Talk:Lutheranism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Your page should be correct to make it clear than Lutheranism didn't start from a "separation." Luther and many of those who followed him were excommunicated. I'm Lutheran, and I take pride in knowing that they stood fast to the Word even though it meant that the "established church" booted them. So, we didn't separate based upon beliefs in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia, we were excommunicated for sticking to the principles of the Gospel. and plus christianity is stupid

	Lutheranism is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

March 2004-July 2006 August 2006-August 2007

Contents 1 How many? 2 Naming 3 Reformation Day 4 The Apostolic Lutheran Church of America 5 Archive 6 WP:NPOV considerations 7 RfC: Are Bible citations appropriate in articlespace? 7.1 Response to the RFC 8 Navigation box wars 9 "List of Lutherans"? 10 State church 11 History section

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Archive

The page had become enormous, so I archived everything up thru August 2007. Fishal (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)