Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 2

message: Moved misplaced comment to Talk:Lutheranism#Infant Baptism
I hope I cleaned up Ecumenism.  I tired to get the sections to flow better and to remove what I thought was a non-neutral point of view.  I also removed reference to the trinity, as that would generally be covered in a section of doctrine.  I also removed the quote from the Joint Statement on Justification as it didn't seem to fit in this article, and could be placed on the article for the Joint Statement. TedTschopp 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheranism 

message: I tried to improve the parallelism in this section by splitting LCMS and WELS.
It would be helpful if someone familiar with WELS could clarify their structure;
I couldn't find discussion on their web page of anything between the synod and congregation.
--johnh
:Thanks for that.  I'll see if I can flesh out info on the LCMS and WELS, and maybe add a little history of how and why the Lutherans came to America.  And would anyone be offended if I took away "the more conservative LCMS and even more conservative..." - the wording seems unnecessary, as "conservative" is usually a pretty charged word.  I'd also like the "more conservative" caution against syncretism expressed in the "Lutheran ecumenism" section, without it sounding antagonistic - any ideas on that one?
:-Dec. 30, 2004 JonathanHadley
::I think "...more conservative LCMS and even more conservative WELS..." is an accurate and fair description. Terms like "extreme" would be inappropriate, but I think the phrase as you quoted it is OK, at least to this LCMS reader. --StanZegel 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lutheranism in the US

message: I've begun a reorganization of the doctrinal section of the article, with the hope of making it easier to read, eliminate tangents, and do some NPOV. If you have some difficulty with the content of this work, please discuss here before editing. Thanks! Rev. Bob Smith, Electronic Resources Librarian, Concordia Theological Seminary (LCMS) --CTSWyneken 13:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of Doctrinal Section

message: Why are current fights within the ELCA/LCMS/etc. included in this section?  They have nothing to do with the organization of each synod!  Let's make sure that subsections are used for what they say they are for.  --Rekleov 18:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominational Organization

message: Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. Agriculture 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something which may interest editors of this page 

message: Dear Friends: I've finished adapting at CTSWyneken (Talk)/Lutheranism the historical section of the existing article to my satisification. Please take a look and see if it is agreeable to you all. If I hear no objections by end of next week, I'll move them to our article.
I also think we will want to take up a discussion of the terms "Evanglical" and "Protestant" in the section under ecumenism. We also may want a few paragraphs on the history of Lutheranism to take us from the 16th Century to the present.
--CTSWyneken 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of Proposed Changes to the Historical Sections Finished 

message: I assume this is a question of different languages, but in German the followers of Luther and Zwingli are the archetypical Protestants and other confessions, like Calvinists and Methodists only in a wider sense of the word. --Pjacobi 16:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Germans mostly use the word "Evangelical" and not the word Protestant.  According to the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation's article "Protestantism," the word was used very rarely and only politically in the Sixteenth Century. For the most part it was used for the specific states that protested at the Second Diet of Speyer. Only later did the term come to mean the traditions that were expelled from the Roman Catholic Church at that time and only very much later any non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Church. The objection is due to the fact that many Lutherans do not like being classed as Protestants (a term not used by Lutherans at all, as far as I can tell, until 19th Century America). My proposals try to avoid using the term outside of the discussion of the Diet of Speyer and the ecumenical movement as it is found among Lutherans that cherishes this kind of  association. --CTSWyneken 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant (continued) 

message: Please note that, as has been discussed above, I believe the first paragraph is not the place to enter into the controversy over whether or not Lutherans are Protestants. Please note the beginnings of that discussion are now reflected in the Religious War section. I also plan to put a discussion of the term into the section on ecumenism and perhaps in other placed. --CTSWyneken 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant in First Paragraph 

message: I must admit that I haven't read the entire discussion above, but I would just like to add a comment on Lutherans in the Netherlands. On May 1, 2004, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands merged with two churches from the Calvinist tradition to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands.
I think the question whether Lutherans are part of Protestantism should not be blurred by the doctrines and practices of some other denominations who think of themselves as Protestants. Personally, I find it a bit silly to distance yourself from a movement just because some elements within that movement say or do things you don't agree with. --Benne 10:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutherans in the Netherlands are part of the Protestant Church 

message: If you're going to have a list of famous Lutherans, they should be internationally famous, unless you want a US-o-pedia. Someone please fix it. Dunc|☺ 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of famouse American Lutherans (systematic bias) 

message: A variety of terms are used in Lutheran circles for Holy Communion. They are:
*Holy Communion
*The Lord's Supper
*The Sacrament of the Altar
*The Eucharist (although this term, believe it or not, refers to the Rite of Holy Communion traditionally)
*Body and Blood of Christ
In Lutheran dogmatic texts, all are used, while the Lord's Supper is the one most frequently used. I'd argue it is the easiest to understand, followed next by Holy Communion. I have no objection to using a variety of these terms here.
--CTSWyneken 11:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms for the Lord's Supper 

message: The term "eucharist" is theologically loaded, in that it implies that the sacrament of the altar is a sacrifice of thanksgiving.  
This position was anathema to many early Lutherans including Flacius (who famously said that "in the Eucharistic prayer lurks the whole papacy") and Chemnitz, and is still regarded as heterodoxy among many American Lutherans.  (See also Section 23 of the Apology to the AC.)  A better term to use in the close-communion discussion would be "Holy Communion" or "The Sacrament of the Altar"; both have the advantage of universal acceptance among Lutherans, overwhelming precedent in the confessions, and theological neutrality on what is, at best, a serious controversy.
WillBenton 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy about eucharistic language 

message: Just curious where this "fact" comes from; notice it was recently changed, but according to http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity they fall around 9th worldwide; and if we take the number given here of 82.6 million they're still 5th.  I suppose it depends on what your definition of a "Christian Movement" is, but seems to me like at least Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Anglican, Baptist and Methodist qualify from that list. Peyna 04:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third largest "Christian Movement" 

message: The third paragraph has lost a lot of sense in its apparent translation to English: 'Notably, the European churches have very low attending memberships at the offices'. I am not familiar enough with the topic to correct it. Chris the speller 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed on Modern Lutheranism in Europe 

message: CTS - just so you know I made the edits to clean up the section headings and integrated the info into the sections as best as I could understand them from how the headings were before.  Thanks for making the correction. Peyna 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principles 

message: Pastor Smith, the following statement is made within the LCMS description. "Synod decided that women may also "serve in humanly established offices" such as congregation president, reader, or usher. Does the synod define the role of elder as a humanly established office and, if so, would it be beneficial to add this to the current list? Thanks.
:: Short answer yes. Long answer: some congregations assign to the office of elder functions distinct to the office of the ministry (some people consider that a problem 8-) ) and those functions are deemed by Synod as a consequence to be restricted to males. So, in places where Elders do such things, synod requires that office be restricted to males. --CTSWyneken 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanly established offices 

message: have a "interim agreement" according to this page.
what's "interim agreement"?
:: I haven't looked at this page for awhile, so a wild stab at it:
:: The ELCA and the UMC came to an agreement that allows them to share clergy and celebrate communion together -- on an interim -- try it out for awhile -- basis. The LCMS, WELS and other Lutherans are not party to this agreement and -- to say it mildly -- take a dim view of it. --CTSWyneken 03:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ELCA is already in full communion with several denominations such as the The Episcopal Church, the Moravian Church, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Reformed Church in America.  This means that clergy from any of those denominations can serve in an ELCA church and perform the sacraments in an ELCA church.  The interim agreement is the first step in the process of full communion between the ELCA and UMC.  With an interim agreement, both denominations agree that no fundamental difference exists between them.  Under this agreement, a UMC pastor can perform sacraments at an ELCA church and vice versa as long as an ELCA pastor is present.  There is more information on the ELCA website. KitHutch 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutherans and Methodists 

message: I moved the history section out to a sub-article: History of Lutheranism.  Perhaps the same needs to be done for the huge section regarding Lutheranism in various parts of the world, as it really dominates the article, when perhaps it shouldn't. Peyna 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did that as well.  The article is at Lutheranism by region. Peyna 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This article is so transparently written from a Missouri Synod POV that it should be titled as such. In every paragraph we are first treated to the LCMS view of things, then with a bow to the vast majority of the rest of world Lutheranism, a perfunctory summary of what a Missouri Synod Lutheran thinks these Lutherans believe or teach, often with the LCMS critique. For a quick comparison, I looked up "Lutherans and Lutheranism" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm. Except for calling Lutherans a "sect" (it wasn't until Vatican II that Lutherans could be called a church) and a discussion of "consubstantiation" for the doctrine of the Real Presence, that article betrays less bias than this one. Janko 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that one of the more heavy contributors has openly admitted to being an LCMS member.  So, it's not entirely surprising that this has happened. Peyna 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you mean me, yes, of course I'm an LCMS Lutheran and never hid this fact, nor pretended to be otherwise. Now that that is out of the way, see section below.--CTSWyneken(talk) 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I join CTS in not trying to hide or keep secret my identity on Wikipedia. Some users choose to cloak their identity, like you Penya, others do not. I welcome any specific comments you may have on this issue. Ptmccain 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where you are going with the identity comment, so I can't really respond to it.  I have no desire to associate my  real name and personal information with my edits and comments on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that I won't reveal certain facts about myself that may impact my edits to a particular page.  Were I seriously involved in editing a page and involved in heated discussions about its content, I would certainly disclose any personal stake I may appear to have in the matter.  Sometimes we may subconsciously insert bias into our edits when dealing with subjects with which we hold a strong personal opinion, and therefore full disclosure can help others counter any bias you may have unwittingly added to an article. Peyna 00:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a note, that despite the apparent tone of my comment, I was merely trying to point out that the fact that we have some openly LCMS editors working on this article, that a passerby found it to be LCMS-centric is not a surprise.  Just as many article on Wikipedia start out being very US-centric until someone with a more international POV comes along. Peyna 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Peyna, making assertions without specific examples of what you are talking about is not really very helpful. Would you please identify precisely what you regard as uniquely "Missouri Synod" in the article? Thanks. Ptmccain 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the claim was made by User:Janko, not me.  I merely pointed out that I am aware that a regular editor of this article is an LCMS Lutheran may perhaps have resulted in some sort of subconscious, unintentional bias.  It was merely an observation, and I certainly made no evaluation of Janko's claim. Peyna 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has anything to raise here by way of a specific quote, phrase or otherwise, please post it. Vague, imprecise and imprecise assertions are not helpful. I'm sure we can all come up with appropriate wording if there is truly some sort of "Missouri Synod" bias on the page. Ptmccain 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt my comment about the basic organization of the article was specific enough to establish bias. The post-Seminex Missouri/conservative view is almost always given first, then a "summary" of other views, often with the conservative critique. Since the bias is structural, to cite examples would be tantamount to reproducing the entire article. Nor do I want to waste my time doing a sentence count, though I am certain of the results. LCMS is even the first link at the bottom of the page! The most salient example, however, is where the much smaller pan-national organizations are mentioned first, then the Lutheran World Federation, none with any numbers representing membership. ELCA writers do not capitalize pronouns referring the Jesus and avoid gender-specific pronouns for God. The former follows current English usage (such as the NRSV), the second, if not handled carefully, will look as tendentious as the capitals. The use of the terms "formal principle" and "material principle" are also no longer current in the ELCA or most of continental Lutheranism, but are often used by Missouri writers. These are perhaps more benign forms of conservatism and only indicate that a Missouri Synod Lutheran wrote the article. Janko 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the specific comments. Is there anything else in the article that you think shows a LCMS bias? Ptmccain 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The whole article needs review anyway and Peyna has cited one example. He also has done an overview of the article in the lead. May I suggest that we work through that lead and then through the whole article? In the mean time, if you wish to take a stab and sorting links and putting numbers to them, go for it. If you wish to try your hand at rephrasing the sentence quoted by Peyna below, please do. As far as pronouns, if you want to decapitalize them, go for it. This is, after all, a secular encyclopedia and we cannot expect it to confess Jesus as God, which is the point of such capitalization. I would caution that, while the article should not sound like the LCMS, it also should not sound like any other church body as well. On Matrerial and Formal Principle, I find the terms very helpful in analyzing any religious system, from Buddhism to a Christian tradition to Mormonism etc. Why not identify the core teaching of a tradition, its main sources of authority, and, for that matter, its salvation history, worldview and eschatology -- which are the most useful topics I've found in understanding another's faith? That being said, the language itself is by far not necessary. Does that get at the issues you've raised in the above? --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask that any proposed changes be put here first for discussion. Ptmccain 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to start? 

message: Before I get close to a 3rr with Ptmccain, I just wanted to say, this is the image I wanted to post that he keeps removing. If anyone wants to add it back, please do. --evrik 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand this image, it is based on a headstone design offered the families of American servicemen and as such, would not carry a great deal of meaning for English speakers outside of the United States and perhaps Canada. Basically, it's the center of the Luther Rose superimposed on a Latin cross, though this particular design is not used by any particular Lutheran church. The graphic is also rather poor quality. Janko 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The design is used on grave markers at Arlington; however, its relevance to Lutheranism isn't really all that clear.  What could be done is to create an article about the Lutheran cross and then it could be included in the "See also" section of this page. Peyna 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur entirely with Janko and Penya. I would appreciate it, Evrik, if you would keep it off the Lutheranism page. There is no "Lutheran Cross" and to present an image as such is inaccurate and misleading to readers. Thank you.Ptmccain 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A separate article on it, or perhaps all of the Arlington headstones would be an appropriate place for it. I'd see no problem with a link in the see also section with a better description in the caption, like: grave marker used for Lutheran servicemen buried at Arlington National Cemetery. The problem with the current caption is that it seems to suggest the symbol is used by Lutherans universally, which it is not. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lutheran Cross?