NADIA BOLZ-WEBER, the author of a bestseller and the “pastrix” of a Lutheran church in Denver, is the subject of a profile in The Washington Post. Here’s a condensed version. After trying to make it as a stand-up comedienne, Bolz-Weber redirected her ambition (times are tough in the stand-up business) and got a theology degree of some kind in a seminary. She became a Lutheran minister, which fortunately involves being on stage and talking a lot about oneself too. Her “passion” and “life-changing fervor” are inspiring even white suburbanites, whom she reluctantly forgives for permitting her little opportunity to demonstrate her inclusiveness and for having committed the mortal sin of being not so cool. Her book is modestly titled: Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner and Saint.

She’s on a plane nearly every week to headline church leadership gatherings because of the way she articulates the place of the religious liberal in America. Next up is Calvary Baptist Church in Washington’s Chinatown, where she will speak to an overflow crowd of more than 600 people Tuesday evening.

Her message: Forget what you’ve been told about the golden rule — God doesn’t love you more if you do good things, or if you believe certain things. God, she argues, offers you grace regardless of who you are or what you do.

Christianity, Bolz-Weber preaches, has nothing to do with rules; it is the process of things constantly dying and then being made new. Those things, she says, might be the alcoholic who emerges into sobriety, some false narrative we have about ourselves, religious institutions that no longer inspire.

This woman must be reading Pope Francis. Not surprisingly, Bolz-Weber does not think fondly of her “fundamentalist” Protestant upbringing and she calls most liberal churches “the Elks Club with the Eucharist.” On that point, she is clever and correct. The Elks Club with the Eucharist leads here to Saturday Night Live with the Eucharist. It’s all part of the pseudo-religious, pseudo-moral atmosphere of modern Protestantism.

— Comments —

Jane S. writes:

“Religious liberal” is an oxymoron.

Jeanette V. writes:

She looks like she needs an exorcism. I would leave the room if such an evil pretender walked in.

Jonathan writes:

I thought I would send this link of Father Pacwa discussing the failure of Protestant theology. It is very instructive.

This woman pastor is one of the prime reasons why I quit going to church. I attended the Lutheran church for 20 years but recently quit going because of feminist self-promoters like this woman.

Lisa writes:

“And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 2)

 Laura writes:

“The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.”

— St. Thomas Aquinas

Joe A. writes:

“It’s all part of what Hilaire Belloc called ‘the pseudo-religious, pseudo-moral atmosphere’ of Protestantism.”

Talk about motes and beams; shame on you for publishing such fratricidal libel. Whatever this broad is, she is no “Protestant” and everyone here knows it. Shame.

Laura writes:

She’s certainly not the best that Protestantism has to offer, but she is fully in keeping with the Protestant belief in individual interpretation of Scripture.

And the female minister is a very common aspect of contemporary Protestantism. Okay, so she isn’t as dignified as Katherine Jefferts Schori, head of the Episcopal Church in America.

Will G. writes:

Most mainline denominations have been under attack for 150 years. The Bible-believing Christians broke off a long time ago. The Presbyterian Church in America is a solid evangelical denomination of which I am a member. As are other denominations that do not get this press. They are in the minority. That being said, this immature woman – who has no business being a shepherd to a congregation –  has a point.  We are saved by grace not works (or sacraments).  The Catholic Church has been in error for centuries.  Where in the Bible does it say we are supposed to give Mary or the saints adoration?   Purgatory?  – where is that?   Show me where that is. The heart of the gospel is grace through repentance and faith.   Good works come in gratitude of that grace.   You don’t have to do them to get it.

Speaking of ‘pseudo religious’ or ‘pseudo moral’ religions…I attended a Catholic baptism of a friend’s daughter a month ago.   It was the same dead faith as I grew up in. People half murmuring the songs. Rote rituals. Nice get together after the service though.  The whole topic of conversation was about the confirmation dress which was made 120 years ago.  I went through Catholic grade schools – taught by Franciscan nuns, Catholic high schools and was left intellectually defenseless over the content of the Bible in the secular world.  They teach you very little about how to live a Christian life.  But hey -the local parish offers carnival picnics and Las Vegas night fundraisers. In all my years of attending Catholic schools I do not recall ever getting in a sophisticated theological discussion with any Catholic. You’re a Catholic and that’s it – go to a fish fry.   I was an just an average student but I had no real understanding of the faith nor did I meet anyone who did.  At least who was willing to talk about it.

Even this Catholic website – what are you doing as a Christian woman to further the Kingdom?  The cultural disintegration we are witnessing — ultimately so what?  We are supposed to be spreading the gospel to the lost.  Jesus did not come to save America – he came for everyone.   I too believe if America is lost we are entering a very dark time which saddens me deeply.   You are correct – feminism is a great cause of the rot – but so what.  Where do we go from here?   The Lauren Sandlers of the world are winning because enough people don’t have a true understanding of the Christian faith.

America was founded by Bible-believing reformed Calvinists who understood the total depravity in men’s hearts.   The Constitution is a reflection of that understanding.

By the way – Have you seen the state of your Church in Spain, Italy or Ireland lately?  It seems Catholics have their own nutty universalist pope to deal with.

 Laura writes:

The Bible-believing Christians broke off a long time ago.

Katherine Jefferts Schori considers herself a Bible-believing Christian. So apparently does Bolz-Weber. I realize that Bolz-Weber’s claim is much, much more preposterous. But she is taking a part of the Bible — its call for compassion and mercy — and blowing it all out of proportion.

They are in the minority.

This is true. Doesn’t that tell you something?

The Catholic Church has been in error for centuries.

Then why do you trust it when it comes to Scripture? You got the Bible from the Catholic Church. If it has been in error for centuries about the most fundamental aspects of God’s revelation, couldn’t it have been in error when it established the canon of Scripture?

Where in the Bible does it say we are supposed to give Mary or the saints adoration?   Purgatory?

Where in the Bible does it say that salvation comes through grace alone? Where does it list the canonical books of the Old and New Testament? Where does it say that the revelation of Christ is finished? Where does it prove that Scripture is the sole authority? Where does it say Sunday is the day of Sabbath? Where does it explain the doctrine of the Trinity? Where does it say Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man?

Speaking of ‘pseudo religious’ or ‘pseudo moral’ religions…I attended a Catholic baptism of a friend’s daughter a month ago. It was the same dead faith as I grew up in.

The Eucharist is never dead. It is the greatest single act of love in history.

The Novus Ordo liturgy of the Vatican II Church, the mass which was written with the help of Protestant theologians, is indeed disrespectful of the Eucharist and a dead form despite the very real devotion it inspires in some. It is a manifestation of Protestantism within the Church. The Church possesses the authority and reflective capacity to reject it in time. It is possible to find the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, which was decreed the unchangeable form of liturgy by Pius V in the 16th century, in many places now.

I went through Catholic grade schools – taught by Franciscan nuns, Catholic high schools and was left intellectually defenseless over the content of the Bible in the secular world. 

There are many bad Catholic schools, especially those in America during the 20th century and later. But you would not have been intellectually defenseless once you were old enough to read the saints, theologians and papal encyclicals.

In all my years of attending Catholic schools I do not recall ever getting in a sophisticated theological discussion with any Catholic.

Catholic history includes a few sophisticated theological discussions.

Even this Catholic website – what are you doing as a Christian woman to further the Kingdom?

How much personal hardship do you think it takes to produce this website? But that is not relevant. You seem confused about my argument. I never contended that I am a better person than you. Catholicism is a superior belief system. The unity of Christians — not in all things, but in the most important things — is essential. The Church insists — no, God insists —  on unity in the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Lauren Sandlers of the world are winning because enough people don’t have a true understanding of the Christian faith.  

We agree.

The cultural disintegration we are witnessing — ultimately so what?  We are supposed to be spreading the gospel to the lost. 

The cultural disintegration is a result of spiritual decay. So it matters a great deal.

America was founded by Bible-believing reformed Calvinists who understood the total depravity in men’s hearts.   The Constitution is a reflection of that understanding.

Thomas Jefferson was not a “Bible-believing reformed Calvinist.” He was a wise and learned man in many ways, but he was not a Calvinist. Toward the end of his life, he wrote: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a Virgin, will be classed with the fable of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” But if he had been a believer, the extent to which he believed in the biblical revelation would be the extent to which he accepted Catholicism.

By the way – Have you seen the state of your Church in Spain, Italy or Ireland lately?  It seems Catholics have their own nutty universalist pope to deal with.

You seem not to have read my many posts on Jorge Bergoglio. So here’s one.

Buck writes:

Bolz-Weber posted a selfie video pitching her book at Amazon. She sounds like a moron, a pretentious and annoying one. She’s acting, obviously acting, as if she is speaking contemporaneously, when clearly she is reading from her script, just left of the camera. She is phony, trite, shallow and as clichéd as any early 60s hippie or 70s new-ager. I expected her, at the end, to ask for my spare change.  Who are the 180 people who listen to her each Sunday? Are they all substance abusers? If her sermons are anything like that video, you’ll get better stuff from any honest speaker in any random AA meeting. There are tens of thousands of those available every night of the week.

Caroline writes:

Got an email from my pastor this morning. This lady? She is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. It is liberal, has female pastors, and started asking at least 15 years ago if they should allow gay pastors. (To ask the question is to answer it.) Many have left the ranks of ELCA. This branch of Lutheranism seems to be very connected to an organization which resettles many Muslims in America–LIRS. Here’s a sample of the awfulness they commit.

I should add that my pastor was incensed, as we are members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which doesn’t allow women pastors, thank God. In my opinion, allowing females into traditional male roles is the beginning of the end, e.g. the military and mainline Protestantism.

Don Vincenzo writes:

Regarding The Washington Post’s article on the Lutheran pastrix and the planned improvement of ties between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches, this story from The Catholic National Reporter of June 20th of this year is instructive:

Lutherans and Catholics have pledged to celebrate together the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, with both sides agreeing to set aside centuries of hostility and prejudice.

The Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation released a joint document, “From Conflict to Communion,” in Geneva on Monday that said there’s little purpose in dredging up centuries-old conflicts.

The publication of Martin Luther’s 95 theses on Oct. 31, 1517, is traditionally celebrated as the birth of the Reformation that split Western Christianity into Catholic and Protestant.

In the document, the two churches recognize that in the age of ecumenism and globalization, the celebration requires a new approach, focusing on a reciprocal admission of guilt and on highlighting the progress made by Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in the past 50 years.

How to observe the landmark split is a sensitive topic in Rome, where some Catholics say there’s nothing to celebrate about a schism. Lutherans, too, are wary of a sense of triumphalism or taking pleasure in another church’s discomfort.

The document re-examines the history of the Reformation and the split it created, stressing that Luther “had no intention of establishing a new church, but was part of a broad and many-faceted desire for reform” within the church.

“The fact that the struggle for this truth in the 16th century led to the loss of unity in Western Christendom belongs to the dark pages of church history,” the document says. “In 2017, we must confess openly that we have been guilty before Christ of damaging the unity of the church.”

The joint document acknowledges that in today’s world most Christians live in the Global South and thus “do not easily see the confessional conflicts of the 16th century as their own conflicts.”

Even in the Old World, “the awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the 16th century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside.”

After caricaturing each other’s beliefs for centuries, an honest theological confrontation between the two sides began after the modernizing reforms of the Catholic church’s Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the document says.

It stresses that, thanks to the ecumenical dialogue of recent decades, Lutherans and Catholics “have come to acknowledge that more unites than divides them.”

In 1999, the Vatican and Lutherans signed a formal agreement on the doctrine of justification, the theological issue that was at the root of the separation of the church in the 16th century. The dispute was whether Christians could be saved by faith alone or also through their good works.

But today, even if they have come to an understanding on many core issues of faith, Lutherans and Catholics remain divided on matters such as the role of the pope, women’s ordination and homosexuality.

Actual religious warfare between Catholics and Lutherans ended centuries ago, and for the last 15 years the effort to reconcile the two separate churches has been a “work in progress.” Similarly, an inter-religious Catholic Church committee to bring about a reconciliation with Anglicans began earlier, but in each of these cases, one must ask,  “why?” and “why now?” There is something surreal in these efforts, for each of these churches brings to the table a set of beliefs and truths that it holds (or held) as immutable; yet, these projects persist. For example, in the case of “burying the hatchet” with Lutherans will the Catholic theologians in this committee ask why Luther, then an Augustinian priest, inserted his word, “alone,” to his translation of Paul’s Letters to the Romans (3/28) as the basis of salvation? That word, “alone” did not – and does not – exist in any previous and subsequent Catholic Bible. Or will that difference be discarded in the name of ecumenism?

But I cannot end without returning to the Rev. Nadia, for within the context of her role as a Lutheran minister who, according to the Post article, “…represents a new form of muscular Christianity, one that merges the passion and life-changing fervor of evangelism with the commitment of inclusion of and social justice to mainline Protestantism,” that such future ties should be evaluated.  Perhaps it is the emphasis on “inclusion” and “social justice” at the expense of the “wages of sin,” and “Faith and Good Works,” the fundamental building blocks of Catholic doctrine, jettisoned since the Second Vatican Council, that is what is precisely wrong with the current path of the Church, and why the “Traditional Church” movement, scorned by the Vatican, is growing in leaps and bounds. As for me, “viva la difference.”

Mary writes:

I sympathize with Will G. The poor catechesis that has taken place after 1960 was/is inexcusable and very damaging. I am also a product of that poor catechesis. That Will G. could make it through twelve years of Catholic school and not understand that Catholics do not in fact “adore” Mary but venerate her as Christ Himself would expect us to – for after all, the woman chosen by God to carry our Savior in her womb must certainly deserve veneration, no? – well illustrates that abominable catechesis.

Protestants pray and are devoted to Jesus in often touching ways, and since prayer is their only manner of worship, it is easy to understand why they would feel that the Blessed Mother shouldn’t receive the same level of their devotion as that which they give to Him. But in Holy Mass – better known as the Mass of All Time – Catholics witness and participate in the principle and supreme act of worship in human experience, an act of worship that simply can’t be understood without faith and therefore the real experience of which is unattainable by Protestants. Seeing this act done in the manner in which it was meant to be experienced, in the Tridentine Rite or Extraordinary Form, which is designed to involve all the senses and is incredibly moving, leaves no room for misunderstanding: the rosary is prayer and meditation, only the Mass is worship. As Catholics there is no danger of conflating the two. In the new Mass, which Will no doubt grew up attending, the difference is remarkable: many walk away saying it is just like Protestantism. A prominent Protestant whose name escapes me remarked after witnessing the new Mass after Vatican II, and I paraphrase: “Finally a Mass we can all participate in.” Many Catholics, as a result of the new Mass and poor catechesis, do in fact experience a watered-down version of their Faith. But one look at this chart will make it obvious that the Catholic Church is divinely inspired and protected.

The first step is for Catholics born after 1960 or so to accept that we were poorly educated in the Faith and that we suffer for that; next, we must search for the truth and not sit on the sidelines or attend other denominations in our confusion, criticizing something in our ignorance we simply don’t yet understand; then, when we find that truth and gain real understanding and faith, we joyfully love our Lord the way we were meant to – with all our hearts and souls – and unite ourselves to Him through His Cross, making Him the very foundation of our lives. Jesus I live for You, Jesus I die for You, Jesus I am Yours, in life and in death.

Laura writes:

Thank you for correcting me on the “adoration” of Mary. That wording had escaped my notice. Catholics do not adore Mary.

I entirely agree with everything else you say.

Leo Walker writes:

Seriously, Laura, you MUST hide such pics behind the break with a “Gag Alert.” What has been seen cannot be unseen; I shall not sleep tonight.

Laura writes:

Sorry.

I’m sure Luther would also be blown away by Ms. Bolz-Weber.

Jane S. writes:

Will G writes:

“Even this Catholic website – what are you doing as a Christian woman to further the Kingdom?”

I was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism as a young adult. Decades later, I still struggle with both. Laura Wood has been a tremendous inspiration to me as a Catholic. She also runs one of the best sites on the web. There’s not another like it. She reaches a lot of people. Can you name another person who does that? If so, send us the link.

B.E. writes:

Laura wrote:

“The Protestant belief in individual interpretation of Scripture.”

This is such a common misinterpretation of sola scriptura that I have come to the conclusion  that the Catholic Church teaches it this way. However, that isn’t what it means at all.

Sola scriptura means the Bible is the supreme and inerrant authority on every topic it addresses. It is not a denial of church authority over the correct teaching and interpretation of Scripture; Luther himself acknowledged the authority of the church in this regard. However, sola scriptura does put Scripture above human institutions; the Bible authenticates itself and the church. One result of this is to knock the pope from his position as final authority on what the Bible means, and so I understand why Catholics are so opposed to it. However, that opposition does not justify misrepresentation.

[Laura writes: I am sorry to have to interpolate my comments this way. But it is too difficult to have to repeat everything below and then respond. I don’t wish to interrupt the flow of your comments, but when you are making so many points, it is easier this way.

I don’t understand how you have corrected me. Protestants do not recognize a single visible authority for correct teaching and interpretation of Scripture. A Protestant is free to move to a sect that suits his interpretation of Scripture. I realize that the Protestant does not solely rely on his personal inclinations and also recognizes the authority of any particular sect, but the absence of a single central authority is key. By the way, no one pope is the final authority on what the Bible means. No pope can change what the Magisterium has already settled.]

More broadly, sola scriptura refers to the necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of the Bible. The Reformers held that the Bible could be understood by the common man, and so does not require priestly interpretation; this is another anti-Catholic position. Again, I understand Catholic opposition, but that still does not validate distortion of what sola scriptura means.

 [I don’t think I distorted what sola scripture means.  You say I have distorted it by referring to individual interpretation and now you refer to the ability of the common man to understand the Bible. Above, you said that Protestants do rely on authority for correct teaching and interpretation. And now you say there is no need for “priestly interpretation.” I don’t understand that. We have centuries of experience to prove that the Bible is not easily understood. For what other reason are there so many different Protestant sects but that Scripture is ambiguous on many points, opaque in many passages, and difficult to apply to changing circumstances? Not all of the Bible requires guidance but some of it does. The Bible is, of course, at the center of Catholicism though the sacraments, not Bible readings,  are the primary basis of one’s living relationship with God. One of the common distortions one hears from Protestants is that Catholics don’t encounter the Bible. In the past, when many Catholics were illiterate, this was true and intense Bible study in Catholic grade schools in America has not been common. In classic Catholic education, students learned Latin, grammar, and theology, which was derived from the Bible. But Catholics are encouraged to study the Bible by the Church today and every celebration of the ancient Tridentine Mass includes two readings from the New Testament, many Psalms and a homily that is almost always based on the New Testament readings. (The Novus Ordo includes a reading from the Old Testament.) Given that parents hold the primary authority over their children’s education, there is nothing to prevent Catholics from intensively studying the Bible, indeed they are encouraged to do that, but of course that always takes second place to the sacramental relationship, which is an ongoing experience with the Incarnation that involves body, mind and soul. Jesus never once spoke of the Bible. How could he, it didn’t exist? He did command us to remember him through the Eucharist.]

Will G. asks many questions, such as where is purgatory in the Bible? Laura counters with many more, such as where does it say that salvation is through grace alone? Well, I have yet to find purgatory in the Bible, but I have found sola gratia in Bible, perhaps nowhere more forcefully than in Ephesians 2:8-9:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (ESV)

[My reason for posing additional questions was simply to say that Protestants also base their faith on authority beyond the Bible. I was countering Will’s point that Catholic beliefs are not all found in the Bible by pointing to the doctrines many Protestants accept which are not found in the Bible.

Yes, we are saved by grace alone. “All our merit and all that we merit ultimately derives from God’s gracious condescension in adopting us as his own,” as the Catholic author Steve Kellmeyer put it in Bible Basics. We can obtain additional merit by faith and actions.]

In the exchange between Will G. and Laura, we also see one of the many fundamental differences in belief about the Bible: who wrote it. As I understand it, the Catholic position is that the Church Fathers wrote it, and that the Catholic Church determined what books are included and which are not. The Protestant position is that it is all God’s word, that the Holy Spirit spoke through the authors, and the Holy Spirit guided the compilers. For Protestants, the idea that men wrote the Bible is as nonsensical as saying that my computer wrote this comment. The Scriptural support for this position comes, in part, from 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (ESV)

 [I’m afraid you are incorrect here. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guided the compilers. But the compilers were members of the one unified Church that we now know as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did indeed determine what books are in the canon, but it did so with the aid of Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is a divine institution and the Holy Spirit protects and guides it, which is not to say that individual members and clergy cannot fall into heresy and apostasy. The Church as a whole is under the Holy Spirit’s protection.]

In reply to Will G.’s accusatory questions about purgatory and Marian adoration, Laura responded with her own set of questions. The Bible answers all her questions, but not necessarily in simple passages. For example, our understanding of the Trinity―a word not in the Bible―comes from both the Holy Spirit and the diligent efforts of theologians who came before us. The same applies to Jesus’ nature, etc.

[Those theologians were in many cases Catholic. For instance, the controversy over whether Jesus was both fully divine and fully man was settled within the Church long before the Reformation. Your understanding of the Trinity comes from the diligent efforts of Catholic theologians. Once again, we see that Protestants depend for their faith on the teachings of the Church and yet at the same time reject the authority of the Church. How could the Church have been so right on the most fundamental things and yet so wrong as an entire institution? It is a fatal contradiction.]

As for Jefferson, his heresy is both known and unrepresentative. As a general statement, Will G.’s statement is correct.

[No one would deny that America was founded by Protestants, who came from a variety of sects. Virginia was Anglican. Pennsylvania was heavily Quaker. New England was Puritan. I brought up Jefferson because Will referred to Calvinism and the Constitution, which does not refer to Jesus, the depravity of man or any religious authority.]

Laura writes:

One of the chief problems with Protestantism is that it just ain’t as biblical as they say. For instance, there are numerous passages in the Bible that refute the idea that salvation is by faith alone. The Bible teaches that serious sin injures the state of justification.

Here are a few illustrations from the King James Bible:

Matthew 5:29-30- “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee… And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”