Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 2

Lutheranism
Moved misplaced comment to Talk:Lutheranism

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)

I moved a couple things around and tried to clear up some references which I thought were unclear. Also think that the reference to the Trinity in Ecumenism with other Christians should be removed or moved to another section as it does not really address the issue of Lutheran relations with other Christian denominations. Also this whole Ecumenism section is just a collection of sentances formated as paragraphs without any thought as to content or flow. TedTschopp 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this article (and Presbyterian Church) be renamed to Lutheranism and Presbyterianism respectively (following the example of Methodism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy among others)? --Xiaopo's Talk 09:02, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

This is a really confusing article. Maybe dumb it down a little bit. Like, what is a "synod?"

I'm not sure the edits made on April 24 are--CTS Wyneken (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) appropriate (hmm, that link looks like it will show all of the changes after April 20, not just the single diff I want.. bah). They seem to have been made by an LCMS member. Not that there's anything wrong with being in LCMS&mdash;some of the new text just seems a little slanted. Someone with a much greater theological understanding than me should take a look at it. However, some of the info that was previously on the page may not have been appropriate either (and there were some definite formatting/spelling errors that were corrected). The thing about Jan Hus seems somewhat spurious, as the 100-year gap mentioned in earlier revisions of this article doesn't seem to match up. Hus died on July 6, 1415, and the 95 theses went up sometime in 1517, I guess. &mdash;Mulad 06:36, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the comments that the changes to the page (in particular, the "Lutheran Orthodoxy vs. Liberalism") are entirely inappropriate.

The beginning of the page has undergone a few edits in order to describe the difference between Lutheranism and Protestantism. By definition, Lutherans were the original "Protestants" - use of the term grew to include other sects. (In addition, see Gritsch: Introduction to Lutheranism or History of Lutheranism for reference.)

The history article seems to end in the 1600s. I was looking for a summary of the Lutheran Church' role in Nazi Germany, but, the article kind of portrays the Lutheran Church as disappearing centuries earlier? Maybe I'm just missing one of those links to click for "history of xxxx" in topic xxxx?

Good point - there is a rather incomplete discussion of Lutheran history - any discussion of Lutheran roles in WWII has to discuss Dietrich Bonhoeffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

(We should also maybe add something about 'pietism' as well...)

Lutheranism in the US
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)

Anonymous user User:24.10.141.4 made a number of changes to the article, particularly in the section on Lutheranism in the US. In my opinion they move the article substantally away from NPOV. I have therefore reverted them and asked the user (via their talk page) to discuss them here.

I would appreciate it if other folks could also take a look at them as well to provide a second opinion.

As a specific example of text that concerns me, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Inter-demoninational relations was changed from "Many members of the ELCA believe that such higher criticism represents the best efforts of modern scholarship." to "While many members of the ELCA believe that such criticism represents the best efforts of modern scholarship, critics often see this approach as in danger of being relativistic, or making doctrine more acceptable for our times.". That statement is true, but the change focuses the paragraph on criticism of the method and shifts it from NPOV.

My understanding was that this section should state, briefly and positively, each denomination's point of view. Detailed analysis and critique of these views seem better left for more specialized home pages of the specific denominations. (For example, see the "Relationship with other church bodies" section of the LCMS page.)

This is just my opinion, but it seems like the alternative ends up reproducing much of that very detailed material on this page, and making it very hard for outsiders to get an overview of the different denominations. Johnh 03:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To try and address these issues, I reverted the 2nd set of User:24.10.141.4's changes, added text to the 2nd paragraph to suggest why the historical-grammatical proponents consider their approach important, and added references to the denomination pages for details about inter-denominational differences. Comments from other folks and/or alternative suggestions are welcome. Johnh 15:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization of Doctrinal Section
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)

Denominational Organization
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)

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

Are Lutherans Protestant?
There are quite a few of us that believe Lutheranism is a distinct tradition within Christianity and that it is misleading to class us as Protestants. Lutherans believe in Baptismal Regeneration, the actual presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in/with and under bread and wine, preach a sharp distinction between Law and Gospel, believe that the work of Salvation is entirely God's from start to finish, that the focus of our lives should be on Christ and not ourselves, value traditional music and forms of worship (although some value contemporary forms, too), believe that pastors are called by God and as His representatives forgive sins in His name. I can go on. Taken together, most people who call themselves Protestant would not recognize this profile as Protestant. What goes as Protestant distinctives (the necessity of accepting Jesus as a personal savior, no sacraments, personal focus in worship) are rejected strongly by Lutheran theologians. Hundreds were persecuted for not being willing to accept that they were the same as protestants.

A list of major differences between Lutherans and Catholics, Orthodox, Holiness, Anabaptist, and Pentecostal traditions can easily be made. So... Lutherans are a distinct tradition within the Christian Church.

So, NPOV here means we must express both viewpoints.

--CTSWyneken 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Protestant is a term in reference to the Reformation, of which Lutheranism is certainly a result. The standard dictionary definition of Protestant also mentions Martin Luther himself.  What you list as "Protestant distinctives" are more like "born-again Christian" distinctions.  Anyway, Protestant has more to do with the Reformation than any specific opinion on sacraments, etc.  About the only thing most Protestants agree on is salvation by faith through grace.  Aside from that there are myriad differences.  Think of Protestant as a historical term more than anything.  Peyna 22:46:35, 2005-08-29 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to be so dismissive; but if you could provide some evidence of Lutherans that do not consider themselves Protestants it might be more worthy of being expressed. From NPOV policy page: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Peyna


 * I will do some work on the topic. Of course, since most Lutherans I know personally hold the same view (I work at a seminary of the 2.3 Million member Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod), I might ask you to document that your view is widely held. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

--CTSWyneken 00:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I put into evidence this from the official website of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod.


 * And this from the website of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:


 * "You mention that no other Protestant group observes Lent. Are you implying that Lutherans are Protestants? Lutherans are not Protestants. They are Lutherans. Lutheran theology is as different from the theology of the Methodists and the Baptists as it from the theology of the Roman Catholics. In that difference lies the reason why Lutherans observe Lent and Protestants do not."
 * --
 * More later...

(unsigned contribution by CTSWyneken)


 * The ELCA recognizes their Protestant connection:


 * Generally though, we should first consult the Wikipedia article for Protestantism. From that article, I think there is clearly no issue.  Perhaps if it is qualified in this article as in, "Lutherans are Protestants, in that their beliefs stem from the Protestant Reformation."


 * I think the problem is the definition of Protestantism that is being used.

Peyna 01:22:01, 2005-08-30 (UTC)


 * See also Christian_denominations. Perhaps certain groups of Lutherans would fall into what that article calls "Restorationism."  For example, I know there are a number of Baptist groups that claim they are not Protestants; however, there is substantial evidence that they are a product of the Protestant Reformation, and therefore are Protestant.

Peyna 01:31:34, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Lutherans are Protestants:

"LUTHERAN" of or pertaining to Luther, adhering to his doctrine, or belonging to one of the Protestant churches that bear his name" RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2nd edition

"LUTHERANS make up the largest Protestant denomination in the world." WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA 1998

"Lutheranism - one of the few major Protestant movements to be named after its founder" ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA 1999

"Lutherans - a Protestant denomination guided by doctrinal and institutional emphases promulgated by Martin Luther." Collier's Encyclopdia 1995

"Lutheranism - A branch of Protestantism that generally follows the teachings of the 16th century reformer Martin Luther."

Do I need to get any more references? KitHutch 19:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should let this discussion run for a few more days, but I think it is pretty clear at the moment what the result will be. I suggest that we remove the reference regarding those who feel they are not protestants from the top of the article. If it's worth mentioning, it can go below somewhere. I don't see a POV issue with this, since it's a basic fact that they are Protestants. That some people don't think they are doesn't change that they are. We're not talking about some far off theory that can't be proven right or wrong. Peyna 20:07:03, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Simply because non-Lutheran sources and some Lutheran sources view Lutherans as protestants does not mean that those of us who have conservative views and feel very strongly about this issue should be ignored. For us it is a matter of identity. Our church body is no small, isolated gathering, nor is the Wisconsin Synod. Together we are over 3 Million strong. In North America, there are hundreds of thousands in the Lutheran Church -- Canada. This does not even begin to count our sister churches worldwide. It is a POV issue for us because we find it a burden to constantly explain how different we are from Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Independent Evangelicals, etc. While the ELCA may be ready, in their eagerness to get along with others, to downplay these differences, we feel it a great disservice to others to fool them into thinking that we agree beyond the basics that all Christians share. To remove the statement as it is at this moment would impose a POV -- ignoring the congregations of over 1/3 of all Lutherans in America. I, for one, do not want anyone to think I believe that people should do something to be saved or to prove that they are saved, which is what the doctrines of most churches classed as protestants believe. They -- just ask Baptists and Evangelicals -- would not want anyone to believe that they thing Baptism is an act of God which saves us -- which if someone who attended a Lutheran Church thinking us representative of "protestants" would believe. To me, this endangers a person's faith, something I do not want to be party to.

While others may disagree, the statement as stands, should remain, because it takes into account what every Lutheran believes. If you really want me to, I can provide pages more quotations from Lutherans that strongly object to being classed as either Catholic or Protestant. To do otherwise is to invite a citation war when qualifying statements of classical Lutheran teachings would be edited out of the article later, simply because a majority disagrees with it. So, let stand the "many believe...many" statement.

--CTSWyneken 10:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Another alternative would be not to mention Protestantism at all in the opening paragraph. We could pick up the issue under ecumenical relations. So, I'd just leave the first sentence.

--CTSWyneken 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lutherans are a product of the Protestant Reformation. This is an historical fact. They are Protestants. While they may differences in theology with other protestant churches, they are still protestant. Protestant does not define their ideologies, it defines their history, something which at least in general (that they are a result of the Protestant Reformation) cannot logically be disputed. Peyna 14:45:21, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Also, this page itself calls Lutherans Protestants on many occasions, especially in its discussion of the history of the church. This is more than just an issue of the statement in the first paragraph; what you propose would require a significant change in the article. I'm certainly not advocating the suppression of a particular POV, which would definitely violate NPOV; but I do feel that you're seeing this issue incorrectly.

What you argue is akin to arguing that a page about "African-Americans" mentioning that some of them do not consider themselves "African-Americans" but rather simply African. While it may true; it is NPOV that if you are of African descent, and live in America, you are an "African-American". It's not possible to reasonably dispute that. So the position that some Lutherans "do not consider themselves" to be Protestant doesn't mean that they actually believe that Luther was not the father of the Protestant reformation. It means they feel a disconnect from other Protestant denominations. That feeling is not a defining characteristic of Lutherans, whereas their historical place as Protestants is a defining characteristic of Lutherans.

To reiterate; Protestantism is not a current set of beliefs or practices, it is an historical context. Belief in transubstantiation does not change whether or not a religion is Protestant.

Even if every Lutheran in the world voted to say that they are not Protestant, it would not change the fact that they are. Peyna 14:58:56, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Perhaps we're using different definitions of the word "protestant" here? Looking at the definitions of protestant at dictionary.com:

I can't imagine too many Lutherans (of any denomination) would disagree that Lutherans are included in any of those terms. (The 4th definition is "one who avows".)
 * 1) A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.
 * 2) A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
 * 3) One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans.

CTSWyneken, can you suggest what definition of Protestantism you have in mind, that is in general use, that would be inconsistent with saying "Lutherans are Protestant"?

Note that saying "Lutherans are Protestants" does not mean they do not have additional, more specific believes or customs, just as saying "Lutherans are Christians" does not deny that they have specific doctrine about Christianity.

That said, perhaps the intro can dodge the issue of "Lutherans are Protestant". The important point seems to be to relate Lutherans to the protestant reformation and tradition, as opposed to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity. Perhaps a statement in the introduction like "The Lutheran movement grew out of the Protestant Reformation; today more than 80 million people worldwide consisder themselves Lutheran." can capture that while avoiding the issue that you find troublesome. Johnh 17:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I can document historically that Protestant is not a term used by Lutheran churches of themselves until the 19th Century America, when the Lutherans who advocated using the term did so in order to avoid Lutheran distinctives to achieve a kind of unity with the rest of non-Catholic America. In fact, the Reformation in Germany preceeds that of the Reformed and Anabaptists in Switzerland. It was the "Protestants" who joined the "Lutheran" Reformation, not the other way around. Historically, Lutherans came first and were joined by others who disagreed with the doctines of the Roman Church. At the Marburg Colloquy, Luther and Lutherans could not come to an agreement with the Swiss, leading to a permenant breach between the two traditions. If you would like, I will look for that documentation. To the extent that non-Lutherans agree with Lutherans, it is because we are all Christian, and not because we are all Protestant. Because others see this differently, I'm willing to all it to stand, with a qualification that many of us have deep disagreement with this label.

I had hoped to revise all the statements in this article related to Protestantism eventually, but I have other responsibilities as a Seminary Librarian, Pastor, Coordinator of Project Wittenberg, a husband, father and Lutheran Pastor. Much of the reason for engaging in this debate is to find the right language to convey it all. If you recall, I started simply by replacing it with the term Christian.

I also must note that Lutherans never have nor never will subscribe to transubstantion. We do not believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, but the the Body and Blood of Christ are present with the Bread and Wine. This is a huge difference with all Churches called Protestants. It is not a PRACTICE it is a doctrine. For Lutherans, it is a gift of grace. For Protestants it is an act of obedience.

Again, you miss the point with the word religion. A religion is a the practice of a tradition or faith movement. It is what we do. And, yes, that makes a big difference. Catholic practise does rule out someone being Protestant. Lutheran practice rules out someone being Catholic or Protestant.

So, I would submit that if every Lutheran and Christian in the world were to believe them to be Protestant, it would not change that they are not.

More Later. --CTSWyneken 01:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My point in the statement, "Even if every Lutheran in the world voted to say that they are not Protestant, it would not change the fact that they are." is that the members of a group can't just change their historical context willy-nilly and make it whatever they want.

Lutheranism is largely based upon the Augsburg Confession. That alone should be enough to demonstrate that Lutherans are Protestants.

Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura; these are the basic beliefs of the Protestant Reformation. Are you saying Lutherans do not hold these beliefs?

LCMS: [] - Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone

WELS: [] - Same phrase is on the WELS seal.

Also, in Germany, Protestant and Lutheran are synonymous (where as a Presbyterian is not called a Protestant in Germany). Keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be US-Centric.

Peyna 02:22:45, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

What do you mean that other Protestants reject the Real Presence in Communion? Other Protestant groups like Anglicans and Methodists believe in Real Presence and reject transubstantion and memorialism. You might want to check out the United Methodist Church's official understanding of communion at This Holy Mystery.

The misunderstanding that we are having here is over the definition of Protestantism. There are no set of beliefs that unite all Protestant denominations. Protestant denominations are those churches that started in the 1500s around the time of Luther's protests (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Anglican) or later denominations descended from the original "protesting" groups (Baptists, Methodists).

The beliefs that CTSWyneken describes as Protestant don't reflect the most Protestant churches that I have attended. Those beliefs sound more like American Evangelical beliefs. KitHutch 04:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Friends -- I will address all the issues in this conversation given time -- I promise. My time is limited, so please be patient.

First, I don't want Peyna to feel I'm ignoring our discussion, so I'll briefly address his latest.

You're right. a group cannot change its historic context. That is one of the reasons why Lutherans are not Protestants. First of all, when the Papacy excommunicated the first members of the reformation, it was Martin Luther and the Lutherans who were expelled. (1521) They rallied around the theology of Martin Luther, deliberately rejected the notions and actions of the emerging Anabaptist tradition. They began to discover disagreements with the Reformed tradition almost immediately, which ended with the Lutheran Reformers and the Swiss Reformers parting ways at the Marburg Colloquy. While they shared some theological points in common, they never saw themselves as a part of the same movement. All of this I can document. The Augsburg Confession, by the way, is a Lutheran document, one accepted fully only by Lutherans. So, rather than history supporting that Lutherans are Protestant, it instead supports my contention that Lutherans, in the sense used by Americans, are not Protestant all, no matter what people say.

In Germany, the term "Protestant" is not generally used. The State Church is called "Evangelische" or Evangelical, a term originally used by Lutherans of Lutheran theology. It stands for the churches forced by the Prussian King to merge against their will. Pastors, most of them Lutheran, were deposed, fined and imprisoned for refusing to go along with this merger. A number of them emigrated to America and became a part of the early church bodies now merged into the LCMS, WELS and ELCA. Eventually the States of Germnay allowed the formation of independent churches called "Freikirche" or free churches, among which is the LCMS sister body, the SELK. So, even in that context, it is misleading to say that Lutherans are Protestants. Even if you were to say that Lutherans are Evangelicals (which when said in germany is like saying in america that all Lutherans belong to the Missouri Synod), it would still not be completely accurate, since a substantial number of Lutherans do not belong to the State Church. This is a touchy matter for them, by the way, since refusal to be a part of the state church in the 1930-1940s led to many pastors going to the concentration camps of Hitler.

Even if your theory of Protestants in Germany were true, which it is not, it does not make our article US-centric to mention the many Lutherans do not think of themselves as Protestants, or even to remove the term from it entirely. None of us have any trouble being called "Christians." Why not use it?

Sola Fide is indeed the central doctrine of Lutheranism. It was coined by Luther and popularized by Lutherans. Other, non-Lutheran bodies, do teach this doctrine to some extent, for which we are thankful. It is, from the Lutheran perspective, the central doctrine of Christianity. We worry about other traditions, however, that proclaim this but then add a number of human works that are required to "receive" salvation or "know" that you are saved. We view these saying, "we are saved by faith..." and tradition (Anglicans) and loyalty to the Pope (Catholicism) and reason (Calvinism) and a personal decision for Christ (Evanglicalism) and a direct revelation from God (anabaptists and pentecostals) and holy living (Wesleyan and holiness churches). For these traditions, Lutherans are missing something which could cost them their salvation. For Lutherans, we believe they are adding something that could cost them their salvation. That is why it is such a big deal for folk like me. We don't want people to falsely think that we agree in a matter that could separate them from God and from us for ever. We'd like us all to be together in Heaven. Lying to them here might endanger that.

So, here we are again. History does not support that Lutherans were a part of a single movement of Christians that were thrown out of the Roman Catholic CHurch or left it in the 16th Century. Since that is the case, is is quite reasonable for many of us to not see ourselves as Protestants.

Well, that's a start. More later...

--CTSWyneken 12:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnh:

The point I'm trying to make is that the word protestant is useless because it is vague. No one agrees on much of what the term means, other than to say it means "not Catholic." It tells us nothing about what any of these folk teach, believe and confess. Confusion over who really are protestant is evident in our discussion here.

Lutherans are more distant in these areas from any group people normally think of as Protestant. I'd prefer to dump the term altogether, but since many folk are attached to it, I think we should talk about it, mention that many of us do not like the term (others in other traditions, such as the Baptists, don't like it either), and leave it as a single paragraph in the whole.

--CTSWyneken 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Two comments in reply to this point:


 * Perhaps the term is ideal for the introduction precisely because it is vague. I would suggest that that first two sentences of the article are not the place to try and capture the hundreds of pages that make up the Lutheran Confessions, nor the millions of pages of Lutheran scholarship since the Reformation.  It is, on the other hand, useful to quickly get across that (a) Lutherans grew out of the Protestant Reformation and (b) are part of the Western Church, but not Catholic.  The body of the article can and does go into much more detail about Lutheran theology than can be possibly captured in the introduction!


 * If you consider the term "Protestant" to be too vague, then surely you must also object to the statement "Lutherans are Christian". After all, those who claim to be Cristian span a much wider range of beliefs even than those who claim to be protestant.  By your reasoning, if I follow it, this term should be disliked even more than Protestant.  Yet I think


 * By these two points, I mean to suggest that the term Protestant does not seem incorrect, at worst it is vague. I had previously asked you "can you suggest what definition of Protestantism you have in mind, that is in general use, that would be inconsistent with saying "Lutherans are Protestant"?".  To put it more bluntly, is it wrong (a stronger threshold than just vague), in your view, to say "Lutherans are Protestant", and if so why?


 * (I.e., by wrong, I mean can you clarify some widely held definition of Protestant that prescribes some practice that conflicts with widely held Lutheran beliefs.)


 * Johnh 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear KitHutch:

First of all, I never said that Methodists or others do not use the term "Real Presence." But the Methodists do not believe that they eat the real body and drink the real blood of Jesus in the sacrament and that the Lord's Supper actually forgives sin. I know because my wife was a Methodist and my In-Laws still are.

The examples of some of the things I detailed that Protestants believe are taught in churches I've visited that call themselves Protestants. You can see by this why the term is so useless. The only things on which all "Protestants" agree are things that are held in common by all Christians. So why have the term? Call everyone Christian and let it go at that.

--CTSWyneken 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While I certainly don't consider it to be the "end all be all" source of information; it is worth noting that a large number of encyclopedias list Lutherans as being Protestant.

CTS, you seem to have the approach (and correct me if I am wrong, I do not mean to speak for you) that Lutherans are not Protestant, because first there was the reformation, and then it "forked" in a sense, Lutherans continuing in one way, everyone else in the other. So you contend based on that, Lutherans are not Protestants, but "everyone else" is. What the rest of us are saying is that the determining mark for whether one is Protestant or not is set prior to that fork in historical time.

What I see here, and don't take this as a personal attack because it certainly isn't, is that as a member of LCMS yourself, you have the mindset (similar to that expoused by the LCMS) that your way is the only "right" way (not that others can't be saved, but that they have some things "wrong"). As a result of this belief, there is a strong desire for separation and distance between the LCMS and other Protestant churches. Thus, an attempt to look back and redefine the church as something completely separate from the other Protestant churches from the beginning and loosening any ties and connections. It's almost a political tactic. It is also very similar to what a number of Baptist churches try to do. (Some even claim an Anabaptist connection, which certainly does not exist). Granted; however, that the goal of Baptists in this case in an attempt to disclaim any connection with the Roman Catholic church and not Protestantism. (It's just that they have to claim the latter to get to the former). Lutherans would be very hard pressed to say they did not come from the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, CTS, you seem to be well comfortable with defining other people's beliefs for them, but take it quite personally when someone tries to place Lutherans into the "Protestant" box. Perhaps it would be wise for all of us in the discussion to take a step back and evaluate how truly NPOV we are approaching the issue.

At the moment, I'm taking the step of reviewing related pages on Wikipedia to see if a similar discussion has already taken place. There seems to be a form of stare decisis in place here.

Peyna 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the term Protestant is intentionally vague, and if someone is reading the article on Wikipedia, they can click on the Wikilink for it and find out exactly what it means when used to describe Lutherans. Therefore, there is no chance of confusion. A person of average intelligence will not hear "Protestant" and think of the set of beliefs of Calvinists, for example, but rather the person of average intelligence hears the word "Protestant" and thinks "Oh yeah, that thing that Luther started with the Catholic Church."

Current attempts to distance themselves from use of the term doesn't negate its historical context.

Peyna 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Peyna:

I would argue that we both think that we are right and that the other is wrong on this point. Neither of us would hold our positions if we did not believe ourselves right, would we? On matters of theology, which are not the concern of this encyclopedia, nor directly relevant to the point we're debating, how would you expect me to speak? If I saw you walking off a cliff, yelled to you, "Don't do it!" and you replied, "That's OK. I can fly!" Would you have me say, "Oh, well, he has a right to his opinion." and walk away? Since I believe that salvation is found in Christ alone and that only by trusting in His work can a person be saved, I believe it is important that factors I believe weaken a person's faith be pointed out. This is much more difficult when people think the differences between what I believe the Scripture teaches and they believe the Scripture teaches do not matter.

Please note that it was not I that started this debate. Also note that I have repeatedly allowed that people do disagree with me, have a right to do so, etc. What I'm asking is that I and the many people who agree with me be given the same respect.

Also, if I am mistaken as to what someone believes, that is not intential. I have read quite a bit of what others have said about their faith and try to reflect it correctly. Can you tell me where in what I have written I have, in my words, mistaken what someone here has said or misrepresented what a tradition teaches?

What I propose in this article is to point out somewhere within it that there are divergent viewpoints on this matter and that we avoid using the term to describe Lutheranism throughout the article. By doing this, anyone who cares to explore the term can do, as you said, click on the link and away they go.

More on the issue on the historical issue itself later.

--CTSWyneken 11:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To bring in more people to the discussion so it's more than just you and me back and forth, I've added this issue to Requests_for_comment/Religion. I suggest that the two of us step into the background and let others discuss the issue and see which direction this takes. We've voiced our views on the subject, let's give the rest of Wikipedia a chance. Peyna 00:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Historic sense of Protestant
This is a documented historical fact: The term Protestant was first used for the protesting party (Lutheran princes and a few (Zwinglian) reformed townships of Southern Germany) at the Protestation of Speyer 1529 where they protested in form against an imperial decree. This party did not all embrace the same teachings (there were Lutherans and Zwinglians among them), but they agreed in protesting against a political decision denying them freedom of religion.

So in the original historic strict sense of Protestant only Lutheran churches and Reformed Churches in the Zwinglian (not Calvinist) tradition were called Protestant - and Protestant did not define a specific set of teachings or religious tradition (though it was clear to all concerned, that Lutherans and Zwinglians had more in common with each other than with the Catholic church).

Later on, the term was used collectively for all non-Catholic churches which originated in the Reformation, embracing Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions (though churches in the Calvinist tradition don't use it that often for their own tradition) and later on it was also expanded to include other evangelical churches like Methodists, Baptists, or Pentecostals, but this more general use does not deny that these churches do all have their own distinct traditions and teachings. When Protestant is used in this collective sense, Lutherans might point to their own traditions and teachings not shared by others in the collective (as might Calvinists or Anglicans or Baptists).

But a definition of Protestant explicitely excluding the Lutherans or a Lutheran church explicitely denying that it is part of the Protestant tradition would both be a contradiction to the traditional use of the word Protestant. In such cases, the definition of Protestant and the source for it must be clearly indicated.

Lutheran churches do often call themselves Evangelical (this is actually true for liberal and conservative Lutheran churches), but in the Lutheran tradition the terms Evangelical and Protestant have often been used interchangeably and this is no case a denial of Protestant tradition.

--Irmgard 09:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irmgard:

Thanks for the review of the term. Before we go much farther, it would help to clarify what the issue in this article is actually about. What I'm arguing is that we point out the fact that many Lutherans reject the use of the term Protestant in a theological sense. Why this is is to some extent irrelevant.

The use of the term changed over time from a political one (for Lutheran and some Zwinglian territories at the 2nd Diet of Speyer to Calvinist and some Lutheran territories during a 17th Century political alliance) to a theological one (all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians). The best I can tell from the little research I've done since this debate began shows that Lutherans did not use this term inclusive of their tradition until the 19th Century. I'm not at all sure when the political use changed to a theological one.

What is clear is that Lutherans and Zwinglians arose separate of each other in the 1510s and 1520s, that their first contact with each other was positive with some reservations, that they cooperated politically, but never achieved agreement on theological and cultural issues important to the Lutheran tradition and that Lutherans did not consider themselves "Protestants" in any theologically significant way during the first few centuries after the Reformation. Even when others began to use this term for Lutherans -- including many Lutherans -- a large number of Lutherans never considered themselves protestant.

Therefore, I believe this should be noted in our article. There are good reasons for Lutheran folk (and others) to reject the label for themselves and it should be so noted.

--CTSWyneken 12:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought this sounded silly when I first read the description. However, if some Lutherans do not consider themselves to be Protestants, it should be mentioned.  I would like to see a footnote for this statement, say using Footnote3. This is the reverse of the question of whether Mormons are Christians. There does seem to be some historical reason for the question. A footnote for the view that Lutherans are Protestants would be useful as well.  That should be simple. Nereocystis 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nereocystis:

Thanks for being willing to consider the issue. I would like to simply put the whole issue somewhere in the body of text. Elsewhere we would simply leave the word Protestant out of the text in most places. (when talking about the 2nd Diet of Speyer, it is very appropriate to use the term) If you all would like to see what this could look like, I'll edit the page to do it and then revert to the current. You all could then at your leasure read what I've done and see if it is acceptable in principle.

--CTSWyneken 11:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps just do a mock up on your talk page and provide us a link. Would be easier to make suggested changes, etc. for review as well that way. Peyna 17:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. I'm not sure how to provide the link, but I'll put it on the CTSWyneken page in the next few days.

--CTSWyneken 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The link would be something like this: User_talk:CTSWyneken ; You could also create a sub page to put it on (just go to your user page and add "/Lutheranism" to the end and you can then create an entire page there for it. For example: User:Peyna/Test


 * I'll give that a shot later. If anyone wants to take a look at what I've done and see if it works for them, I've begun to prepare a draft at User_talk:CTSWyneken. I'm testing other changes there as well and would be curious as to what folk think.

--CTSWyneken 11:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see: CTSWyneken (Talk)/Lutheranism is this the correct way to create the page?--CTSWyneken 12:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Draft of Proposed Changes to the Historical Sections Finished
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)

Protestant (continued)
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)


 * 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)

Protestant in First Paragraph
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)

Lutherans in the Netherlands are part of the Protestant Church
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)

List of famouse American Lutherans (systematic bias)
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|&#9786; 00:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Garrison Keilor grew up Plymouth Bretheren and then left the Bretheren. While Lutherans are the brunt of much of his humor, I haven't found any sources that say he is now a Lutheran. See the biography titled Minnesota Zen master from Guardian Unlimited. Ibnabraham 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Tradition vs. Denomination
I always thought that a "Christian Tradition" meant along the lines of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant, whereas a Christian Denomination would be a subset of one of those traditions. (or even that Denomination is the proper term and "tradition" is not a valid term at all in this context) The way things are currently written just adds to confusion, because it seems to be saying that a Tradition and a Denomination are the same thing.

That and the phrase "Lutheranism is a Christian Tradition" seems improper; perhaps the term is used that way in some colloquial areas, but it certainly isn't widely used and just adds confusion to the article.

Also you more often hear of "The Christian Tradition" as the whole set of traditions passed down through Christian churches.

Anyway, it's a confusing use of the term, and certainly isn't used like that anywhere else on Wikipedia from what I can tell. Peyna 03:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed confusing and ambiguous. (However, it's not a purely colloquial use, but it is nonetheless not consistently used with the same meaning in academic or formal senses, thus the ambiguity.) "Tradition" can be used more specifically than just the "Big Three" you mention (Cath/Ortho/Prot), here meaning a subset that is not a single unified denomination (as Lutheranism is not)--this would also apply to the Anglican/Episcopal tradition. But you're right, some clarification is in order. Thanks for looking out! --Dpr 03:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Its a real struggle to find words to define Lutheran in a way that everyone can understand it. For example, I'd prefer to replace the phrase on Martin Luther's theological insights with "who believe, teach and confess the doctrines of the Book of Concord." It is the working definition of almost all conservative Lutherans. But that is not fair to Lutherans outside of our camp that would object to this kind of definition -- an objection that goes back to the 18th century in Europe and to the 19th century in America. So we're stuck with the "theological insights" thing.


 * Fairness also requires that those who are comfortable with calling Lutheranism "Protestant" extend the same courtesy to those of us who strenuously object to it.


 * That leaves us with fuzzier terms. "denomination" is used mostly for a specific church body with constitutions, buildings, members, formal structures, etc. But some refer to it as a family of church bodies. If we use it, we should use it in its strictest sense, but maybe we can do without it.


 * The word tradition is used in the scholarly discipline of religious studies to mean a movement within a religion of church bodies, individuals and congregations who share a common identity, history, culture and sometimes doctrines. In this sense it means movements on the level of Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Holiness, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc. But there are other uses of the word, too.


 * I tried something like family of Christian... but it doesn't work well either. I'm open to others ways of speaking of it.


 * --CTSWyneken 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * CTSWyneken: agreed. The only thing is that Wikipedia must be written for the widest possible audience, for people knowing little about the history of Christianity and its various traditions, or their relationship among each other. I think we'd be withholding a crucial fact if the introduction didn't say that it was considered part of the Protestant tradition. I recognize that some Lutherans or others many hold that Lutheranism is not Protestant, but it's almost undisputed that most people consider it so, and that it is neither Catholic (big-C), Orthodox, or any of the others. We can, if this seems necessary, say that some Lutherans consider it not to be Protestant, but the consensus designation as Protestant should be included because it is very central to understand the basic nature and place of Lutheranism in history. --Dpr 19:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is the opening paragraph is all about what Lutheranism is. When three centuries of Lutherans did not consider themselves Protestant and two sizable denominations of Lutherans do not consider themselves Protestant, we would have to qualify it. This is awkward in an intro, distracting and even more confusing than the talk of traditions and denominations. Anyone who is reading this article for information will soon enough encounter the information where it fits into the subject of a section. That's why I want to go with it where it is a historic term, in the talk about the Diets of Speyer, and where it is a theological issue, under ecumenism.


 * So, what do you suggest in the tradition, denom, religion language?
 * --CTSWyneken 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New Second Paragraph
I like the new second paragraph, which, with a little tweak, will do nicely. The question I have is: does it fit well in the intro or should we move it down to the discussion about Lutherans and other Christians? --CTSWyneken 11:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I maintain it should be left in the lead section because, I hold, Lutheranism's status (that is, which tradition it belongs to) is one of the basic, key facts that should be part of its definition, something a reader will read immediately as a central part of what Lutheranism/Lutherans are. --Dpr 02:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Lutheranism's association with Protestantism is controversial. It is a debate that goes back to the conflict between "Old Lutherans" like the the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods and their Synodical Conference fellows and "American Lutherans" of the Pennsylvania Ministerium, S. S. Schmucker and their General Synod coleagues. Old Lutherans like myself feel it is a grave offense to class Lutherans with Protestants, Americam Lutherans that it is a violation of the unity of the church not to do so. A summary paragraph, IMHO, is not the place to take up controversy of this nature. Should this paragraph stay here, then we need to talk also about the Book of Concord, which for conservative Lutherans is an essential part of the definition of Lutheranism. But to do that necessitates adding a disclaimer that not all Lutherans see it that way, too. Two Lutherans, Three opinions! 8-) I think it better to leave the defining paragraph stated in a way that all Lutherans can agree to it and bring out the debates in the body of the article. --CTSWyneken 03:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that, I suggest, it must be immediately apparent to readers, whom we must assume to have no prior knowledge, that Lutheranism is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and considered Protestant by a great many people historically and today, Lutherans and non-Lutherans. I understand it's complex. --Dpr 04:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why? --CTSWyneken 11:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I seem overly emphatic. Maybe I'm too concerned with structures, but I feel that people searching for information on Christian groups/traditions/denominations, etc. should be able to understand immediately if the group/tradition/etc. is Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, etc...these are the basic groundings, so the reader can understand what the context of the group/church/denomination's beliefs and history are. --Dpr 00:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No need for apologies. The problem is that there is major dissagreement over whether Lutherans are grounded as Protestant at all. My point is taking it up in the intro distracts when we have to explain it, which I will insist on. The definition of Protestant as a description of a unified theology is, as best I can tell, fairly recent. (19th Century) It arises out of two contexts -- the desire of "American" Lutherans to be a part of the main stream club and see above all else as not Catholic and the Prussian Union, where the King of Prussia forced the organic merger of the "Evangelical" churches (read Lutheran) and the "Reformed" Churches (Read Calvinist and Zwinglian).


 * Anyone mind if I move this paragraph down to the Lutherans and other Christians area of the article?--CTSWyneken 12:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Either only two people (you and me) have any significant opinion on this topic, or this talk page has very few readers...in any case, my vote is--as you may conjecture--not to move it, for the reasons I enumerated on 13 October. --Dpr 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think they're tired. I can be -- persistent! I'm not sure why you would feel it necessary that readers be informed that a lot of people think Lutherans to be be Protestant -- so much so that it must be in the intro. Is it really all that important that I been seen as "not Catholic" and classed with all other "not Catholics" -- even against my will? I, for one, much rather think and speak positively about what Lutherans are and stand for than to be defined by what I am not. Being classed with folks who teach very differently than I do compels me for the love of truth to go there when I'd prefer very much not to do so. --CTSWyneken 00:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I sympathize, and it is my least desire to frustrate you or others. I apologize if I have done this. We (I) have responsibilities both to objectivity and to Christ--the trick is to balance them. My stance remains the same, but I do not intend to modify any edits you may choose to make in this area, until such time as I can produce a more cogent argument.
 * Just so you understand where I'm going from...this is not personal. If someone wanted to describe my church using language I felt inappropriate, I'm sure I'd feel as you do, Bob. (It's easy for one such as me to push for "objectivity" when talking about a church one is not a member of and does not feel a part of his personal identity--and even spiritual life.)
 * But I will say that certain groups will surely object to certain language used about themselves or others; think about "socialist" versus "communist" apellations for certain countries, or the "pro-life"/"pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" controversy. In cases like these, the issue is not so much--and again, I know this is "easy for me to say" while being highly personal to members of the churches we are speaking about--about what the church/country/movement "really" is (to its members or anyone else), but instead what it has been typically called, regardless of whether this is comprehensively accurate. Holland (the Netherlands) is not Holland, yet we call it such. Many Catholics would argue their church is the Catholic Church simply, not solely Roman, yet it is typically called such.
 * Thank you for your understanding on this. Please let us be brothers, even if separated (denominationally and in terms of Wikipedia philosophy)--Dpr 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Terms for the Lord's Supper
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)

Controversy about eucharistic language
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)

Third largest "Christian Movement"
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)

Cleanup needed on Modern Lutheranism in Europe
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)

Principles
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)

Humanly established offices
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)

Lutherans and Methodists
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)

Sort of a if you can't get to our church for x event you can go to the other church? 132.241.245.49 04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Back to Lutheranism versus Protestantism
I see that this has been debated at length year ago. Let me take it up again. Note that it is useless to have on this page a discussion about whether or not the idea that Lutheranism is distinct from Protestantism (LidfP) is correct or not. We are not here to arbitrate the truth. We are here to present POVs, not arbitrate between them. (Also, pretty much everything pro et contra has been said above, there is no reason to repeat something that can be found above.) Let's not argue here, let's see how we can improve the article by giving LidfP a better presentation.

Currently, we have, in the Introduction, "The relationship between Lutheranism and the Protestant tradition is, however, ambiguous: some Lutherans consider Lutheranism to be outside the Protestant tradition, while most see it as part of this tradition."That's it. Nothing more—no explanation, no link. For somebody like me, this is the worst possible solution. I have never heard of this concept, having lived all my life in countries where Lutheranism and Protestantism are synonymous. I am surprised, my interest is peaked. I would like to know more.

So what we need are two things It's only an idea, and better minds can probably think of a better structure. Still, the present situation can only improve. Any takers? Arbor 08:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) A more precise statement in the Introduction. As I said, I never heard about LidfP before, so I am not the one to give it. But as far as I understand, this sentiment is specific to the US concept of Lutheranism (and possibly only to a subgroup in that denomination). If this is true, the article should say so, and would benefit from it: In many countries, for example in Central and Northwestern Europe, Lutheranism is the original and dominant Protestant denomination and the terms are used almost synonymously. In the US, Lutheranism is one of many Protestant denominations, contrasted from yadayada... Something like that. Anybody who actually knows what he is talking about will be able to do better than me.
 * 2) An explanation, preferably somewhere in the body text, as a subsection of US Lutheranism.


 * Dear Arbor: I'll do some digging next week, in addition to what I've said all along.
 * To summarize what I've said before, so that new folk do not have to read through it all again, here goes....
 * The term "Protestant" was not used to describe religious traditions until the 19th Century.
 * Lutherans called themselves "Lutheran" and "Evangelical" until then and still, by and large, prefer so to this day.
 * Outside of England, where there are few Lutherans, European Lutherans call themselves "Evangelical," although free church Lutherans avoid the term because most Europeans think of the union churches when they speak this way.
 * The term "Protestant" is often used to downplay Lutheran signature doctrines and to protray all "not Catholics" as being in agreement.
 * I prefer not mention the issue at all. Why not simply not call Lutherans protestant at all? This will not offend either side of the issue. You are then free to think of yourself as protestant and I to not do so. --CTSWyneken 09:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with CTSWyneken, although, it should be noted that the term "Protestant" comes from those who objected to the enforcement of the Edict of Worms at the 1529 Diet of Speyer: they were Lutherans and they were protesting the action of Charles V. Some Lutherans like to consider themselves "evangelical catholics of the Augsburg Confession." It's all about witness to the world. We do not like being separated from other Christians over doctrine, but unless what we believe to be the true doctrine is made clear to the world, we believe that we have no choice but to remain separate. For those reasons in this date and time to define what "Lutheranism" is one should refrain from the use of the word "Protestant" to denote "Lutheran." drboisclair 11:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as it's not useful for someone of one doctrine to call someone of another doctrine 'not really Christian', it's not useful for Lutheran's to claim that they are not protestants because they don't like the connotations of the word. Dstanfor 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, it is not Wikipedia's mission to be terminologically normative. Even if we all agreed that U.S. Lutheranism is not Protestant, we couldn't write it. This is not an exercise in us editors finding agreement about how things really should be called or in which way they should be presented. So if the idea that Protestantism is not Lutheranism is more than a fringe viewpoint, then it needs to be presented prominently as such. Otherwise it shouldn't, and can be mentioned further down in the body text, and clearly described as a minority POV (which, like many minority POVs, may have a lot of merit, of course!) . As a northern European (and therefor Lutheran), I have never even heard about the idea that I should not be Protestant. so a priori I am extremely sceptical, and until further data about the reception of the opposing viewpoint are presented I suggest we remove it. Arbor 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is we do not have to equate the two at all. What's the problem with simply not saying: "Lutheranism is a protestant..." Then we do not end up with "some...others" language we would have to use if we go there. --CTSWyneken 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that “everybody else” says stuff like “The Lutheran church is the largest Protestant body worldwide” or “Lutheranism is the Protestant Church accepting the Augsburg Confession of 1530” or whatnot. WP:NOR forbids us to give an original presentation, even if we all agreed that this original presentation is superior (which we certainly do not). In other words, in order to not defining Lutheranism as a branch of Protestantism on these pages, you need to produce evidence that this is a normal thing to do. If such evidence exists, it should be easy to produce (a list of dictionaries or theological reference works will do) and I am then easily convinced. In any case, the POV that Lutheranism is not Protestantism is interesting, so I would like this page to explain that idea (ludicrous as it seems from my part of the world) clearly, including who holds this conviction and why it is important to them. Arbor 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with arbor. Without a cite it should be removed. Dstanfor 12:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have provided one citation. If this is not sufficient, more can come. The point is, it may seem silly to you, but it is very important for many conservative Lutherans. By the way, I've seen Baptists complain at being called Protestant, too. If you will look above, you will see the position explained. If we want more on this, it can be done, but I don't think the intro is the place to do it. On the other hand, I would be happier if we just never called Lutherans Protestant. It won't bother those who think we are and it won't irritate those of us who think we are not. --CTSWyneken 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias aren't here to make those that are written about feel good about themselves. A lot more people probably think Lutherans are Protestant than not, and therefore the article should reflect that.  It would be best to call them Protestant and then discuss how some people in certain groups of Lutherans feel they are not Protestant.  The way you seem to want to write things would be pushing a minority POV up and above and almost holding it out as the reality of things.  The article should be neutral, and that means if we can't just write it in a neutral way, we'll have to present both sides.  That doesn't mean both sides get equal weight, they get the amount of weight that is appropriate given their importance and prevalence. Peyna 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CTSWyneken, thank you for the citation. The point, however, was not to establish that somebody thinks that Lutherans are not Protestant (LanP)—I don't question that claim at all, and am eager to learn more about the viewpoint. What lacks a quote is that LanP is not a fringe viewpoint. If LanP is a fringe or extreme minority POV then we cannot have it influence the introduction. Instead, we need a section or subsection about it called As a Non-Protestant denomination or something like that. Arbor 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is also not a place where we ignore minority opinions either. First of all, the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod represents 2.3 Million Lutherans. Just as easily verifiable is that the Wisconsin Synod feels the same way. They represent several hundred thousand more. This is certainly not a fringe viewpoint. Much else in this article has less attestation than this. If you wish to check on this, try looking for a Lutheran writer prior to the 19th Century that describes Lutherans as Protestant. As best I can tell, few, if any, did. It is only when Lutherans encountered American Protestants that some began to think of themselves as such.


 * What I'm saying is that enough Lutherans do not consider themselves Protestant that to be NPOV, we need to either avoid the issue entirely in the intro or keep it as it is now by prior agreement.--CTSWyneken 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 84 million or so Lutherans worldwide. You're talking about maybe 3% of that group.  Not to mention that out of those 2.3 Million LCMS members, likely 75% of them could not care less whether they are considered Protestant or not.  Just because the larger church organizations within that Synod have voiced an opinion does not mean the followers adhere to it.  That's like saying because the Pope announces a certain view on a topic, that all Catholics instantly agree and hold the same view.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we ignore the minority opinion, but when 97% of a particular group of people feel a certain way, and 100% of the world that is NOT in that group feel the same way, it's probably not as contentious as you think it is and therefore there should be no problem flat out saying "Lutherans are Protestant.  A small minority of Lutherans (namely LCMS and LCWS) argue that they are not Protestant or should not be considered Protestant for reasons xyz."  Peyna 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt most non-English speaking Lutherans would call themselves Protestant. Most call themselves "Evangelical." This is the term by which Lutherans have been called from the 16th Century until today. Can you give me a reference to a German Lutheran site, say, that uses the term "Protestanten" or something like it? --CTSWyneken 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CTSWyneken -- you're cite says that while Lutherans are protestants (in that they are a break off from the catholic church) they don't have the same beliefs as some other protestants (such as fundamentalists). This is not a useful differentiation in that I don't think that it is widely thought that all protestant christians have the same doctrines. I don't think there is any confusion between a lutheran and a pentacostal Dstanfor


 * German Lutherans would not call themselves "Lutheraner" either. They would refer to themselves as "Evangelisch" or "Protestantisch". But the English term for these people is still Lutheran. (Ironically, the German Wikipedia entry on Protestantism explains that in the narrow sense of Protestantism, only Lutherans (and Zwingli) are Protestant. That seems to be the exact opposite of LCMS.) By the way, we Wikipedia entries are not made by hypothetical referendums either. Whether or not LinP is a viewpoint held by many of few Lutherans is not important. (Humans are apes, no matter how many humans agree with that.) Read WP:NOR. The only interesting datum is whether Lutheranism is normally referred to as a Protestant denomination. As far as I can tell, it is. I give not a fig either way. Oh, and Wyneken, nobody seems to advocate the suppression of a minority viewpoint. I have encouraged you several times to devote an entire section to explaining this. I find it endlessly fascinating and have learned a lot just by following the link you provided. Arbor 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll not belabor the point, although I would be interested is seeing a citation from a German who calls him or herself "Protestantisch." I'm satisfied with the current formulation. Why this was raised again is beyond me, if this is acceptable to everyone. My whole point is enough of us do not think of themselves as Protestant that the point should be made or we just not label Lutherans Protestant. --CTSWyneken 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

History
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)
 * I went ahead and did that as well. The article is at Lutheranism by region. Peyna 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Where to start?
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)JankoJanko 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.--CTS Wyneken (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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) 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask that any proposed changes be put here first for discussion. Ptmccain 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning at the Beginning
There is no reason why the article cannot be changed and updated to make it more neutral in tone and to represent other views. Since general criticisms are rarely productive, perhaps we can begin at the beginning. What in the lead needs to be changed to make it less Missouri-centric? What should be changed to make sure it represents Lutherans of other places and ages? What needs to be adjusted to make it conform to WP:LEAD and WP:MOS? Other policies, guidelines and guides? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, another use made the original claim, but I'll be more than willing to help. I don't see any bias in the intro, but the second sentence probably could be reworded or maybe left out and replaced with different content, since it may be a little confusing to those unfamiliar with the subject.  While I don't think we need to write to the lowest common denominator, I do think we need to approach the introduction and first few sections (and first few sentences of each section) with the idea that the reader may be entirely unfamiliar with the subject.
 * Moving on from there and skipping over the History section (since it is mostly contained in sub-article now), I will address the first subsection to the Doctrine section. This sentence: "Traditionally, Lutheran pastors, congregations and church bodies agree to teach in harmony with the Book of Concord because it teaches and faithfully explains the Word of God," needs to be reworded, since the phrase "because it teaches and faithfully explains the Word of God" comes off as an absolute statement of fact.  Perhaps the biggest problem is "faithfully explains."  Next, it needs to be clearer that the Book of Concord is not so sacred to all Lutherans, but only certain groups.  Scare quotes in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section are unnecessary.  The section on biblical inerrancy unnecessarily singles out the LCMS.
 * That is all for now, I've abstained from making any actual edits so as to allow some input before going forward. Peyna 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peyna, for the suggestions. I'll take a look and get back when I've had a chance to do so. My first reaction is that rhe sentence may just not belong in the lead, but later in the article with some sort of qualification that indicates which group of Lutherans so believe. For the moment, let's focus on the WP:LEAD suggestion that the lead summarize the whole article I don't know that it does so. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I see this sentence is not in the intro at all. So, let's punt that one for now. Let's do some reading on the subject so that we can craft it well when we get there.
 * Looking at the lead again, I think it needs some major reworking. It should in 2-3 paragraphs summarize the whole article. Does someone what to taks a crack at that? --CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I am in the mood tonight, I'll take a crack at it. Peyna 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it; the difficult part is trying to make it understandable to most readers, which means we either have to use very generic language, or define technical terms in detail in the intro. Peyna 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently another user did not like my attempt at being bold. First off, my edits were not controversial, but an attempt to try to write a better intro.  I can understand wanting to develop consensus on controversial information first, but this just isn't the case.  If the user that reverted my edits wishes to contribute constructively, then please do so. Peyna 11:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was reverted. Could you copy it here and let's discuss it? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 11:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just put it back. I can understand if it was a major substantive change, but since I'll have to fundamentally disagree with that user's desire to push apparently all article changes through some kind of committee process, I have no problem restoring the edit. Peyna 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Significant changes to articles are best discussed first, per Wiki etiquette policies. I would ask that we put changes here for discussion first. I do not believe the revised introduction was an improvement but had several problems, all of which we need to discuss. So, put it here for discussion please. Thanks.Ptmccain 11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have read it, I really don't understand. It seems like a great start to me. All I can figure is that, having come from the Martin Luther wars, we are a bit jumpy at bold tactics. (We were compelled to document salvation by grace as Luther's theology and make sure the article doesn't call Jesus Christ. *roll eyes.* Paul, could you ID what you find objectionable? Back later.--<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The request to put a major change to an article is a reasonable one. Let's have it here and it will be much easier to critique it. I'm sure that Peyna won't mind doing that since he seems concerned to get the article right. Ptmccain 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I refuse to have my attempts to improve the article bogged down in unnecessary process. All you're doing is holding back the improvement of the article.  The soul of Wikipedia is the fact that ANYONE can edit it, and is also the fastest and best way to improve things.  Any problems with the introduction I created could easily be ironed out by any member of Wikipedia.  By banishing my edits to the talk page so we can discuss them is senseless and a waste of time and effort.  I have no desire to work to improve this article if it means that I am going to have to have every edit approved by you first. Peyna 11:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. I've had to learn to swallow my desire to change significant portions of articles without discussion first, but it is much better way to go. Post your proposed introduction here and we can discuss it. It is not a matter of my "approving" it...we want to talk it over, and move forward with as much consensus as possible. This is the Wiki way. So, how about you start a new section here, put up your proposed introduction change, and we can talk it over? Thanks. Ptmccain 11:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Wiki" way is to actually take advantage of the wiki. It is much easier to debate changes through successive constructive edits than to sit around and debate every piddly edit to death.  Instead of reverting, you could have improved what I wrote.  Then the next editor could do the same.  And maybe after a few weeks it wouldn't even resemble what I originally wrote, but because of what I wrote it took on a much more brilliant form.  By requiring even what I consider a somewhat minor edit to wade through the craphole that is talk page debate, you are stifling the Wikipedia.  Remember what Wikipedia is (free encyclopedia anyone can edit) before you try making it something it's not (democracy). Peyna 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to begin at the beginning, then begin at the true beginning, that is, by asking what a native speaker of English completely uninformed about the Lutheran tradition would want or need to know. This should dictate organization as well as style and vocabulary. Example: Americans know the Right to Life Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Pro-Choice Movement, none of which bears a remote resemblance to a religious institution that's been around sine the sixteenth century. Historically, Lutheranism might have begun as a movement, but saying it's a "movement" now is an inner-Lutheran buzzword that will only confuse the uninitiated. How about "a tradition within Western Christianity"? "Teaching" or "Teachings" instead of "doctrine"? "Bible" instead of "The Holy Scripture". And no "material principle" or "norma normans" right off the bat unless in parenthesis. Does the discussion of forensic justification have to sound like a dumbed down version of a 19th century dogmatics text? Doesn't the role of Martin Luther and the word "Lutheran" need to be explained more carefully for English speakers, who might think "Luther cult" when they see the word? A mention of the Trinity is stuck at the bottom of a section and looks like an afterthought. For the Reformers, and even for the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, it was important to mention that Lutherans adhere to the ecumenical creeds.


 * So what makes Lutherans Lutheran? Traditionally, Lutheranism has engaged in a two-front identity war, with the Catholics on the one hand and Calvinists, then the Radical Reformation, on the other. The whole argument above about "Protestant" is part of that discourse, especially since the Prussian Union was a defining moment for Missouri — but there again, it's an inner-Lutheran buzzword. My take is that the word was simply one Lutherans were stuck with because by the time enough of them moved into mainstream American culture (and not all of them were damnable Schmuckerites), the term was already defined to include them. It makes no sense to an American to say that Lutherans started the Protestant Reformation, but they aren't Protestants.


 * The Confessions. Is it more important to our hypothetical reader to be immersed immediately into quia and quaetanus, especially with the latter distorted into a "pick and choose" hermeneutic, than it is to explain in non-jargon that among Reformation churches, the Lutheran tradition maintains a unique, closed-canon (cf. Barmen Declaration) role for these documents?


 * Liturgy and Sacraments. Don't you think that Baptism and Eucharist should take pride of place over (German) Lutheran hymnody, i.e., the Gospel before the "handmaiden"? If "contemporary worship" is mentioned, I also think there should be some mention that American Lutheranism (as opposed to German and others) has been particularly receptive to the liturgical renewal movement. That has shaped far more what American Lutherans of every stripe do on any given Sunday than newer forms.


 * Geography, Nationality. Like it or not, Lutherans worldwide are still primarily found in Germany and the Nordic countries, and where immigrants from these countries or their missionaries have been active (Tanzania, for instance, is a fast growing church and sends missionaries to Detroit).Janko 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Janko


 * Janko, thanks. You make points with which I entirely agree. I think a reference to the Book of Concord is appropriate, but not trying to explain it in the introduction, other than a general reference to the formal collection of Lutheran statements of faith, etc. Re. where Lutherans are...there are now actually more Lutherans in Africa than anywhere else, an interesting, and surprising point. Good comments. Thanks. Ptmccain 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's start with an outline, then. Janko, Paul, could one of you start a new section and title it proposed outline? Since we're starting from sort of scratch, please keep in mind WP:LEAD, WP:CITE, WP:MOS and WP:NPOV.--<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the article needs a massive overhaul. I think the present introduction is fine and not in need of any significant changes. I do not believe the article needs to start "from scratch" again. I am willing to discussion specific article revisions here, but I want to see them here first so we can talk through them, that's all I'm asking for. Ptmccain 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where everyone is at on that issue of overhaul. I suspect Peyna and Janko might not agree. In any case, the lead does not serve its purpose according to WP:LEAD (no suprise there, but shouldn't it?) And I think a formal outline that all can agree on will serve us well in organizing the article. Why not try one? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a lot of work. However, I will not be helping if it means that every little edit has to be pushed through some form of process which is inherently anti-wiki.  It should not require 10,000 words of debate to change 100 words of an article. Peyna 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One final note, before I leave for work, is that in creating the introduction that I wrote, I basically created a small outline of the article, picked out the key points, tried to generalize doctrinal views to the point that they covered almost all Lutherans and then tried to write it in a manner that would be understandable to most readers. It wasn't perfect, but I think it was an incredible improvement over what we had, since it actually summarized the article and didn't require having first read the small catechism to understand. Peyna 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to request that a significant edit to the opening section be put here for discussion. I do not like how you phrased and worded thigns, but rather than pick it apart on the page, I'd would prefer you put it here and then we can arrive at consensus. That is a thing highly valued on Wikipedia. It is never fun to have your work reverted or critiqued, but Wiki is very much a group project. Please put your revised introduction here for discussion. Thanks. Ptmccain 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Work with it on the page, no need to discuss this to death here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a WIKI.  Learn to make use of that.  I think I've said enough on the topic.  Perhaps you should reconsider why you desire so strongly for everything to be pushed through unnecessary process when it could be worked out in the article space with much less headache.  I wouldn't have cared at all if you had just made changes to my version of the introduction to try to improve it.  Peyna 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms." That would suggest that, like the introduction to a book, the lead section should be written last.Janko 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

Outline
Since changing the format of the page would be a substantial modification, I'm willing to put such a proposal here first...


 * Introduction per [{WP:Lead]]
 * Current beliefs
 * Subset beliefs #1 (i.e. LCMS)
 * Subset beliefs #2 (i.e. ELCA)
 * History (main article History of Lutheranism
 * Martin Luther (main article Martin Luther

There probably needs to be more, and I don't have the time to really go through this right now. Peyna 12:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So (American) Lutheranism is defined by placing LCMS, who gets top billing again, in opposition to the "rest of the world" in a series of doctrinal points? No, as an essentially puritan movement, this is the way LCMS et al. define themselves, and its adherents have done so amply, and I would say fairly, in almost all the other articles dealing with the Lutheran tradition I've read. But sadly, not here. The current article, for example, arrogates "quia" to self-termed Confessional Lutherans, while relegating the rest of Lutheranism to a particular understanding of "quaetenus". This claim is repeated in a short article about Confessional Lutherans, where LWF-affiliated churches are simply branded "non-confessional."


 * The rite of ordination of the LBW questions the ordinand:


 * The Church in which you are to be ordained confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are the norm of its faith and life. We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds. We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?"


 * Now, self-termed Confessional Lutherans may view this question as the height of hypocrisy, but the ELCA, in its own self-definition, isn't putting forth some pick and choose "insofar as". In other words, if you simply strip an LCMS polemic of affect, it doesn't make it fact. It just pours it from one rhetorical container into another.


 * Now, what makes us ALL Lutherans is that we're talking about the Confessions at all. Do Anglicans sit around and discuss vigorously the 39 Articles? Are the Reformed confessions at the forefront of their identity in the same way as the Augustana is for Lutherans? I think not.Janko 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Janko


 * Please do not characterize what we believe or how we feel about something. Neither I nor Paul McCain have done so for the ELCA or other Lutherans. It does not help to bring us together in this task.
 * What would help is to focus on the outline. I think it is a good start, although I would do history first. When it comes to the doctrines, we can discuss what unites the Lutheran tradition and what divides it. I'm not particularly committed to the order in which the various positions in Lutheranism are represented, as long as the major ones are there. This should be done neutrally, adjusting the language or crafting new language to do it. I also think we need to be sure and cite sources as we do it.
 * Now, may I ask, do you like the outline in general? We know that you don't like the LCMS view put first. Any other thoughts? Are we missing something? Once we have an outline down, we can get into what should go into each point, whether a subject covered in the current version fits or not and then how the thing should be stated. Does that work? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to the order of the history section, I was thinking perhaps, while it may seem proper to start with the history chronologically, we run the risk of losing the reader, since you're stuck wading through the history without knowing where you are going. Maybe the introduction can take care of this if it lays out well enough the general current state of beliefs of Lutherans, and then the history section can lead us down the road as to how we got from Martin Luther to the current state of Lutheranism and why.  (This would probably involved reworking the sub-article and then re-summarizing that in this article). Peyna 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that you explain it, I can see your point. What do the rest of you all think? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about keeping Luther (don't need much detail here) and history up to the Formula of Concord before doctrine? Then any later history can come after that section, since with the Formula of Concord, "Lutheranism" is fairly well defined, already earlier against Roman Catholicism, by the time of the Formula, against Calvinism and a few other schools of thought. The transition can be a brief summary of the "discord" that led to the "concord".


 * Thanks for the idea. I'm not sure that splitting history into two sections is a good idea, though. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, re: "Please do not characterize what we believe or how we feel about something. Neither I nor Paul McCain have done so for the ELCA or other Lutherans." Excuse me, but someone obviously wrote the bulk of the present article doing exactly that. Another example: "liberal" bible scholarship supposedly "embraced"? In other Wikipedia articles, the contrast is "historical-grammatical" and "historical-critical", i.e. neutral, non-polemical terms. Is "liberal" someone like Dominic Crossan, who denies the Resurrection, is it a "Liberal Protestant" theologican (Harnack maybe), or someone who makes a case that Paul didn't really write Ephesians? I would suggest in this context, it means "any scholar identifiably 'left' of a Missouri consensus", which of course renders it problematic for general discourse. I also just noted that this passage has disappeared from the article, so I suppose it's now moot.


 * My point is directed to coversation on the talk page. The moment we make other editors the issue, we begin to go down a road of trading accusations. This is both unproductive and unpleasant. As far as the article goes, please read the above. I am ready to work with you and others of differing views on the language used in the article. I believe Paul is also.
 * As long as all sigificant views are reflected here in end, how we phrase it all is certainly negotiable. If you want an example of what can be achieved, take a look at the second paragraph of the Jesus article, in which I had a significant hand. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I really want to know the history behind a text that looks like a paraphrase of the second article of the Apostolicum. Then again, I don't read Dan Brown, so it was probably a fight... Janko 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Janko


 * What is characteristically Lutheran (and very Luther), and presumably something upon which we can all agree regardless of exegetical method, is that the emphasis on the Word in the Lutheran tradition is an emphasis on the Word proclaimed, primarily in a specific liturgical act. The Lutheran movement began essentially as a preaching movement. How that preaching was received by those in political power, first city councils or petty nobles, then the higher nobility, is the history of Lutheranism up to Concordia. (Hmmm...that's pretty good, don't you think? Maybe we can stick that in the history summary somewhere). Janko 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Janko


 * Not bad. What do you think, Paul? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The challenge in a general introduction to Lutheranism is that you must account for the fact that there is a very significant difference between traditional Lutheranism and mainline Lutheranism world-wide. You can't ignore it, but on the other hand, clearly this article goes about the task of explaining Lutheranism in a rather ham-fisted manner and rather poorly, on the whole. It we put forth both generan trends in Lutheranism we just need to do so in as objective a manner as possible. I'll be interested in what develops, but won't have much time to participate. My objection to the method in which one editor here chose toa ddress himself to the concern was that the person[s] entered this conversation with rhetorical fists swinging, creating a hostile environment. Then, in response to the concerns expressed, he set to reverting the article. That is not how to go about this. The more controversial the subject the more it is important to work for consensus by putting proposed significant changes on the talk pages for discussion. Ptmccain 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran Cross?


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)


 * 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)Janko


 * 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)


 * 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)

While I had never heard of a "Lutheran Cross" before, this seems to be the source of the image. But the most I think you can read into that is that it is a cross offered to Lutherans buried at Arlington National Cemetery. LloydSommerer 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)