Talk:Neo-Lutheranism

message: I have never, in my life, heard the phrase "Neo-Lutheranism."  I have heard of "High Church Lutheranism" and "Evangelical-Catholicism," which describe what is being described here.  However the term, "Neo-Lutheran" seems to me to do grave violence to the Wikipedia polic of NPOV.  Clealry, to call the assertion that Lutheranism is simply a reform movement within the church catholic a "neo-" anything is to disavow the whole of the Book of Concord, and to try to paint with a perjorative stroke of "innovation" something that both Luther and melancthon steadfastly maintained.  I removed the sneering reference to Lutherans as "Little Catholics," something I have also never before heard. I APPEAL TO THE POWERS THAT BE TO CHANGE THIS TITLE PAGE TO "HIGH CHURCH LUTHERANISM" AND TO NO LONGER SANCTION THIS PERJORATIVE POV.  Please!
Nrgdocadams 03:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the reader of the article, an Episcoplian, and a graduate of Concordia, I assure you that there is a POV, and that it is extremely offensive.  If you did not have a POV, you would not have re-inserted the perjorative phrase about Lutherans being "Little Catholics," which is just mean-spirited.  Further, "Neo-Lutheranism" is not a commonly used term for High church Lutheranism and, in fact, apart from your use of it, I have NEVER heard it used.  It suggests that there is something "neo-" and amiss in High Church Lutheranism.  I appeal again to you and to the other Powers That Be to change this designation.
Nrgdocadams 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You insist on keeping this obnoxious title, "neo-Lutheranism," which is your own perjorative invention, and you insist on re-inserting the perjorative phrase about Lutherans being "little Catholics."  What part of NPOV do you fail to understand?!
Nrgdocadams 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I have lived in Sweden all my life, and I have a major interest in constitutional and political issues, but I have never heard it claimed by anyone that the King of Sweden is the head of the Church of Sweden. Certainly, that ought to have been true some time ago, but certainly not now. Probably that ended with the entering into force of the Instrument of Government of 1973 (or perhaps much, much earlier), or perhaps it theoretically remained until the formal separation of church and state in 2000.
What I do know is that the government appointed the Archbishop of the Church until the year 2000, but after 1973 that would not have been something the King would have had anything to do with, since in 1973 he lost all formal powers. I also know that the King has to be a member of the Church of Sweden as per the Order of Succession of 1809 (still in force). But I can find no mention of the King being the head of the Church of Sweden, neither in the Swedish Constitution nor in the Constitution of the Church of Sweden (Kyrkoordningen). In short, this seems to be wrong, and I will delete it.
DE
:Hmm, it might actually be the case that the King is the formal head of the church, like he is (or was) formally the supreme commander-in-chief over the Swedish Armed forces to be appointed in war time. If this role is formal-symbolic or a true profession, I don't know, but if the latter is the case, I know he is properly educated in an officers school, so he would do an acceptable (at the least) job of it. I'll take a look at this connection between the Swedish Church and the royal family. According to practices of the protestant side in the Reformation, it would be logical to appoint a king or a duke to the position of formal head of a Lutheran church. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DE was perfectly right – I read the Kyrkoordningen (the Order of the Church) HERE,  and found that the king has the right to elect the royal preacher. It also contains the rules for belonging to the royal parish, but nothing whatsoever about any other royal post or role. The head of the Swedish Church is the archbishop. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King of Sweden 

message: I edited this article quite roughly, I hope no-one will be offended. Now, when there are separate articles for Evangelical Catholicism and High Church Lutheranism, this article about Neo-Lutheranism should be concentrated on this specific historical, mainly German phenomenon. I hope some parts of that old article could still be used in other articles, for example I removed already ELCIC statement to Catholic Evangelical (Terot 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edition of 3th August 2006 

message: Just an FYI: Unless you have a degree in Theology this page makes no sense as do many of the other religious pages. may want to think about explaining concepts and ideologies in lay terms rather than using widely unknown lingo and terminology Macutty 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a must-fix that was my immediate reaction when reading this article. The article must be cleaned, clarified and enhanced. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyones an expert? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Neo-Lutheranism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051020135512/http://www.lsfmissiology.org:80/Essays/SchererTriumphofConfessionalism.pdf to http://www.lsfmissiology.org/Essays/SchererTriumphofConfessionalism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified