Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

Canon
What is that in the name of the current head bishop? it not listed here Smith03 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bishop Johnson is an honorary canon of Christ's Church Cathedral in Hamilton. Honorary canons are customarily known (when ordained) as "the Rev. Canon NN." See  and most tellingly  Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBS
There's seems to be a little cabal determined to excise any information on the Eastern Synod's position on same-sex blessings. If anyone wants to make such changes, let's discuss it here. Vandalising my talk page with anti-vandalism messages, or making soapbox edits (and accusing those who oppose them of soapboxing) accomplishes nothing. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carolyn - as I stated on your talk page it is not the ELCIC's position but rather the Eastern synods -BIG DIFFERENCE ASK THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF ONTARIO - If you would like to create an article and include your info on the eastern synods support for ssb then go ahead. I know the lutherism group has requested an article for the eastern synod to be written. Blessings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please sign your edits by typing four ~ at the end. The Eastern Synod is one of the most high-profile in this debate, and its position is definitely notable, especially since there is not, as yet, an Eastern Synod article. Please feel free to add information on the positions of other synods and bodies, but do not remove notable information from the article. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carolyn - I understand what you are saying however what the Eastern synod says or does is not reflective of the entire ELCIC. This is like saying Ontario is Canada. That is not to say I totally dismiss your comments but rather they should be placed where they belong, on the eastern synods page. Thright (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) thright

No, Thright. It's not like equating Ontario with Canada. First of all Eastern Synod covers everything from Ontario to the Maritimes. It's by far geographically the largest diocese of the ELCIC. In any case, all it is is saying that ES is an important part of the ELCIC. That's a much better analogy. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok it seems that you are getting upset, please don't. I have read your talk page and it seems that you have a bias towards SSB. However your bias should not be reflected in your edits. The ELCIC is not in support of SSB and it is not an issue NOW. It is over! Christians forget that the Cross is what the church is about and not other less important issues. Second, you have accused me as being a sockpuppet in an attempt for your voice to be heard. This is a real shame. I ask you to write that article about the eastern synod. Then your voice can be heard. Thright (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright

- your last edit is much better! Thright (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Thright, it's really insulting that you would try to attribute my edits to some kind of personal bias on my own part. It appears that you and 53whatever might be the same person. If that is the case, then that is a problem. Don't shoot the messenger. Finally, the statement that the issue is "over" is objectively false. Lutherans Concerned certainly hasn't hung up the towel. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Maybe we should have this conversation on our talk pages. In any case, the CHURCH believes it is over. This article is about the ELCIC and not about the other groups who are in support of ssb. Therefore the article MUST reflect the church and not someone’s opinion. There are lots of topics which members of the ELCIC are in debate over, such as, abortion, environment rights, smoking, ect... but you do not see them included in the ELCIC article, why? because the ELCIC has official policy, as they do on ssb, on those topics. By including any mention of ssb, which again the church has ruled against, is including personal bias.Thright (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright
 * My own denomination, the Anglican Church of Canada, recently defeated a resolution allowing same-sex blessings, but no one would ever be so naive as to suggest that it's "over." Why? Because we know that it will be on our agenda again the next time, as it will be on the ELCIC's no doubt as well. It's still a live issue by any objective standard. To say that "any" mention of SSBs is a bias is laughable. But at least it leaves me feeling better about being accused of bias, since you clearly don't know anything about the policies you and your alter-ego keep citing. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Carolyn your bias is clear. It is also being reflected in your responces on this talk page.  The simple fact is that ssb is not an issue, and, you keep digging them up.  I have no motive here but to make the ELCIC page relect the church.  It is very clear that you are using this page and others to support the ssb side.  This is not the point of wiki and I feel you are trying to make a WP:POINT.  In any event stop making baseless personal attacks. Thright (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright
 * For the love of God, please stop. Some of us are capable of suppressing our biases. You've accused me of 1) bias, 2) soapboxing, and 3) personal attacks, all of which are bogus. I realize that you are new, and I implore you to sit back and get a feel for the process before you start misquoting every known Wiki policy to people who are just trying to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ps I also see that you are in violation of the RV3 rule. However, being the type of person I am I will not report this event.  A topic such as ssb can become heated very fast. Thright (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright
 * 3RR prohibits one from making four or more reversions in a day. I have made a total of three edits to the article today, only two of which were reverts. Read the policies before you hit other people over the head with them, genius. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to cause a fight by calling me names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me - I'm trying to cause a fight? Thright, your comments are quite contentious, so it's hard for me to take that in a non-ironic way. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In any event this converstation is about the ELCIC page and not about our disagreement. There it is over!  If you would like to talk more about ssb, then lets do somewhere else.  Blessings.Thright (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Now you're just trying to wind me up. I'm going to bed. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The disputed section had "apparently" been moved according to this edit (diff here). We shall see if it really does appear at Eastern Synod, or has just wafted into the ether. --Skol fir (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Eastern Synod (the article, not the entity!) didn't yet exist at the time of this dispute, when the SSB debate was indeed taking place at a synod level. Since the national church is due to vote on same-sex marriage next month, though, any move seems to be moot now as no one can claim that the issue's scope is too "regional" for this article. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
The issue appears to be how (and whether) the dispute over the blessing of same-sex unions in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ought to be covered. Thright feels, if I'm not mistaken, that any mention of Eastern Synod's actions in approving such blessings (and their later overruling by the national church) is POV-pushing. S/he states that the "debate is over" and not worth discussing. I believe that, while the debate is on hiatus (it's certainly not "over"), the events that transpired are notable of themselves, and that including them per se is not a violation of NPOV. Please help. See also Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Came here via RFC.

Ummmm.... I can see no reason for leaving it out of the article.

It could only be POV pushing if somehow spin was added to the facts- as opposed to just reporting the facts. I'd say one to two senteces, in ____year the church sanctioned same-sex marriages, which was overuled by the _____. Hohohahaha (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A simple statement of the facts of what was passed by the ES and what was defeated by the ELCIC is not POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.33.82 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Hohohahaha. A one or two sentence statement would be sufficient, as the subject appears to have had some notability. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, since most church's governing bodies make decisions of import every year, this one doesn't seem to be any more important than a host of other "issues." I would say, "Why include this one?" But, perhaps there is somehing here. Is it important that the ES was "overruled" by the ELCIC; and, is it important that they obeyed the higher ruling? (Or, did they not obey?) Something like this would add to the greater understanding of how the two church bodies interface with each other. Otherwise, what is the intellectual or educational value of knowing this? Rengewwj (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (coming in via RFC) Looking at the article, it seems that this decision received enough mention in 3rd party sources to be sourced for inclusion- there are small mentions in some general large-scale media (the linked CBC article, a Washington Post article that popped up on a Google search...) and more discussion in specialty religious media (the Anglicans Journal has some discussion around the topic here). Compared with other procedural decisions made by the church, this one seems to have drawn attention from outside the ELCIC itself.  As this is a significant ongoing contemporary issue for much Christian denominations, and as its drawn mention in 3rd party sources, it seems reasonable to include some discussion of the controversy in the article.  --Clay Collier (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, including some discussion of the controversy in the article is not only reasonable but almost mandatory. Give the people every aspect of the issue in this article. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(RFC Response) I agree that some coverage is necessary. I think the amount should be closer to Hohohahaha's suggestion than to what is in the article now. GRBerry 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If nobody else will say it, then I will. There's a conflict between gay people and traditional religious people about the extent to which these two groups of people will be allowed to overlap. People are understandably interested in this conflict; they're following it closely and want to know relatively more details about church decisions that relate to it than other church decisions of a nominally equivalent intensity. Invisible Flying Mangoes (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

II 100% agree. Church groups and homosexual groups are indeed in conflict with each other, and people are going to be very interested about which group the church will sway to. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that leaving the information out is POV-pushing. This is a notable controversy that should be mentioned. I tend to agree with Hohohahaha. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's notable and has third-party coverage. But, it should not be given undue attention (WP:UNDUE).  User:Hohohahaha's proposal is reasonable and I support it.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the info that Carolynparrishfan deleted. Consensous here suggests that it should remain.  Furthermore, the use of the words ' weasel words and crystal-balling' in the edit summery is non-productive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryH12 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate
Apart from the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

impossible name?
A single user has changed the entries of the ELCA's German sister churches to their German names because he thinks the "concept" can't be translated. Most of the discussion takes place on the wikipedia article on the Evangelical Church in Germany, the roof organisation of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches in Germany. Maybe you have a look? Because according to that user (and he really insists) the Church should not be called that way. Some of the member churches are outspoken Lutheran like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, some are "united" like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, 2 are Reformed like the Evangelical Reformed Church. Usually one member church covers a unique area (pretty much like a diocese). Maybe you want to take part in the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)