic. But that didn’t stop me from loving this pope.” Ismar
Schorsch, Chancellor of Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, called John Paul “a man of God in
every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed.”
He didn’t win them all, of course. Louis Farakkhan, leader of Black Muslims, was reported to have
called the Pope “a cracker,” and JP received unfavorable coverage in several issues of The Onion.
There was much to like about him. When he came to office in 1978, he was an athletic man in his
early 50s who played soccer, skied, and hiked in the Alps. In his youth he belonged to an
experimental theater group, and he was a published poet. While still a young priest, he battled the
Nazis. According to one particularly touching account, he rescued a 13-year-old Jewish girl from a
Nazi death camp, carrying her weakened body himself to a nearby village and placing her on a cattle
car bound for Krakow.
He stood up just as vigorously against communism. Lech Walesa, leader of Poland’s Solidarity
movement, remembered the power of John Paul’s visit to Warsaw in 1979, his first after becoming
Pope. “We were able to organize 10 million people for strikes, protests, and negotiations,” Walesa
recalled. “Of course, communism would have fallen, but much later and in a blood way.” Walesa
called John Paul “a gift from heaven to us.”
The Pope offered forgiveness to Mehmet Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate him in 1981. He is
credited with coining the phrase “a culture of life.” Time magazine said in 1994 that he generated an
electricity “unmatched by anyone else on Earth.” A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial added, “To say
that he achieved rock star status is to understate the case; entertainers can only envy the devotion and
love that the pope inspired.”
Even as the Wisconsin Synod has maintained its confessional identification of the Pope as Antichrist,
uncertainty arose over how best to communicate this message amid the death of such a popular
Pope. On a list serve where I occasionally eavesdrop, a question was posted: “How do we, as
conservative Lutheran Christians, appropriately witness our faith in Jesus during this time of
mourning? I am sure that we all have Catholic family and friends that could use the reassurance and
comfort of the gospel.” The questioner’s congregation had made no acknowledgment of the Pope’s
illness at Sunday worship. Would it have been appropriate to say something for those who mourned
the loss?
10Pope
A response came that there had been an acknowledgment in his church in the congregation’s general
prayer: “We ask your help, O Lord, on this day when the world marks the passing of John Paul II,
that the eyes of all people would note—not the man—but the God he claimed to represent.”
Another reported that at his church, prayers were offered “on behalf of our Roman Catholic
brothers and sisters in Christ.” But he added, “We need to be judicious in what we say.”
One participant recalled seeing John Paul while on a visit to Europe. In a speech that lasted more
than an hour and a half, the Pope mentioned the name of Jesus only a few times. John Paul’s
message was “a political speech from stem to stern.” Television commentators noted that this Pope
had visited 169 countries during his 26 years in office, breaking the isolation characteristic of some of
his recent predecessors. But “you don’t find commentators talking about grace alone by faith alone
based on Scripture alone,” wrote another, because “Rome abandoned and anathematized such things
long ago and is not about to change.”
One writer suggested we ask Catholic friends what they think of the office of the Pope, then ask
what they think of Jesus’ claims to have paid for all our sins. Does the Pope’s theology support
Jesus’ claims? “Keep it simple. Keep it about Jesus.” To this another responded that the Pope’s
position was unfortunately clear. “My Catholic friend says she points people to Jesus Christ,” but
“the majority of Catholic priests point people to the teachings of the Catholic church, and that if you
do enough good in this life you will spend less time in purgatory.” Another wrote, “All the Catholics
I work with have agreed that in 8 to 12 years of schooling they never studied the Bible.” Said still
another, “I, too, have contact with Roman Catholics, many of whom have no problem that we are
saved by grace, but what they mean is that we must now work out our salvation.”
This cyber-dialogue over how to speak biblical truth with sensitivity reminded me of the turmoil the
Wisconsin Synod found itself in near the beginning of John Paul’s tenure. Less than four months
after his selection, an editorial in the February 18, 1979, issue of the Northwestern Lutheran reasserted
the Synod’s position that “The Pope IS The Antichrist!” The editorialist grounded his presentation
in the usual passages and Confessional statements, but he ended with a condemnation of “pseudo-
Lutheran scholars” from other synods who “are ashamed of Luther’s position on the papacy and are
selling out their precious birthright and Lutheran heritage for worldly popularity and a mess of
ecumenical pottage!”
The tone, if not the content, of the editorial provoked a sharply worded response from a publication
that generally ignores us. The Christian Century in its July 4, 1979, issue chided the Wisconsin Synod
for its “solemn insistence that the pope was the Antichrist, and don’t you ever forget it,” and asked,
“Do you remember any other headline that synod has ever made in the service of Christ’s truth?”
Referencing John Paul’s trip to Poland the previous winter, the Century continued:
Back when there were still such things as Polish jokes, this Lutheran action would have been
seen as one, a mistimed blasphemy of cosmic proportions. While they were up there in
Dairyland enjoying their beery pleasures, John Paul was journeying through his native
Poland, fighting their and our battles against more plausible sets of Antichrists, suppressors
of the Christian gospel and flock.
Though the editorial was not attributed to any particular editor on the Century’s staff, many Wisconsin
readers knew that one of its editors was Martin Marty, a former Missouri pastor educated in
Synodical Conference schools. This led Joel Gerlach to cry “foul” in reporting the exchange in a
“News and Comment” piece for the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. “Though Marty does not agree with
our understanding of the pertinent passages of Scripture,” Gerlach wrote, he could be expected to
know Wisconsin’s position. After reviewing the basis for Wisconsin’s theological viewpoint, Gerlach
11Pope
closed with the memorable zinger: “We still prefer our place in Dairyland to the Century’s theological
Fairyland.”
That fall, as the Pope prepared for his first visit to the U.S., Time magazine’s Lance Morrow wrote in
a sidebar about “vestigial strains” of anti-Catholicism still present in America—one of which was of
“that odd and somewhat fading nativist variety—the sort that led the Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod in the past year to reaffirm its opinion that the Pope is the Antichrist.” How vividly
I recall the moment, only months out of Seminary, being confronted at a Sunday morning Bible class
by an enraged church member, newly confirmed, who had grown up Catholic but drifted through
Mormonism and agnosticism before landing in the WELS. Waving the Time article almost in my
face, he demanded, “What kind of cult have I joined?”
Ironically, an unexpected voice rose to our defense. Marty’s name had never been definitively
attached to the Century editorial, yet he defended the WELS in another article, less widely circulated.
In fact, I had never seen this article until a weathered photocopy of it was mailed to our campus
several years ago. No source was included with the photocopy, but it appears to have been re-
typeset, as Christian News editor Herman Otten has been known to do with numerous articles that
appear in his weekly self-published newspaper (usually without permission). The article’s style
suggests that it originally appeared as one of Marty’s M.E.M.O. columns he regularly authored for the
back page of the Century. (I sent a copy of the photocopy to Marty and asked him when and for
whom he had written it. Though recognizing it, he could not recall any other details.)
Marty called Time’s charge of Wisconsin “nativist anti-Catholicism” dead wrong:
Nativists were rabid haters who wished they could kill Catholics...[Wisconsin Synod folk] are
not nativists. Chances are they would like Pope John Paul II. A WELS layman would
probably greet the Pope with a “Hiya, Pope, I’ll buy ya a beer,” would buy him five, feed
him some brats (Lutheran soul food) and wish him “Gesegnete Mahlzeit.” Only doctrinally
are the office and the man the anti-Christ to such Lutherans. Nothing personal.
There remains much to dislike about Marty’s “defense.” The similarity between the reference to
“beery pleasures” in the Century editorial and the offer to buy five beers in Marty’s piece does in fact
suggest common authorship. Marty blamed Luther for getting the WELS “into that mess” and our
“misuse of the Lutheran Confessions” for turning the mess “into concrete.” Arguing that the-Pope-
as-Antichrist was not only outdated opinion but misapplied Scripture, Marty ended praising the new
Pope as “the preeminent witnesser to Jesus Christ.”
But could we at least salvage two lines from his defense? “Only doctrinally are the office and the
man the anti-Christ. Nothing personal.” It is not about the person or personality of this or that man
who once occupied or now occupies the office. We may like some popes better than others. It is
what the man and his office stand for doctrinally that lies at the heart of our opposition to him.
David Scaer, writing in 1981 in Christianity Today, asked whether “The Pope as Antichrist” had
become an anachronism. Scaer characterized a then younger and more vigorous John Paul as
“downright amiable” and “the most popular pope in recent history.” As a world leader, Scaer
explained, “the pope can be recognized as the bishop of Rome whose stands on abortion, women’s
ordination, and family integrity can be wholly praiseworthy.” But problems remain. “The doctrine
of antichrist has little to do with fanatical anti-Catholicism. Bigotry should not be permitted to find
its roots in this Reformation understanding. But in reapplying Reformation insights to the problem
of the modern papacy we also need an honest evaluation of the same problems within
Protestantism.”
12Pope
It helps to note that the Greek preposition anti- means “instead of,” rather than “against.” The Pope
acts as an “instead of” Christ. We were reminded of that by the outpouring of grief his death
occasioned. Certainly, we mourn the loss of those beloved among us, whether athletes, heroes,
political leaders, family members, or clergy. But repeated references to him as “Holy Father” and
calls for immediate canonization underscore the charge in the Smalcald Articles that he is exalted above
Christ. Hafid Ouardiri, spokesman for an Islamic mosque in Geneva, said: “It seems to us that there
was a personality cult surrounding John Paul II that was close to idolatry, which for a Muslim is a sin.
The Pope has taken too big a place compared to the church.” More than a personality cult, this
devotion reached its apex in the statement of Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 that “it is altogether
necessary for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel cited claims shortly after John Paul’s death of an American Jew cured of
a brain tumor after attending mass presided over by the Pope and of a Mexican boy freed from
leukemia after a papal kiss. A professor/priest interviewed on “Good Morning America” said the
turning point in his personal grief over the Pope’s death came when he realized he could “stop
praying for the Holy Father and could start praying to him.” Cardinal Justin Rigali, former
Archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, wrote: “Pope John Paul II has been called home by
God; a good and faithful servant who has earned his eternal reward through a life of love and service
to Jesus Christ.”
Beyond disputes over fasting or forbidding marriage for priests, the Council of Trent anathematized
all who believe they are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Neither this nor any other Pope
has ever retracted Trent’s statement. The recent Papal document Dominus Jesus reaffirmed the
Catholic claim that there is no salvation outside the church of Rome, yet stated that those who have
never heard the Gospel may still be saved; the heathen who live a life of good works can be saved as
“anonymous Christians.” So the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says: “The honor is taken away
from Christ when they teach that we are not justified [graciously] by faith, for Christ’s sake” but by
keeping various rules and performing good works demanded by the church (Apology XV, 18–19).
John Paul was an especially earnest champion of devotion to Mary. After surviving his assassination
attempt, he dedicated the entire world to “the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” In 1987 in his encyclical
Redemptoris Mater, he stated his objective to awaken and deepen Marian devotion, urging all Christians
to look to “our common Mother” to bring about “unity between the divided churches of the world.”
Last December, marking the 150th anniversary of the proclamation of the immaculate conception of
Mary, John Paul prayed to Mary that she would “obtain peace and salvation for all peoples.”
Engraved in his wooden coffin next to the cross was a large “M” for Mary.
There are indeed “many antichrists,” as the Apostle John warned (1 John 2:18), but unique
concerning the “man of lawlessness” St. Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 2 is that he “sets himself
up in God’s temple,” yet opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God. His most
distinguishing characteristic is that he operates inside rather than outside of the Church.
Some Protestants did strike the right balance. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al
Mohler, while praising John Paul’s finer qualities, said, “We cannot ignore the institution of the
papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught,
defended, and promulgated.” Mark Bailey, Dallas Theological Seminary President, wrote: “There has
never been [credited to John Paul II] a repudiation or backing off of the Council of Trent that called
all evangelicals ‘devils’ and really denied that Evangelicals and Protestants can have a place in
eternity.”
13Pope
So is it all right to say we liked some things about this Pope? If you like. But faithfulness to the
truth compels us to confess that the Pope is still the Antichrist.
HOLD THE DATE!
The 3 rd Annual
Church Door Symposium
“Effective Evangelistic Churches”
March 6-7, 2006
14You can also read
