Talk:Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod/Archive 1

Use of the WELS logo
The WELS logo is copyrighted or trademarked, or whatever you call it. Wikipedia does not have permission to post this logo. I ask that it be removed. The WELS could sue, you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.160.64.49 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 1, 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Doesn't this fit under fair use? And frankly, WELS isn't going to sue unless someone did something wonky with it. As it is right now, they're likely thrilled that they have such a great entry on Wikipedia. I don't see a problem here. --Lendorien 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The WELS is not described all that kindly on Wikipedia. The WELS believes in Biblical Innerancy, which, lets face it, is not well presented on Wikipedia. The WELS do not want to be construed as agreeing with a heterodox organization. They do not want their members to contribute to any organization that teaches false doctrine. That includes some that you might not expect, like Habitat for Humanity. They don't want to give the false impression of agreement. Giving the permission to use the logo is seen as a kind of approval for how WELS is presented, which, because of the links to other Wikipedia articles, if nothing else, is not all that well.


 * Also, there is some screwing around on the articles dealing with the Lord's Supper, such as consubstantiation and Sacramental Union, which basically present the ELCA view that Luther doesn't agree with what the WELS currently teaches about the physical consumption of Jesus's physical Body and Blood under bread and wine. If you don't believe me, go to these articles and contrast what they say versus what the WELS says in it's scholarly articles.available here


 * If there are no responses, I will remove the logo.--192.160.64.49 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you feel the WELS entry needs correction or clarification in those regards, make those changes. Wikipedia strives for accuracy, and your help in improving it is welcome. As for the errors or lack of positional descriptions in the other articles, again, feel free to add them to correct the problems if you see there are some.


 * On another point, Wikipedia is not a religious organization. It's an encyclopedia. As a WELS member, I can assure you that I'm not going to be excommunicated for writing here. While false doctrine may be present on wikipedia from the WELS POV, it behooves us to present the WELS POV in addition to the others so that we are accurately represent by ourselves, rather than inaccurately by others. At the same time, as Wikipedia editors, we must strive to maintain an encyclopaedic tone.


 * As far as the use of the WELS logo goes, it is covered under fair use law. See Fair Use for more details on the policy of fair use on Wikipedia.  There is not a legal problem with its use here, and there is no reason to remove it. --Lendorien 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that Wikipedia is not a religious organization. However, the Historical Criticism page accuses "conservative Bible Scholars" as taking part in Historical Criticism simply by virtue of the use of "confessional documents." The idea is to accuse people in WELS of hypocracy if they ever denounce someone else's theology as adhereing to historical criticism. I think it is best to let the WELS resolve this dispute. I have sent the WELS an email to a special email address that is only for questions dealing with the WELS logo. I will post WELS response on this page so that the appropriate action can be taken. I don't think you would be excommunicated, but be aware that the WELS does not want to give false impressions of agreement. Do note that the LCMS page had it's logo removed after those that claimed it was "fair use" were shown to be wrong. Someone might look at this page, compare it to the LCMS page, and conclude that the WELS, unlike the LCMS, gave permission to use it's logo. This is a potential false impression.--192.160.64.49 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with your course of action regarding the logo then, It's probably the best thing to do under the circumstances. I was not aware of the LCMS issue.


 * As an aside, just because the Historical Criticism page accuses conservative Bible scholars of what you specify does not mean it refers specifically to WELS theologeons. And frankly, if you feel such a statement is a POV one, bring it up on that article's talk page for discussion. Most editors are willing to discuss such things, and make corrections to fix such issues.


 * Furthermore, just because there is an article about the WELS here doesn't mean it's giving an impression of agreement to error. Besides, you can help fix that problem. If you see errors or exclusions on the WELS page about the WELS position, do go ahead and correct them. --Lendorien 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something on the WELS confirmation should be mentioned? Seeing that the WELS has used this for several years now.

Fair use
Use of the logo by Wikipedia is clearly protected under Fair Use. It is not necessary to seek permission to use a logo under fair use. Please read Logos. --BaronLarf 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Teaches that Pope = Anti-Christ?
In the Michele Bachmann article I learned that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod's "doctrine teaches that the Roman Catholic papacy is the Anti-Christ identified in Scripture." Would this teaching be worth noting on the WELS page? Or is it too much detail? —18.252.5.164 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think that would fit into any section in the article. It's not a core belief.  Most people who belong to the WELS dont even know that this is their churches position.--ChesterMarcol 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While it isn't a core belief, it is clearly taught in Scripture and recognized by the Wisconsin Synod as being true. Take a look at However, if you are going to mention it, you obligate yourself to mention every other portion of the faith.--Epiphyllumlover 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a dicey issue because of the misunderstandings that could occur if it isn't explained well. This used to be a commonly held belief by many protestant and Lutheran denominations. It has fallen out of vogue in recent years, probably due in part to its antagonistic nature and to our cuture of political correctness. To be frank, most WELS members are ignorant of this belief as well. The incident mentioned in Bachmann's article is an example of this. The WELS position is based on scriptural definitions of the Antichrist as something that puts itself in the place of Christ.  The Papacy is seen as doing this by putting the Pope on the "Throne of Christ" with the Pope having infallibility and the power to change doctrine and beliefs external to scripture. That's the main issue, that the Pope claims to "Speak for Christ" rather than letting Christ speak for Himself through scripture.  The Antichrist article touches on this definition. In older eras the Papacy as the Antichrist view was more common among protestants  in part also because the Papacy did wield considerable political power (one thing the antichrist was said to have) during those times. This power has lessened in the past couple centuries. --Lendorien 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This absolutely belongs in the article, because it clearly is a core belief of the WELS. They wouldn't prominently feature it on their website if it weren't. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just added an OR inline tag as both WELS and LCMS affirm teachings in Lutheran Confessions that the Papacy is Antichristian 219.79.30.145 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Scouting
A recent edit (since reverted as POV) added the following:
 * They believe that Scout Programs are "by their nature" non-christens. They are a racist church. They are a cult of sorts. If you break a rule, they will kick you out of the church. Jesus taught "tolerance". To understand others beliefs. You do not have to change your believe system, when with non-WELS cultists. Christ did not teach that if you do not agree with what is said, that you can not be a Christian. This is what WELS churches teach.
 * They are only two Christian groups that do not believe in "SCOUTING” (male or female) programs. WELS Churches and Jehovah Witnesses’. Do you like being associated with Jehovah Witnesses? Then force change in the church. Good company, don't you think!
 * As WELS teaches that women are inferior to men, do you no feel that “as women” you are 2nd class, or a slave to men? If you do not change WELS teaching about Christ, who will? Moslems live in the 8th century, why do WELS Christens?

I'm sure (without looking) that there's been discussion and description vis-à-vis status of women. However, does the point about scouting have any foundation? Could it be a point in criticism or differentiation? Shenme 09:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The scouting issue is one of fellowship. The WELS believes in separating themselves from churches and denominations that do not hold like doctrine and beliefs.  This is both an issue of not wanting to give the false impression that they support or do not disagree with said false teachings, but also to keep themselves from falling into it. The Boy Scouts include prayer to God and even singing of religious songs in their philosophy and practice.  The WELS views this as a form of cross-denominational worship (since the scouts may include people of all faiths (not just Christians) and creeds). As such, the WELS does not support scouting. It's a little deeper than that of course, and there's scripture references that I don't have in front of me involved.  This issue was one of the points (though certainly not the main or only one) that was a bone of contention in the eventual break-up of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America between the WELS and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. The LCMS has a lot of church based scouting troops among its congregations. The WELS had issues with this for the reasons given above.  Incidentally, unlike the JW's, the WELS does not believe they are the only Christians or the only ones going to heaven.  Far from it, as they believe that to be saved you must have faith in Christ and his sacrifice and the triune God.  Most Christians fit that criteria. The WELS simply believe they must separate themselves from those seen as in error, which involves other issues of belief and doctrine. --Lendorien 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some in the LCMS who are opposed to scouting, and instead operate a separate "Ranger/Rangerette" program. The WELS are not the only ones. Boy Scouts prohibit Trinitarian statements (as they would make the non-Trinitarians in the group antagonized.) are also have a large number of Mormons active in the leadership.--192.160.64.49 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The LCMS originally tried to deal with some of these issues by having the troops be church organized. The WELS took issue with it since the troops would still be involved in state and national meets.  I know that some in the LCMS don't agree with the scouting thing, but as a national organization, scouting is not one of those things the synod has taken a stand against.  Of course, the LCMS is in flux right now with the conservative and Liberal elements at loggerheads about the fellowship issue in general. --Lendorien 09:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this photo I uploaded?
I uploaded a photo, Meyerhoff.jpg, but for some reason I can't seem to get it on this page. Perhaps someone else can pull it off. I am looking for something similar to the following. Perhaps it should be larger than 150 px. Thanks. If you can help, thanks. If you don't think the photo should be used, please speak your mind.



--Epiphyllumlover 02:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

John Brenner
The WELS president John Brenner link leads to a US congressman of the same name that died before the WELS president John Brenner was even born.
 * I fixed this issue --Lendorien 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)