Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Lutheranism, for the period September 2007 – December 2008.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

How many?

Just how many lutherans are there? The article itself gives widely different numbers throughout the text, and it never seems to agree on any one number. Reading the article, it was stated that anywhere from 60 million to some 90 million people are lutherans. CatBoris 20:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are huge problems with the numbering of Lutherans. See the detailed footnote I left for more information. If any one wants to find out the number of Lutheran churches there really are, go ahead. 70 million is grossly overstated, because it counts 10s of millions of Protestants within large state churches that have some Lutheran presence in them. If no one wants to do this, I advocate changing "belong to Lutheran churches worldwide" to "belong to Lutheran church-bodies or Protestant church-bodies with an acknowledged Lutheran presence." The 70 million Lutherans figure is essentially a propaganda piece by the WLF in an attempt to increase Lutheran clout in ecumenical considerations. It is also an attempt to mask the embarrasing numberical decline of the Lutherans. The number keeps on growing because small Lutheran church-bodies keep merging into larger Protestant bodies, which are then added to the ?? million total number of Lutherans. Really, the 70 million Lutherans claim is non-neutral point of view, because of it's simple untruth and common propaganda & promotional use.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Shouldn't there be a mentioning that Martin Luther himself didn't want his followers called Lutherans. He believed that the Church should be named after Christ, not a person. According to Luther, Christians should simply be called Christians, not Lutherans or Calvinists. He hated those words. One reason for this was that they just left a church whose head claimed to be the successor to the Apostle Peter. Emperor001 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would go one step further. Luther did not want to break from the Catholic Church. He wanted to reform the church. Many Lutheran churches do not refer to themselves as Protestants, but just Lutherans. --Jnshimko (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What Emperor001 says should me mentioned. I am not a christian, but I was 'baptized' lutheran; what I have learnt from family is that Luther rejected the intromision of the church in matters of God. I am not a good source for lutheran doctrine, but I can say that it makes sense to think about Luther as someone pointing out to something sacred, and not to a human-made, institutionalized structure of power. (monoRhesus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.38.93 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Lutherans was created by the Catholic Church I believe, not by the followers of Luther. Luther's followers decided to wear this title as a badge of honor to vex the Catholics if I remember correctly. Also, Jnshimko, is correct that Luther did not want to schism the church, but to reform the Catholic Church. Luther did not think the Pope would disagree with his 95 Theses. Luther's thought was that the pope did not know what was being done in his name, and was calling attention to the Indulgences issue, and was quite sure that the pope would agree with him. Awilhelm76 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reformation Day

I deleted the section in bold

"Reformation occurred on October 31, 1517, which Lutherans and other Protestants regard as Reformation Day"

as it does nothing to help the article. The current wording is:

"Reformation occurred on October 31, 1517 (Reformation Day)"

but the following would be another option:

"Reformation occurred on October 31, 1517 know as Reformation Day"

Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Reformation took place over a matter of time. It did not begin and end on Oct. 31 - Reformation day is to commemorate what happened over that time period as well as the day Luther hung the 95 Theses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.15.142 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. A better wording might be "Reformation began on October 31, 1517 which is refered to as Reformation Day". The term "occurred" is definately missleading. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. October 31st, 1517 is called Reformation Day because that is the day that Martin Luther posted the "95 Theses" on the Castle Door at Wittenburg. The Reformation took place over many years, and it was much later that the title Reformation Day was given to that date to commemorate the beginning of the Reformation by Luther. Awilhelm76 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, it was a church door, not a castle door if it actually happened. KitHutch (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Grace vs. justification

The article mentions "justification" as an advantage of being Lutheran. It is not so. It is Grace that is the advantage. Justification may be important within other religions, but not among Lutherans. St.Trond (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In Justification (theology)#Lutheran views it quotes Martin himself as saying, "This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification, is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness." So I'm not sure that your position is widespread. Fishal (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Grace is mentioned four times in the Gospels, whereas justification is not mentioned there at all. Grace is also mentioned 191 times in the entire Bible, whereas justification is mentioned only 3 times. Martin Luther was trained and worked as a Catholic, so quotes like the one above are no surprise. St.Trond (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the article is not about the New Testament. It's about Lutheranism: and that's Lutheranism as it actually is, not Lutheranism as you or I wish it were. Fishal (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Justification is not mentioned in Luther's Small Cathecism either. Grace is mentioned once in the European edition, and ten times in the American edition. Is undeserved Grace a problem? St.Trond (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't been arguing to add more about grace. You've argued that all references to justification be removed, which does not make sense as it is an important Lutheran concept. Fishal (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need justification if you believe in Grace? Please provide reasons that justification is "an important Lutheran concept" and should not be replaced by grace. St.Trond (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Justification is grace, from the Lutheran conception - Luther's point, quoted above about justification, is precisely about grace. Grace is the means by which we are justified. When Lutherans speak of Justification being the most important/distinctive element, what is meant is the Lutheran understanding of justification, which centers on the power of God's grace. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pastor David. If it is the same, why not use "grace" as it is used both in the Bible, and by Martin Luther.St.Trond (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Justification is the broader theological concept through which grace is understood. I.e., every theological tradition has a concept of justification - how we are "set right" with God. What is distinctive about the Lutheran tradition, according to Luther and later Lutherans theologians, is the particular understanding of the role of grace in the justification of the Christian. "Grace", without context, does not quite say the same thing. What is meant by "grace" - grace for daily life, grace through the sacraments, grace in personal relationships? Certainly Lutherans will talk about all of those, but the distinctive feature of Lutheran theology is the role of grace in the justification of the believer. Pastordavid (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Lutherans get "justification" from Romans 3: 24 where it says, "they are now justified by his grace as a gift thrugh the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." KitHutch (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi KitHutch. The verse you quote may originate in Roman context and terms. Of more relevance is: (Luke 16:15) "...Ye are they which justify yourselves before men...", as it is a part of the Lutheran "promise", i.e. the Gospels. Martin Luther's own conclusion in his Small Catechism is: "...He promises grace..." (3rd sentence from the end) St.Trond (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All... I just inserted a reference to a press release which seems to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's current stance on this issue. There was a citation needed and, while researching this, found they (RCC) had altered their thinking as early as 2000. Itlooks as though they have backed off of the "works" issue and fallen into line with "grace". Disciplelife (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the point touching this discussion: Will Catholics still require justification, or will grace now be sufficient for them too? St.Trond (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

After more thoroughly reading the official Catholic Response to the Joint Declaration it looks as though the Vatican had not yet relinquished their position on the matter. Although my insertion of the press release statements by certain Roman Catholic Bishops was contextually correct, it seems as though the RCC position is just as muddled as it was prior. From other readings, there may even be dealings with this on a church-by-church basis. Being neither Catholic nor Lutheran, I will leave further edits in this section to those who are.Disciplelife (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Luther's Small Catechism vs. Book of Concord

The "Book of Concord" mentioned in the article, is Lutheranism at "Pharisee level." To be a Lutheran, all you need to know is Luther's Small Catechism and the four Gospels of the New Testament.St.Trond (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you think the book is a good thing, the BoC definitely deserves mention as a very important Lutheran compendium of documents. The article is about Lutheranism as it is, not as one of us thinks it should be. Fishal (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My Book of Concord contains the three Ecumenical Creeds, The Augsburg Confession, The Apology of the Augsbrg Confession, The Smalcald Articles, The Power and Primacy of the Pope, The Small Catechism, The Large Catechism, and The Formula of Concord. Those are all pretty important foundational documents about Lutheranism. There probably won't be Lutheranism without them. The Book of Concord shoud be included in this article whether or not you agree with all its teachings. The Second Vatican Council is a pretty important event in the Roman Catholic Church. Since I am not Roman Catholic (I am catholic with a small "c"), I don't agree with a lot of VCII, but it still should be included in any article about Roman Catholicism. KitHutch (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Apostolic Lutheran Church of America

The following unreferenced, undocumented text that departs from the style of that which preceeded it was inserted by User:68.91.212.219 It needs much work if it is to remain in the article, I was tempted to delete it, but felt a better option was to move it to the talk page to see if others felt the same as me, or were willing to clean it up and add it back to the article. It was added at the end of the Central Doctrines section. I found this hard to consider to be a central doctrine issue. I left a reference tag in the article where it was cut out from. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Start of deleted text:

The Apostolic Lutheran Church of America has retained "The (False) Piety Doctrine" which was exported from Europe to the United States during the 16th and 17th centuries. In short, the doctrine classified Christians into categories defining who was more morally worthy in the sight of the Lord.

One of the more famous topics of this doctrine revolves around Luke 16:18. The Apostolic Lutheran Church of America considers this verse to be the exclusive source and ultimate say on the biblical topic of divorce and re-marriage. Therefore, those that have remarried (even if the divorced party is the injured/innocent party) are considered to be in a state of adultery.

Most other Lutherans and Protestants recognize the other Gospel verses which discuss this topic in greater detail. Also taken into account is the New Testament Book of Corinthians, which expounds on divorce and remarriage and allows for both in cases of adultery and desertion. But above all, the final say in the matter actually comes from Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" which states that no one person is free from adultery. For Jesus stated that when we lust after someone, we are committing adultery. Therefore, if the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America were to completely adhere to their own doctrine, no one person is worthy of leadership in the hierarchy of their church since they all have committed adultery. (This is according to Jesus' own words found in the Gospel of Matthew.)

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed Adultery with her already in his heart.

End of deleted text inserted by User:68.91.212.219

The third paragraph in particular is personal opinion. Best leave it here. Fishal (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Pastordavid (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV considerations

I have nominated this article for an NPOV check because there are far too many links to Bible sites/references as a means of supporting the article in the 'Core doctrines' sub-section. As far as I am aware, this is not good Wikipedia practice to quote scriptural verses as a way of providing references, and may be violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There are also a large number of Bible links given as references in the 'References' section.

I tried to find a religion-related MOS to consult if this was an acceptable way of providing sources, but apparently such a MOS doesn't currently exist.

It would be far better to find secondary source material and Lutheranism (especially about doctrines) and reference that work, rather than provide direct links to Bible sites. The article as it currently stands may give the impression that it is to be used for preaching purposes. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 01:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lutherans claim to get their theology from the Bible. As a result, they are unwilling to divorce their theological claims from their associated prooftexts. It is NPOV, because the layout asserts in an objective sense that Lutherans claim to base their theology from the Bible. It doesn't demand that this is the case in a non-neutral manner. Indeed, without the prooftexts, it would be difficult to verify the extent of the seriousness by which Lutherans make the aforesaid claim.

Not all doctrinal issues on the face of the earth were dealt with at length in the Lutheran Confessions. In any event, many Lutherans do not hold to the certain confessions anyway, such as the Formula of Concord. Unfortunately, Lutherans do not currently have a universally recognized and utilized dogmatic textbook. Really, only the Bible alone will suffice, as it is the only source of teaching universally recognized by all Lutherans that deals with all of the doctrinal issues dealt with in the doctrine section.

Wikipedia does not have a policy against Bible citations. In fact, some other articles use them. If they look too messy, someone can turn them into references section footnotes, as was done in the top part of the doctrine section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you. Aside from the issue of Lutherans acquiring their theology directly from the Bible, I was referring more the point of using source material for the claims. For example, if there are any other encyclopaedias or books that detail Lutheran beliefs, that would be a good source and that would/should be referenced in the article. I'm not sure the Lutheran Confessions would qualify as a reliable source because I assume it is a primary source? Primary sources are to be used with discretion as far as I know, while secondary sources are indeed preferable. Ekantik ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In an article about a religion based entirely on a particular scripture (the Bible) I cannot see how some footnotes and refs to that scripture could be avoided. Rumiton (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would look much neater if the Bible refs were footnotes rather than included in brackets after every sentence. Ekantik ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll file an RFC just to get some further comment. Ekantik ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I will comment here. I agree that the links as they appear in the article look promotional, more like a church-produced pamphlet than an encyclopedia article. They need to be available to the reader, but should definitely be simple footnotes. The question of whether secondary sources should be cited I will leave to the commenters. Rumiton (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Move them to the footnotes. Pastordavid (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about where to put Bible references, but IMO the "Summary of Doctrine" section is almost unreadable. It might be a good idea to re-org the section, maybe using the "Article" style of the Augsburg Confession itself as a guide. Cothomps (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are Bible citations appropriate in articlespace?

Should a section on Lutheran core beliefs rely entirely on Biblical citations in the articlespace, or would reliable secondary sources be preferred?

precautious:====== it simply would not be "lutheranism " not to use scriptures as the most important authoritive source on what Lutheranism is . since the lutheran confession very first article in the the book of concord epitome state they should. i guess fairly and cautiously it boils down to this. Does wikipedia want a real article about Lutheranism? or simple a fake article about what they and others think lutheranism should be supported by?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Precautious (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

From the archives:

It seems to me that most of the Bible verse references can be removed. They are primary, not secondary, sources because they show the source from which Lutheran doctrine is derived, rather than explain the Lutheran doctrine itself. If the article were an essay or an apoligetic work, they'd be good, but that's not what the article's supposed to be. I can see quoting a few Scripture passages directly for a little in-depth understanding (like Ephesians 2:8). But all those Bible passages clutters the article without adding much; the statements are still basically unsourced until they are referenced to passages in the Book of Concord or some other document that talks specifically about Lutheranism. Fishal 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... yes and no. If passages are the source from which Lutherans believe these doctrines come from, it's helpful for folks to know what they're thinking. I would move them all to notes, however, and maybe find some language to make that clear. --CTSWyneken 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been addressed before; I was just too lazy to go and improve the article. My apologies. :( Fishal (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea of moving many of the Bible verses to notes is an excellent compromise. I'd be glad to help if someone can tell me how to create notes in the text. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Epiphyllumlover was correct; it seems that a large number of Christianity-oriented articles include Biblical quotations in articlespace. Examples: Jesus, Harrowing of Hell, Ascension of Jesus Christ, etc. It seems like this is a Wiki-wide issue and not just a matter for this article. Perhaps this article can stay like it is for the time being, and maybe this whole issue needs to be brought to some attention. Happy New year anyhow! :) Ekantik ^talk 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to the RFC

I agree with Fishal's comments. While the Biblical quotes may show where the doctrine came from, only the church's documentation can be considered a source for the adoption and interpretation of those passages. I would further state that the copious Biblical references should be (re)moved, because it creates the impression that the Lutheran doctrine and interpretation is the correct one rather than just one of many. Stated another way, it is presenting a POV about the veracity of Lutheran doctrine in relation to the Bible. Wikipedia should show what Lutherans believe, not why they believe it. (I realize that may be confusing and will try to explain further if needed.) Pairadox (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

precautious But EVEN that is part of lutheranism:::; weather some like it or not.

The Evangelical Catholic is a glorious Church; it holds and conforms itself chiefly to the Sacraments. The Evangelical Reformed is a glorious Church; it holds and conforms itself chiefly to the Word of God. More glorious than both is the Evangelical Lutheran Church; it holds and conforms itself both to the Sacraments and the Word of God. Into this Lutheran Church both the others are developing, even without the intentional aid of men. But the way of the ungodly shall perish, says David (Ps. 1:6). -- Claus Harms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precautious (talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than remove them, I have changed the intrusive and promotional refs to footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think it gives the Lutheran interpretation a Biblical legitimacy that ventures into POV. It's best to rely solely on sources that show Lutheran doctrine. Pairadox (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, it still reads as if it were written by a church member. Do such sources exist? Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are books out there that survey the various denominations, yes. Fishal (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are any practicing Lutherans editing this article, you could probably ask your minister for resource material. I'd hope they would have the most accurate material at hand, or at least know where to get it. Pairadox (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have very little skill when it comes to editing webpages, perhaps someone with more expertise can figure it out. I know of a site with loads of Lutheran doctrine which could be cited, but the page displays the text within the window, instead of giving a link I could copy/paste. www.clclutheran.org is the site, and from there you can navigate to the link on the left of the page called Online Library. Can this be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomio (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right click on the link and open them in a new window or tab. Keep doing that until you get to the page you want. For example, opening the Online Library in a new window shows that page to be http://clclutheran.org/library.htm. Pairadox (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the dizzying array of Christian denominations, articles about Christian sects should not directly depend on Biblical citations. Biblical referencing should also be avoided due to concerns regarding NPOV and original research. Reliable independent sources should be used to document the faith of Lutheranism. However, if those sources reference the Bible, it is perfectly appropriate to mention those verses in the same context as the reputable sources. (For example, if a reputable source discussing Lutheranism's interpretation of the doctrine of justification mentions Biblical verses that the denomination draws upon for support, the article should report the same.) The {{bibleref}} template should be used to directly link the mentioned scriptures. Vassyana (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. The Bible is a primary source, and interpreting the Church's stand on X verse is original research. Find a secondary source for each claim. Relata refero (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think a problem arises because there is a lack of theological knowledge. When a denomination bases theology on 'sola...' and an editor tries to say find a secondary source, it becomes clear that a solution to this problem will not be found. This is like trying to buy a house and the bank saying to you buy the house first then we will give you the loan! I support the bibical support based on the Lutheran theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because Wikipdia is not Lutheran. Many denominations follow Sola Scriptura, but Lutherans still interpret the Bible differently. This is why sources are needed outside the Bible explaining Lutheran interpretations. Fishal (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishal, would you be satisfied by having the Biblical references next to a page in a dogmatics text in the reference section? Or are you looking to remove the Bible references entirely? I for one, am willing to compromise. If it means taking down the POV flag, I am willing to add pages from a dogmatics text to every Bible citation. However, I do not feel that removing the Bible verses would be a good idea, because the average reader doesn't own a dogmatics text and isn't interested in reading one and therefore can't figure out what proof text the Lutherans are coming from when they make their claims. The citations are more useful to the reader having both a Bible verse and a dogmatics text rather than just a dogmatics text.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as there's a secondary source, there's nothing wrong with saying "Pieper 156; Cf. Romans 3:11" or somesuch. Fishal (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. What about, ""Pieper 156" and "Romans 3:11""? It will take longer to complete if I have to find a dogmatics work that mentions each prooftext specifically. I'd rather just run through the list of refs with one dogmatics work. I could cite every topic to the appropriate section on the work. The existing Bible passages could sit alongside of each dogmatic work reference without necessarily being part of it. Would it still be sufficient to take down the POV flag?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd be satisfied, anyway. And I seem to be the one making all the ruckus about it. Fishal (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on those doctrine citations. It has just been a while since I've made any improvements. At this rate, it may take a few years to complete them all, but I think that is okay.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, it will happen. Fishal (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I finished adding secondary references. I deleted the POV notice. There are still solo Bible references in the middle of one sentence on faith, but they come from a secondary source that is cited at the end of the sentence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Navigation box wars

This article has three verital navigation boxes contending for placment, and they are overlapping each other. Is this some sort of compromise? TableManners^C·U·T 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"List of Lutherans"?

Why is there a "list of Lutherans" section, and why are there only a few Lutherans listed?

I could see having a list of Lutherans whose writings were important to the development of Lutheranism, but this seems more of a list of "any old Lutheran", with no justification. E.g.: Søren Kierkegaard.

That list should probably get eliminated from the article, or at least be narrowed down to something like "list of people who have made a contribution to Lutheranism". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already Category:Lutherans. The list is unnecessary. I'm going to boldly delete it. Fishal (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the parameters are too vague for it to have encyclopedic value, for what it's worth. Pairadox (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Fishal - I think there's some general rule here that "list of" should get deleted in favour of using "Category:", anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State church

The article says: "The Evangelical-Lutheran church is or was the state church of several countries in northern Europe." To a layperson like me this is interesting, but what does it actually mean? Which countries were they? How did it affect their governance? Sources please. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No sources yet. The states were kingdom of Denmark (incl. Norway and Iceland) and kingdom of Sweden (including Finland), and the Schmalkaldic League. The latter were the primary reformation area. Denmark simply tolerated Lutheranism and was slowly converted towards it. King Gustav I Vasa of Sweden was in personal life long conflict with Swedish clerics about material property, and fostered Lutheranism for his own private purposes; under grave conflicts between his sons Erik, John and Charles the Lutherans got the upper hand, and Charles got his power from the hand of the Lutherans by exiling John's son Sigismund to Poland - Charles was initially inclined towards Calvinism, but arranged theological debates between Calvinists and Lutherans changed his mind. In the Thirty Years' War Lutheranism was one main driving war cause and a great source for Swedish and Northern German nationalism. Formally Denmark and thereafter Sweden defended Protestantism against "the evil Rome". However: the french were warring on the Protestant side, so something more was up. Afterwards the Lutherans got very much the same role as the Roman Catholic Church in Southern Europe: it served as an ideological disciplinary instance that controlled people, administrated and registered them with some welfare functions needed by the nations. The church was a von-oben-institution reformulating the policies of the king (the highest protectors of the church) to a christian language. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems confusing that the article lists a long line of "developments" since Martin Luther. The fact is that these "developments" applies only to certain areas, based on compromises made one way or another. The area for which these compromises were valid should be mentioned in the header like it has been done for Scandinavia.

History section

I haven't been paying attention to this article. What on Earth happened to the history section? To the non-Christian reader it's even more important than the doctrines and theology IMO. Fishal (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it's passing, too. I'm not sure what happened to it either, but I think it may have gotten placed into it's own article. There was a lot of abridging that shortened multiple sections some time ago. I was not part of this movement, but I think the article is more readable now. Personally, I like the article considerably more without the history section. If people want to learn about this history (and really the history is just as much the history of Catholicism & Protestantism as much as it is of Lutheranism) they can read other articles that detail the time periods. In my opinion the former history section suffered from a Rationalist point of view that presented Lutheranism in a negative light and as a dead, static object that occurred in the 1500's. Lutheranism isn't "Martin Luther + 30 years war"--it is a a people populating the globe and the doctrine these people hold. The current article reflects this reality.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The section was horribly inadequate (as is the current History of Lutheranism article) for that reason, that it gave the impression that Martin Luther lived, then people fought for several decades, then nothing happened. But IMO without history, the theology has no context, since Lutheran thought has not been static, but has changed over the centuries. I suppose I should just boldly add to it-- that will take time, though. Fishal (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you just volunteered, here are some ideas:

1. I think a recapitulated history of the Lutheran movements would be interesting. It could encompass the Confessional, Orthodox, High Church, Free-Church, Neo, Old, Pietist, Laestadian, Repristination, and any other movements or schools of thought. A section on these movements would go well in between the "Doctrine" and "Ecumenism" sections.

And the Prussian Union, and the polarizing effect that had on German Lutherans. --Fishal

2. Another avenue you could pursue is the international spread of Lutheranism and how it became a world phenomenon. This would fit nicely under the "Throughout the world" section.

3. Yet another possibility is the trend of absorption where Lutherans end up as Uniteds, inside merged European Protestant church bodies, or inside broader Protestant church-fellowships as with Porvoo & the ELCA's recent church-fellowship agreements. This could go under the ecumenism section.

I think these three possibilities offer the prospect of new, valuable contribution to Wikipedia. In contrast, I don't think it would be all that useful to recap Martin Luther's life again or dwell on the 30 years war. Other articles do that really well already.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are the sorts of things I was thinking. And looking around, Wikipedia doesn't even have much on the spread of Lutheranism into Scandinavia-- and that's early history! But maybe we're in luck. I just received the gift of free time with the coming of summer. If it's going to happen at all, it'll happen in the next week or so. But this WikiOgre can't promise anything, back here in the cave like this. Fishal (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The section Summary of Doctrine was marked not NPOV almost a year ago. The previous discussion indicate that the reason might have been mostly citing the bible, and not any specific Lutheran sources, which would be preferrable. I agree but isn't the section almost fixed, after all work the other editors did? Said: Rursus (☻) 07:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some more citations to be fixed... ([24]-[29]) Said: Rursus (☻) 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are about 15 more citations that need to be fixed. Also, subheadings for the doctrinal section might be helpful.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)