Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reversion

I look thru the history page of this group and the first entry looks like a stub. it appears that later on someone replace that with something from elca website. I will put the original back inSmith03 17:43, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC).

ELCA and Missouri Synod

I tried to flesh out what was here a little bit. Being a member of the rival Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod colors my perspective, but I tried to be fair. Hopefully an ELCA member will come along sometime and elaborate/expand a bit. Dave Farquhar 21:32, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The ELCA and LCMS are not rivals, just two different church bodies with different histories. EdwinHJ 06:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, the word "rival" is perhaps a bit harsh, but we do have some differences. Dave Farquhar 14:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If they are rivals, what's their win-loss record? Fishal 17:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a great section, but I wonder if this would be a great new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.50.20 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a problematically-worded assertion in this section that I've flagged: that "the LCMS prefers a more direct application of Biblical teaching to modern times" than the ELCA does. I think I at least partially understand what this is trying to say (if I'm right, basically that the LCMS is more conservative in its approach to interpreting/applying the Bible), but I imagine most Christians of any classification would describe themselves as applying Biblical teaching to modern times. I hope someone can work out a more neutral way to say this, and hopefully get some citations for some of the excellent historical info. LiberalArtist (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism

The category Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism encompasses two topics. One edit placed the ELCA in this category. Based on the five tests of fundamentalism, the ELCA does not subscribe to biblical inerrancy; although it is closely aligned with the category of Christian Evangelicalism. See the discussion How do Lutherans look upon the Bible? I will be doing a similar edit to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania page.

Robbie Giles 14:24, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

History of AELC

The History is scewed. The AELC mainly left for reasons other then the ones listed. If you don't believe me, read, "Anatomy of an Explosion" by Marquart, which give a history of the whole event.--192.160.64.49 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sex abuse scandals

Here we are a year later, and I'm still trying to get this material off the page. According to the ELCA legal staff, the information is incorrect in this section of the Wikipedia article, and should be removed. Please contact me at mim.woolbert@elca.org (not a high-level executive position, I assure you) or 800/638-3522, ext. 2957. miriamw18Miriamw18 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the sex abuse not relevant to the ELCA main info page? It was the largest per capita settlment in U.S. history; it made ABC, CNN, Fox News, and Yahoo's main stories, and even foreign papers. Current events become historical events over time, the fact that it is current does not diminish its worthiness to be included in a wikipedia article. If there were, no articles on September 11 or the occupation of Iraq would exist. There is also a precendent for including sex abuse in a main church article: the sex abuse scandals envolving the catholic church are included there.

This was a story that got international coverage; invloves a fact of national scale, and is certainly an inmportant development in the history of the ELCA and is relevant to the article. The reference should be restored; perhaps as part of a more comprehensive history of the church; it should have never been deleted without discussion.

-JCarriker 03:17, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Since, there seems to be no objections I am going to place the child abuse information back into the article.

--JCarriker 01:42, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

The sex abuse case was just deleted by 208.238.207.221 and I just replaced it. I'm personally not sure whether this one case is deserving of its own section on the ELCA page, but since there's already a discussion about the issue on the talk page, it seems like this should be discussed rather than simply deleted without comment. The anonymous user also deleted the Categories and the "See also" section; I have no idea why this was done, which is why I'm restoring the whole thing. Whoever did these deletions: you're welcome to make a case for why these don't belong on here (although the Categories and "See also" certainly do belong), but a discussion would be more useful than simply deleting large chunks of text with no comment. Ropcat 02:22, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

EdwinHJ has contiunually removed the abuse section from this article. I'm not in a frame of mind to debate this right now. So I'm posting it on the talk page for the time being, which is standard for disputed passages. It should not be removed form the talk page. -JCarriker 21:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

What is the value of having all these articles about sexuality and abuse in this ELCA description? We (the ELCA) are not defined by these cases any more than other church bodies are defined by their own scandals -- pastors murdering their spouses in a couple of well-known incidents comes to mind. I think these two whole sections ought to be removed. I would be happy to engage anyone who does not remain anonymous in private conversation about this. I am mim.woolbert@elca.org, an employee of ELCA Communication Services.Miriamw18 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse case

In March and April 2004, the ELCA agreed to pay the largest per capita settlement in a church abuse case in the United States to date. The payment was a combination of a jury award and a separate settlement, both stemming from civil suits filed by fourteen plaintiffs against the ELCA, a member synod, several church officials, one of the church's seminaries, and one of its congregations. The plaintiffs charged that they had been sexually abused by an ELCA minister at a church in Marshall, Texas, and that the defendants had been negligent in their oversight and evaluation of the offender. Seeking to reassure member congregations, a church spokesperson subsequently noted that "ELCA bishops do not have authority to reassign clergy, and they do not move known perpetrators to other ministry locations." The offending minister was convicted and sentenced to prison in 2003, and removed from the ELCA's clergy roster.

This was an incident at a single church and while the large $s may be noteworthy, this is not a news item that has had any significant impact (obviously outside the folks who were involved) over the past year. If temporary news items about a denomination are items for inclusions, where's the BTK serial killer section or arsenic poisoning that happened at coffee hour? -Jcbarr 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Such cases appear in the Catholic Church article. The precedent has already been established, why should any exceptions be made for the ELCA? -JCarriker 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs and practice

This section seems poorly worded and certainly not 100% accurate. Anyone with better writing skills than I want to take a crack at it? -Jcbarr 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jcbarr's statement in regards to a lawsuit filed against the ELCA. While Lutheran (LCMS) myself, I truly believe that the intent of the articles on our various denominations should be to convey the facts of our faith, theological history, doctrinal differences within, as well as those we hold with both Christian and, what we would believe (based on the rejection of the trinity)non-Christian churches. Issues regarding more political type scenarios should be removed. - Jeff

The problem with the Beliefs and Practice section is that it presents a scewed version that many, many ELCA churchmembers reject. As I know a good number of them, I assure you that they DO believe in consubtantiation. But a minority of libereralized people in the ELCA don't, and they want to pretend that the whole synod doesn't. This is an extreame POV, if you want to accuse me of extreame POV, you must accuse yourself as well.--192.160.64.49 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The following quote, "In practice however, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and its teachings mean little to the clergy of the synod" seems to me to not represent a fair view of the ELCA or its pastors. Indeed, in our rite of ordination, pastors promise to uphold the Confessions of our church. Certainly, I would agree that a pastor from the LC-MS and I would have different ideas about what it means to take the UAC seriously ... but I do (and most pastors I have met also do). Also, the ELCA is not referred to as a "synod," that word is received for the judiciaries within the ELCA. If no one objects, I will change this bit. Pastordavid

I already removed the POV statements. KitHutch 13:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

new category

Many Lutherans these days are taking a new look and rejecting the use of the term denomination. Many say we arent a denomination per se but a reform movement within the catholic Church. I object to this new category name. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a view rejected by many in the ELCA and familar with it. The proper classification of the ELCA is a "Modern Liberal Protestant Denomination." Even Karl Barth said that being a modern liberal protestant was herisy.--192.160.64.49 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist

I am soemwhat confused by the practice of Communion in the Lutheran Church. Does the Church require ordination for preparation of Eucharist or can any member perform the rite? -- Psy guy ^Talk 03:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In the ELCA, generally speaking a person needs to be ordained to perform communion. However, in emergency situation, a member can be authorized by a bishop to perform the rite on a specific date at a specific time. KitHutch 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My congregation is told that that is for "good order": ordained pastors SHOULD be the only ones performing baptism and communion; the bishop can authorize someone else such as an intern pastor to fill in, but in an emergency situation, any baptized Christian can do it. Hollielol (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Social issues

I feel that the section on blessing/ordination of gays and lesbians is too long for the section it's currently in, and out of proportion with the length given to the other social issues in the list. Not that I don't think this is an important debate to document; on the contrary, I suggest that it be briefly summarized here, and then that this debate get its own, more lengthy article. (The description here, I think, is too short to be as comprehensive as would be desirable, and too long to fit the category it's placed in). What does everyone think? Ropcat 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, someone could write an article about how this issue is affecting all mainline denominations? I know that it is also an issue in the United Methodist Church. KitHutch 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

has anyone done any work on such an article, otherwise, I coulder start. Revcjconner 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A good place to look is the Category LGBT issues and religion which has three articles Homosexuality and Christianity, Gay bishops, and Religion and homosexuality. I did not find anything specifically Lutheran or specifically clergy, but I haven't read the articles thoroughly yet. --Robbie Giles 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of Synods

I noticed another wikipedian edited the ELCA's page to say it has 1 non-geographical synod and 65 geographical ones. However, it's apparent from the elca.org that the ELCA has 65 TOTAL synods. 1 is non-geographical and 64 are regional. Peace, ~Kruck 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Infalibillity vs Inerrency

I've created a new page entitled: Biblical infalibility. It links toEvangelical Lutheran Church in America at one point. The Lutheran church was at the center of this debate in the 70's and 80's and it would be great if any of oyu could help edit this page. Thanks! --DjSamwise 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons between ELCA and LCMS

The chart in the Beliefs and Practices section causes me concern. It is misleading in that it is excerpted from Augsburg Fortress, the ELCA publishing House, which has a bias against LCMS. Also, the comparisons just are not altogether accurate, and entirely too simplistic. For example, while ELCA scholarship subscribes to an extensive hermeneutic of Biblical Criticism, the LCMS puts much more of its resources and higher priority than the ELCA into research, academic rigor, and Christian Schools. Missouri tradition includes the prolific use of "higher criticism," so that assertion is just plain untrue. Also, LCMS excludes women from holding the offices of ordained ministry and the offices related to it, but not from anything else. The chart suggests otherwise. I want to float the idea of removing the chart altogether at this point, as it appears it doesn't contribute any information about the ELCA that isn't already there. Revcjconner 05:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that its a valid addition to this article, as the chart represents the ELCA's understanding of the dispute between itself and missouri; and as such is a helpful way to gain insight into the ELCA. Pastordavid 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll just add a brief note then to reflect your insight. Revcjconner 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the ELCA's own documents be used in this; we have a FAQ describing the differences between ELCA and LCMS, and I would think it would be a better source than a chart from a copyrighted book that is now nine years old ...

I would be happy to have private correspondence with anyone who is "in charge" of this Wikipedia article about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate here. My e-mail address is mim.woolbert@elca.org and I am associate director for interactive media and networks in the ELCA's Communication Services unit. Miriamw18 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted the article to include the table. The quotation is well cited and falls within the guidelines of the Fair Use exception to copyright. We can seek guidance from WP copyright gurus if the group would like. Specifically this is a small portion of the text used in a non-commercial or educational setting. -- Robbie Giles (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I looked over the changes made to this article before it was correctly reverted, and it seems that we could take a look at tightening the article up on a couple of things that inappropriately changed- I'm assuming that there were specific reasons for what appear to be an emotional response in the vandal's edits. If the person who vandaled the article could be specific on the talk board of what set them off, it might help improve the article. Out of the changes, the one line that jumped out at me was the characterization of other Lutheran groups as "doctrinaire" or "pietistic"- loaded words that reflect a subjective point of view. There may well be other "trigger" phrases there that we could change. We might benefit from a discussion about how we can make changes that will be fair and objective to other religions. Anybody up for discussion about it? Revcjconner 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Problem I just noticed is the ELCA membership is 4.85 million, not 4.9 million, and certainly not 4.3 million, though other statistics show that about 29.68% of their overall membership is in church on any given Sunday, and the Secretary of the ELCA says that the figure of 29.68% reflects the percentage of active membership, which indicates about 1,439,747 active members. www.elca.org/news/releases.asp?a=3410 Revcjconner 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the same vandalism to the article as last night. Afterwards, I did change the membership number to 4.85 and adjusted the reference date. I say we go with the published numbers of members of any denomination. It is comparing apples to apples and can be sourced. The terms active, communing, etc are not as standardized across denominations.

I noticed the article is tagged as needing sources where you question the use of pietistic and doctrinaire. I understand about doctrinaire, but I think pietistic is not pejorative. I would like to see reference to LCMS and WEL comparisons out of this section. We should describe the theology, etc., as it is presented in sources. It is what it is and can stand alone. Comparisons sometimes lead to contests about who is right and who is wrong. Let the LCMS and WEL articles describe their beliefs and practices in each article. If we want to start a conflagration, we can do an article contrasting the beliefs and practices of the differing Lutheran bodies. --Robbie Giles 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The unregistered user is still changing the article. I will place information on the talk page of the user asking them to join in the discussion. I see no reason to change the sourced information in the infobox. It is the official number given by the church for membership. If there are verifiable sources we can cite that show a different number, those can be included and that source listed. --Robbie Giles 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Other names considered in 1980s

I sent an email to elca.org/archives and got this response the second paragraph deals with fact the Eielsen Synod (which had a few churches in the 1980s) also used the name Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I think it would be nice to some of this info in the article but am not sure if an email is verifiable to use.

The Commission for a New Lutheran Church's Work Group on Legal Matters did a trademark searches for several names in 1985: Evangelical Lutheran Church, United Evangelical Lutheran Church, Lutheran Community of Christ, Lutheran Church of Evangelical Unity, and Lutheran Church in the USA. The lawyers found that Evangelical Lutheran Church and United Evangelical Lutheran Church were not clean titles and should not be used. By October 1985, the CNLC had selected two names, "Evangelical Lutheran Church in the U.S.A." and "Lutheran Church in the U.S.A.," for consideration by congregations. By 1986 "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" had been chosen.

The Eielsen Synod never was an officially incorporated body recognized by either the states of Minnesota or Wisconsin, so legally there was no conflict. The Eielsen Synod also had never changed their constitution from the original 1846 one, so the name given there was in Norwegian, while the commonly used English-translation had quote marks around "Evangelical Lutheran Church" indicating that the "in America" was just a modifier and not part of the official name of the church body.

Smith03 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Homosexuality Section

I am not sure that the story of Schmeling belongs here unless it is counterbalanced with the story of Anita Hill of St. Paul Reformation Lutheran church in Saint Paul MN. She is not a rostered ELCA pastor, but continues to serve an ELCA congregation. Her situation is different than Schmeling's because Bishop Mark Hanson actively strategized for her and pushed her candidacy (He helped to get her 6 appearances before the candidacy committee- which was unprecedented). Hanson was previously the Bishop of Saint Paul, but now the presiding Bishop of the ELCA.

So while the Schmeling story shows in some form the ELCA has enforced their rules, there are many more cases where they don't, in fact where top Bishops have lead the public charge to violate the standards for clergy expectations. I would recommend either elminating the Schmeling story, or adding the Anita Hill Story, for balance.

Revcjconner 01:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Brief question about worship styles section

Under the Worship styles section it reads that the color black is only worn for Ash Wednesday. It is my understanding that black is also used for Maundy Thursday and (especially) Good Friday worship. Could someone confirm prior to my making the update? 24.20.60.216 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, black is never appointed for use. Some places use black on Good Friday, but the more liturgically accepted practice is to have a stripped altar on that day. Purple is the appointed liturgical color for Ash Wednesday. Pastordavid (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Baptized membership -- bogus statistic?

The first paragraph says there are "about 7.1 million members (4.9 million baptized)." If you do the math, that means 31% of the members are not baptized! I find that hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.46.128 (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cluster"?

I have repeatedly read the term "cluster" being used for a group of congregations or pastors but cannot figure out which exact level it refers to. I have actually asked a few ELCA people and even pastors, but as this seems to be a term used locally in some synods only even they couldn't tell me. Can someone help me find a precise definition of the term? Is a "cluster" identical with what is called a conference in other synods? Thanks! Anna (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cluster is alocal use term, that does not have one meaning across the church. In some places, a cluster is synonymous with what is elsewhere called a conference or a deanery (the sub-group of the Synod, or middle judicatory). In other places, the cluster is a smaller group than the cluster/deanery - a subgroup of the sub-group. Pastordavid (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a prompt and clear answer! Anna (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User Miriamw18 changes should be undone

Miriamw18, Miriam Woolbert, is on the Executive Staff of the ELCA, in Chicago, and manages the homosexuality debate boards for the homosexuality studies for the ELCA. Wikipedia guidelines would prevent this user from making edits to pages of the ELCA, since she is an Executive Staff.

All are requested to help undo Miriamw18 edits.

Revcjconner (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about these "Wikipedia guidelines" that "prevent this user from making edits to pages of the ELCA," particularly when those edits are simply to correct misinformation. Point me to those guidelines, please; I've been unable to find them myself. miriamw18Miriamw18 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does someone keep putting the Lutheran Women's Caucus into this article? The Lutheran Women's Caucus does not exist, has not existed for several years.

Why does someone keep adding links to Word Alone and LCMC in a section apparently for links to related organizations? Neither one of those organizations is related in any structural way to the ELCA.

miriamw18Miriamw18 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

I noticed that there were controversies surrounding the ELCA's positions on the Mideast conflict. Some people who have studied the conflict feel that Evangelical Lutherans may have taken a pro-Palestinian position [1] ADM (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 CWA

I deleted the introductory paragraph (and hopefully incorporated some of its information into the 2009 CWA heading) and put the information (to date) about the 2009 CWA under its own heading. Some may disagree with this, but I did so because I believe this is potentially the biggest event in the ELCA's history since its incorporation.--Locutus1966 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the way you've written it is factually inaccurate. The Social Statement did not change the ministry policies. That was a separate vote. Further, it's misleading to say the Social Statement "was adopted by one vote." It got the bare minimum necessary to pass with the required 2/3 supermajority--i.e., if one vote had changed, it would not have been adopted. The change in ministry standards passed with 55% of the vote, needing only a simple majority.

Further, I don't think that section logically belongs so early in the article. One expects the first few subheadings to be about the most important aspects of the topic the article is about. The sexuality issue is hardly the most important thing to know about the ELCA. --Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited it a bit. The reason I put it where I did is simply because of where the list of all Churchwide Assemblies have been. While this may or may not be the most important thing about the ELCA, it is a fulcrum upon which the future of the denomination may hinge.--Locutus1966 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it logically fits better under section 7 (social issues). IMO, it's a sign of our society's obsession with sex that folks on both sides of the debate think homosexuality is a defining issue. --Ruckabumpkus (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent non-NPOV edits

In the last couple of days, Epiphyllumlover has made a slew of edits, several of which clearly do not reflect a NPOV. For instance, the first one in this series, dated 05:14, 26 September 2009, deletes the sentence, "This tolerant and young church body (1988) has generally perceived such diversity as an asset, instead of a liability or threat, as earlier generations likely would have." The comment attached to this edit says, "last sentence because the recent letter by Bishop Hanson indicates he views diverse opinions about what Scripture commands as a threat to the integrity of the synod." It is not clear what letter this comment refers to, but I can find no evidence that Bishop Hanson has ever indicated any such thing, nor is it anything he would be likely to say, based on what I personally know of him. I suspect that writer's interpretation of whatever letter is being referred to is a distortion based on taking something out of context, but of course, we can't know that, because the writer didn't cite the letter. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And in an edit dated 22:44, 26 September 2009, the same editor deleted this sentence: "In general, however, the ELCA has avoided major schisms, partly by engaging in long periods of study and interactive deliberation before adopting new stances." The attached comment reads, "no longer true given the current developments." The comment is factually incorrect on two counts. First, there was indeed long period of study and interactive deliberation connected with the recent decisions about human sexuality issues. Second, no schism has yet happened, though there is a faction agitating for one. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we all have to admit that the article is in better shape than I before I began my slew of edits. Nearly everything I've done has been to add new wikilinks, remove duplicated wikilinks, and merge sections that were related or duplicated in other parts of the article. I also typed up the table, which took a fair amount of time. However, this table is also the greatest amount of information on the article that has an academic source it it. If this article were to be pushed toward "good article" status, nearly every other citation would have to go, and most of this article's text would have to be replaced or recited. In a few places I removed things which I thought reflected a NNPOV or reflected the situation of the church years back (like when the hymnal, now three years old, was new). I merged the existing material on the 2001 CCM document with the Episcopalians and you deleted all of it, perhaps thinking it was NNPOV. I don't really care whether it is in the article, though.

The current movement toward possible schism makes the unsourced line that I removed look anachronistic, since despite the relatively long study time (although a conservative-leaning ELCA pastor told me he expected another 6 good years) schism very much appears to be developing anyway. That is why it had to go. Go to www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=2320.0 (linking to discussion forums is strictly prohibited on wikipedia so I am leaving it in this form) for the Bishop's letter and form your own opinions about it. Some traditionalist-leaning pastors have read it and are offended, thinking that their diverse opinions were not respected.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring the article is a good thing. However, it seems obvious to me that you have an anti-ELCA POV, as evidenced, for instance, by your assertion that Bishop Hansen "indicates he views diverse opinions about what Scripture commands as a threat to the integrity of the synod." The letter you point to neither says nor implies any such thing. On the contrary, I read it as saying exactly the opposite. Have you studied Luther's explanation of the 8th Commandment lately? Your edits seem to move consistently in the direction of showing the ELCA in the worst possible light. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I like some things about the ELCA and I dislike other things about the ELCA. You may certainly try to construct what my own POV is by my edits. It certainly isn't neutral. I'm of the opinion that I've been neutral in my editing, however my views have been. I read some comments by ELCA pastors in the web forum I linked to that were of the opinion that Hanson was labeling one of their opinions (that is, that Scripture commanded them to persuade their congregations to withhold funds from synod), a threat to the integrity of their synod. I happen to agree that withholding funds from one's own national church is a threat to that church's integrity. Perhaps you have a more enlightened view and know Bishop Hanson well enough that he would agree that the idea of witholding funds is not a threat? If so, you can certainly restore the two sentences or so that I removed, if it is that big of a deal to you, and I'm not the type to waste my time on edit warring.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you clarified. When you asserted that Bishop Hanson's letter implied he "views diverse opinions about what Scripture commands as a threat to the integrity of the synod," I thought you were refering to diverse opinions in general. I agree that withholding funds is a threat to the church body; however, it seems to me that the threat comes from the insistence that there is only one correct opinion (which would necessitate withholding funds if you think the church body has an incorrect one). Bishop Hanson clearly wants the ELCA to be a "big tent" with room for diverse opinions. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That just goes back to the debate about whether the tolerant should be intolerant about intolerance. The subject is very prone about confusion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of Scripture

The section on Interpretation of Scripture as it stands right now is misleading. It currently contains the following sentence:

Instead, ELCA seminaries and colleges teach a form of the historical-critical method of biblical analysis, an approach that treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives.

There are two problems here. The citation at the end of the reference refers the reader to a page on the ELCA website, The Bible. First problem, that page makes no reference to what ELCA seminaries and colleges teach (and besides, they have academic freedom, so the ELCA bureaucracy can't tell them what to teach). Second, the above sentence does not accurately reflect what that page actually says about the Bible. The article's current phraseology seems to imply that ELCA Lutherans think the Bible is merely a human book, and I know of no ELCA Lutheran who believes that. The above sentence seems to assume a false dichotomy between inerrancy on the one hand and denying any involvement by God in the production of the Scriptures on the other.

I probably was the one that created the "citation". It really isn't a citation. It was actually an advertisement for the ELCA website that was put into articlespace, against Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines. I probably was the one turned it into the citation format simply to remove it from articlespace. It doesn't provide evidence for the article text--it is merely a resource for extended reading. Delete it if you please. I could care less. The text itself is uncited and you can treat it the way uncited text in wikipedia is uncited. Most of the rest of the citations in the article are in the same situation as this one. I agree with you that there is academic freedom. I once talked to an ELCA professor, who complained that there still was one Young Earth Creationist left in his department, an older professor, while everyone else believed in old earth evolution. So it is possible there is some sort of diversity in the ELCA colleges and seminaries. On the other hand, if you want to improve the article, you would have to find a citation of a professor offering a divergent position--which is lot of work. I doubt I could find a single scholarly article written by any ELCA professor that denies the historical-critical method (the method treats the Bible as a human literary product rather than as a divine, supernatural creation).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand what the historical-critical method is. Yes, it involves studying the Bible as a "human literary product," but that does not exclude viewing it as a divine communication. The "rather than" in your concluding parenthetical comment is what I take issue with. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was simply going off what the article on the historical-critical method said. If you want to complain about the definition of it, complain on their talk page. Calling it a human literary product wouldn't exclude divine providence in the circumstances of its production anyway, so perhaps you could insert something about that?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was simply going off what you had written here about the historical-critical method, especially your use of the phrase "rather than." I understand you to be saying now that studying the Bible as a human literary product is not inconsistent with regarding it also as a divine communication. Is that correct? Anyway, there's more to the issue than that. I've noticed that the phrase "higher criticism" appears on quite a few Christianity-related pages in a context that suggests a pejorative meaning, while the folks who actually use "critical" methods to study the Bible (historical-, form-, literary-, narrative-, canonical-, etc.) hardly ever call any of those methods "higher." One of the things Christians often disagree vehemently about is how to interpret the Bible. It seems to me that the best NPOV way to describe how members of a particular group study the Bible is to use their own terms. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a pejorative meaning associated with it. Likewise, I've met some that think it is pejorative to pronounce EL-CA as elk-ka. On the other hand I have an ELCA friend that pronounces it that way at times! I'm of the opinion that we should just delete the paragraph you titled "Traditions". It seems to be mostly verbage mixed with info included in the rest of the article to me. But since you made the paragraph, I'm going to wait first.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to associate with some non-Lutheran fundamentalists for whom "higher criticism" was an accusation leveled at non-literalists. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

In reading over the Abortion section, the reference to the Lutheran Women's Caucus seems like an irrelevancy, since it has no official connection with the ELCA. Also, I question whether information about the ELCA health plan really belongs in the article. The 1991 Social Statement establishes the policy that abortion can be a morally justifiable choice in some circumstances. The ELCA health plan simply covers abortions without requiring plan members to prove their choice was morally justifiable. I'm told that abortions among plan members are quite rare (but don't have access to documentable statistics). So I'm thinking we should delete those two sentences. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the information about what the plan covers. Many private insurance plans do not pay for elective abortions. It is unusual that the ELCA does, more so given that several conservative Lutheran bodies do not offer any abortion coverage in their insurance. After all, social policy starts with how one treats one's own.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So, it's okay to delete the sentence about the Lutheran Women's Caucus? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Are there any members of the Lutheran Women's Caucus that are not ELCA? Is it a parasynodical organization that, while not officially tied to the ELCA, happens to be run by members of it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia's LWC page, "The Lutheran Women's Caucus (LWC) was organized by women in the Missouri Synod in the 1960s...." Apparently that was before the Seminex episode. I've googled in vain for any evidence that it is still active and vaguely remember hearing somewhere that it no longer exists. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In connection with a recent edit to the Abortion section, Epiphyllumlover commented "Wikipedia guidelines prevent individuals from the ELCA BOP (Board of Pensions) from making changes to the ELCA article." Where is this policy stated, and what is the rationale behind it? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of that policy. Why would it exist? KitHutch (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it comes from an over-interpretation of the policy about editors with conflicts of interest. That policy warns against editing for purposes other than making articles more informative-- i.e., to promote an agenda, sell a product, etc. However, it's not conflicted editors that are the problem but inappropriate edits. It would be correct to give extra scrutiny to edits by folks like Elcabop, but they're not prohibited. (BTW, I agree with the reversion Epiphyllumlover made, because Elcabop's edit was biased, but not because of who made the edit.) Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Polity

I don't think it's accurate to say that the ELCA has an "episcopal polity." It has "bishops," yes, but to say that the polity is episcopal would seem to imply that the bishops are actually in charge. In fact, the Conference of Bishops has only an advisory role in the ELCA, and within a synod the bishop serves an executive function, with policy being set by Synod Councils. The title is "Bishop," but the constitutional description of the office fits the definition of "President." To say that the ELCA has an "Episcopal polity" seems to imply a degree of authority over parish pastors and congregations that ELCA bishops do not have. LCMS district presidents actually have more real power than ELCA bishops do. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Espiscopal" means "bishops." The ELCA has bishop. Therefore, it has "espiscopal polity." The article does say that it is "modified espiscopal polity," however. KitHutch (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the ELCA's polity is very different from, say, the UMC, where a pastor is not "called" by a congregation but is "charged" by the bishop to serve in a particular post. Nor is it like the Episcopal Church, where the House of Bishops has a role similar to the US Senate or Britain's House of Lords in making policy for the denomination. In the ELCA, the office of synodical bishop is defined by the ELCA and synodical constitutions, not by Scripture or Tradition. Is the mere use of the word "bishop" enough to make a polity "episcopal"? If so, what about those groups that use "bishop" to refer to the office of parish pastor? If the ELCA were to change the title from "bishop" to "president" or "superintendent" but left the constitutional description of the office the same, would that change what sort of polity it has? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article now reads "Interdependent local, regional, and national expressions with modified episcopal polity," which is a better expression of the ELCA's polity. In fact, that's what it had been for a long time and was recently changed so I reverted it. With its agreement with the Episcopal Church in place, I doubt that the ELCA will change the title of bishop. KitHutch (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned changing the title of "bishop" as a purely hypothetical thought experiment, meant to illustrate the point that, although it uses "bishop" as the title of the executive officer of the middle judicatory, the ELCA does not in fact have an "episcopal" polity in the usual sense of the word. It has a system that was invented from scratch in 1987, for which there is no common, generally understood terminology. The phraseology currently used in the article, quoted above, seems clumsy and is no help to someone not already familiar with it, but I have no good suggestion for any improvement (except that simply saying the polity is "episcopal" won't work). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fourth largest?

The lead to the article says the ELCA is the fourth-largest Protestant church. However, the reference provided [2] indicates that as of the 2002-2004 membership, the ELCA was the seventh-largest Christian church (including the Catholic church in those rankings). The 1960 membership numbers show the ELCA's predecessor was the fourth-largest Christian church by membership.

Is there a reason why it currently reads fourth? 67.182.218.55 (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on what one means by Protestant. I notice that #4 on that list is the Latter Day Saints, who are generally not considered Protestants. I'm also informed by pentecostalist aquaintences of mine that many pentacostalists eschew the label "Protestant," so it may be debatable whether the Church of God in Christ (#5) counts. I would argue that the Church of God in Christ should be counted as Protestant, but that the LDS should not, so perhaps the ELCA is the 5th largest, rather than the 4th. Is there any other documentation that could be cited? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

sister churches

A single user has changed the entries of the ELCA's German sister churches to their German names because he thinks the "concept" can't be translated. Most of the discussion takes place on the wikipedia article on the Evangelical Church in Germany, the roof organisation of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches in Germany. Maybe you have a look? Because according to that user (and he really insists) the ELCA should not be called that way. Some of the member churches are outspoken Lutheran like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, some are "united" like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, 2 are Reformed like the Evangelical Reformed Church. Usually one member church covers a unique area (pretty much like a diocese). Maybe you want to take part in the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, the names should be in English. KitHutch (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gays officially no longer an "abomination"

Unless I missed it, isn't this kind of a big development? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-cindi-love/the-lutheran-church-embra_b_543142.html 69.198.205.2 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gays" never were considered an "abomination." The debate all along (Fred Phelps notwithstanding) has been about whether homosexual sex (not the people who do it) is an abomination. (A related issue is what an "abomination" is.) The ELCA only agreed to disagree about that question. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In ELCA, in all lutheran churches in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland and in the heart of Lutheranism in Germany (Evangelical Church of Germany), where Martin Luther lived, homosexual acts between adults are accepted and are not a sin. Open homosexual lutheran priests can live with their partners and work in lutheran churches in Germany. 68.183.36.213 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Martin Luther, himself, conmsidered homosexuality an abomination, any church that carries his name would have to support the same position or remove his name from their church. You can't be a TRUE Lutheran unless you follow all of his teachings.

In order to follow ALL of Luther's teachings, you have to be anti-Semitic. I guess you've never read ALL of Luther's works. KitHutch (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed after being raised Lutheran my entire life. In the interest in "Truth in Sexuality", I think you need to identify yourself as either heterosexual or homosexual here. I detect a bias in your comments and edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.25.133 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One does not have to agree with everything Luther ever said or wrote in order to be a Lutheran. The historical standard for Lutheran orthodoxy is the Book of Concord (and in some strands of Lutheranism, only the Augsburg Confession), which you will search in vain for any discussion of homosexuality. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NALC

I am new to Wikipedia, but I have added the planned formation of the North American Lutheran Church. The verification can be found on the article Lutheran CORE, but I don't know how to add the reference to this page. Can someone show me how to do that? -- Confession0791 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Continued

Perhaps it's a coincidence that this is happening exactly three years after the above. An anomymous user keeps inserting the same unsourced, biased, weasel-worded text into the intro paragraph. According to the user page, the user at that IP address has been interested only in this particular text. Could someone with administrative privileges please do something about it? Thanks. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still happening. Can something be done about this? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How do we alert an administrator and request a block?KitHutch (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a vandalism warning for NPOV on the anonymous user talk page. Next, I will report it to an administrator. KitHutch (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still happening. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, after I deleted the last attempt by anonymous user 173.53.251.130 to add the disputed text, that a reference had been added. Even so, it is still not appropriate for inclusion in the article. There are several problems with it.

1. Even if it's completely accurate, it's not nearly significant enough to be in the lead paragraph. At most it's appropriate for a subheading under a subheading about about the current controversy.
2. The reference, a story by a local newspaper in Billings, MT, is not sufficient. The secular press is notoriously unreliable as a source for information about internal church matters, especially on controversial issues, where they tend to sensationalize the conflict. Furthermore, the cited article does not even support the claims being made.
3. The way the text is phrased sounds like it's accusing the ELCA of institutional dishonesty ("...according to the ELCA itself but..."). In actuality, the folks at the churchwide offices have been very open about exactly what's been going on. It may be true that there are lots of folks on the membership rolls of local congregations who no longer consider themselves members, but that's neither new nor scandalous. If people don't ask to be dropped, they typically won't be.
4. "Membership is falling sharply" is too vague (what does "sharply" mean"?).
5. "Many entire churches have voted to leave the ELCA or are in the process of doing so" is misleading at best. Out of more than 10,000 congregations (the correct technical term, not "churches") less than 1.5% have completed the process of leaving. Less than 5% have even taken a first vote to do so, and a significant fraction of those failed to get the necessary 2/3 majority to continue the process.

In summary, the text that anonymous user is trying to add fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous user 173.53.251.130 is still persisting in this misbehavior, even after being warned 3 times. Could someone please block that user's access? Thanks. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a request to have the ELCA article semi-protected. KitHutch (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Emeritus

I undid an anonymous addition about emeritus bishops and accidently clicked "save" before explaining it. Bishop Emeritus is not an official term, and no such thing is in the governing documents, as far as I am aware. Some synods have bestowed that honorific title on former bishops by resolutions at synod assemblies, but it has no official status. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The ELCA Opposes Euthanasia

It should be stated that the ELCA also officially opposes euthanasia: "We oppose the legalization of physician-assisted death, which would allow the private killing of one person by another. Public control and regulation of such actions would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The potential for abuse, especially of people who are most vulnerable, would be substantially increased. {10}" [3]85.243.69.108 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutherans in Chicago prior to 1970

What were the the predecessor denominations in Chicago prior to this organization. Were there no Lutherans in Chicago prior to 1970? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Separations

I do believe editors should be more diligent in checking the status of churches before claiming churches that have never been the same ecclesial body as the ELCA have 'separated'. To separate, the church would have to have been a part of the same ecclesial body. The ELCA is a national church and has never been a part of the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus. Please, see the Lutheran World Federation for details about membership and how they are connected through the LWF but not the same bodies. Each member church is independent. There are 145 member churches each independent. Additionally, a cited source must be accurate. Simply being 'sourced', does not make a statement factual or a permanent fixture. "An Evangelical denomination in Ethiopia has recently announced that it is severing ties with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)" is not the same thing as being the same church. This would be more appropriately discussed under ecumenical relations. Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/#ukGgW4PCUmuRi8ED.99 Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/#J0mLTG1cqRYTti6F.99

If EECMY is included, then other LWF churches that have impaired or severed ties with the ELCA would need to be included and the list would be cumbersome. Plus, the greater number of LWF member churches that maintain relationships with the ELCA would need to be included for balanced perspective. That list would be even more cumbersome. Usually, a section in an article relating to ecclesial bodies will contain a section on ecumenical relationships for exactly this purpose. The info box is not the place for long lists. SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Pietism in ELCA

ELCA was formed in 1988 so it must've had Pietism attributes early on in it's history being it the largest Lutheran congregation in US. Isn't the Methodist influences actually a Pietism influence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism

renegadeviking 8/9/2016 10:21am — Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)