Talk:Lutheranism

Lutheranism

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 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—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. —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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I put into evidence this from the official website of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod.[1]

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.

-- [2]

More later...

(unsigned contribution by CTSWyneken)

The ELCA recognizes their Protestant connection: [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.
A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
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.

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".)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

WELS: [[5]] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]