Talk:Neo-Lutheranism

[Untitled]

I have never, in my life, heard the phrase "Neo-Lutheranism." I have heard of "High Church Lutheranism" and "Evangelical-Catholicism," which describe what is being described here. However the term, "Neo-Lutheran" seems to me to do grave violence to the Wikipedia polic of NPOV. Clealry, to call the assertion that Lutheranism is simply a reform movement within the church catholic a "neo-" anything is to disavow the whole of the Book of Concord, and to try to paint with a perjorative stroke of "innovation" something that both Luther and melancthon steadfastly maintained. I removed the sneering reference to Lutherans as "Little Catholics," something I have also never before heard. I APPEAL TO THE POWERS THAT BE TO CHANGE THIS TITLE PAGE TO "HIGH CHURCH LUTHERANISM" AND TO NO LONGER SANCTION THIS PERJORATIVE POV. Please!

Nrgdocadams 03:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

As the creator of the article, I assure you that no POV was intended. I am not a Lutheran myself (so I may not be "down with the lingo"), but I am a high churchman and a member of the Anglican Church of Canada which is in full communion with the ELCIC. This was simply the term I read referred to catholic Lutheranism. Please see [1]. I was not familiar with the alternative terms you have placed here. Of course it is approporiate to have other names for the movement listed; thank you for that. Carolynparrishfan 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As the reader of the article, an Episcoplian, and a graduate of Concordia, I assure you that there is a POV, and that it is extremely offensive. If you did not have a POV, you would not have re-inserted the perjorative phrase about Lutherans being "Little Catholics," which is just mean-spirited. Further, "Neo-Lutheranism" is not a commonly used term for High church Lutheranism and, in fact, apart from your use of it, I have NEVER heard it used. It suggests that there is something "neo-" and amiss in High Church Lutheranism. I appeal again to you and to the other Powers That Be to change this designation.

Nrgdocadams 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

You insist on keeping this obnoxious title, "neo-Lutheranism," which is your own perjorative invention, and you insist on re-inserting the perjorative phrase about Lutherans being "little Catholics." What part of NPOV do you fail to understand?!

Nrgdocadams 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

As long as this article is called "Neo-Lutheranism", that name should remain in the intro paragraph. Nrgdocadams, I think what you probably really want is for the article to be renamed. As far as its usage, a google search turned up this entry on the Missouri Synod web site: http://www.missourisynod.info/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=l&word=LUTHERANTHEOLOGYAFTER1580. On the other hand, at less than 200 hits on Google, perhaps it should be renamed. Any suggestions? Wesley 17:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also a whole section on the Neo-Lutheranism movement in the book A History of Lutheranism Second Edition by Eric W. Gritsch [9/24/2017 NHepler]

Can we start a calm, rational discussion on this?

Nrgdocams, I think it would help if you calmed down so we can discuss this. Firstly, why do you find "neo-Lutheran" so offensive? I'm not sure which is the right or best term, but Wesley is correct that removing the phrase from the intro is not appropriate unless the article is also renamed. If we decide some other title is best, we can rename the whole article, but as long as the title is "neo-Lutheran" that phrase must appear in the intro. Before we rename the article, though, we need to figure out what the right name is. That takes rational discussion, not vehement accusations. I've added a POV tag to warn readers that there is an issue with the title, while we figure this out.

A quick Google search shows quite a few hits for "neo-Lutheran", more than for "high-church Lutheran". I don't have time to read more about it now, but perhaps it's a historical term, or a European one. The fact that you haven't heard of it before, doesn't mean that it is false, or that it isn't the dominant term for this set of beliefs. I'm not clear why you think "neo" is perjorative. What exactly do you think "neo" means? --Srleffler 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

After some skimming online, it seems pretty clear to me that there was a movement called "neo-Lutheranism" in the 19th century, which was a reaction to pietism, and that this movement led to what is now called "high church" Lutheranism. There may be some confusion in this article between different groups' beliefs, i.e. some of the text may have applied to early neo-Lutherans but not to modern high church Lutherans, or vice-versa.

The second paragraph, to which Nrgdocams objected, does not seem too far off to me personally. As an ELCIC/ELCA definitely non-pietist Lutheran, I can say that it's a fair summary of "our" views to say that Luther never intended to leave the Catholic church, but rather to reform it, and that he was forced out by the Roman church. It's not completely wrong then to say that the "Lutheran faith is merely a reformed version of the Roman Catholic Church." We definitely do still consider ourselves part of the small-c catholic (universal) church, which includes Roman Catholics along with all other Christians. We hope that God will someday reunite his Church into one (although perhaps not all under one administration).

Nrgdocams may have confused this with evangelical catholicism, which appears to me to be a separate movement approaching the same end point from the opposite direction: Roman Catholics who are adopting some of the ideas of the Protestant Reformation, rather than Lutherans who returned to the practices of the Roman church, which had been abandoned by the Pietists.--Srleffler 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "Evangelical-Catholicism" is currently being employed in both directions. There is a Roman Catholic movement of Evangelicals, who actually have a magazine called "The Evangelical Catholic." There are also numerous High Church Lutheran groups, parishes, and independent churches whcich use the term to mean "High Church Lutheran." The Augustana Lutheran Fellowship is one such group, with one of thier sites here: [2] . The problem with the use of "neo-" in describing this conception of Lutheranism is the idea that it is novel, as opposed to the position -- which is taken by most High Church Lutherans -- that this has been the Lutheran position all along (a position supported by the instruments of the Porvoo Communion and the full communion agreements between the ACC/ELCIC and the ECUSA/ELCA). The fact that the citations describing "Neo-Lutheranism" as such come from the Missouri Synod -- which often uses derogatory or perjorative terminology to refer to any theology not its own -- simply underscores my point. What is being discussed here is not anovel idea. It may have coalesced into a few novel movements, but the movement itself is not novel. Some would argue it was the position of Luther and of Melancthon. At the very least, the idea is as old as the Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Estonia, et al.

Nrgdocadams 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

From the reading I did online, it appears that this idea was indeed "neo-" in the 19th century, in that it was a revival of an older idea that had faded away. For over a century, Lutherans had drifted away from Luther and Melancthon's original positions, following the pietist movement. "Neo-Lutheranism" was a revival of the original Lutheran theology and doctrine. Essentially, there was a period where Lutherans had pretty much totally abandoned the Confessions. The "neo-Lutherans" were the ones who brought the Confessions back as the core of Lutheran doctrine.

It may be that we need two separate articles here, one on the 19th century neo-Lutheran movement, and a separate article on the modern high church Lutheran movement. Or, perhaps the latter could be merged into the articles on high church or Evangelical Catholicism. It's not completely clear, though. There is certainly a connection between the neo-Lutheran movement and high church Lutheranism. Take a look at the article as it stands now. I tried to work some of these ideas in.--Srleffler 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked your edits, and have made a very few edits in clarification. I changed the word "reform" to "revival" (since that's what it was), and I mentioned the distinct usages of "Evangelical-Catholic," and I rearranged some things, but I think the article reads more clearly, doesn't offend, and is accurate. What do you think?

Nrgdocadams 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Looks good. I did change "catholic Christians" back to simply "Christians" in the first paragraph, to reduce confusion. While you and I know what "catholic" means in this context, many readers would confuse catholic with Roman Catholic, which is not what is intended here—the point of the revolt against Pietism was for Lutherans to distinguish themselves from the Calvinists, not the Roman Catholics. I re-inserted Roman Catholic in regards to High Church doctrine and liturgy, since what Anglo-Catholics and High Church Lutherans share is their similarity to Roman Catholics (or have I misunderstood?) I changed "ancient" back to "traditional", since Lutheran doctrine as defined in the Confessions was certainly not "ancient" in the 19th century.--Srleffler 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at your link for Evangelical-Catholic, but the rest looks fine. i inserted the word "ancient" into the sentence desribing the broader christain community to clarify. Also, in clarification, I added "Orthodox" to the list of Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic with regard to doctrine and practice. A key contention of both Anglo-Catholics and High Church Lutherans is that they are being consistent with a Western approach to primitive Orthodoxy, while Roman Catholicism, in their view, has strayed.

Nrgdocadams 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Why did you feel the "ancient" was necessary there? I think this 19th century revival was more about asserting a distinct Lutheran identity from the Calvinists. While the Christian church is, of course, ancient I don't see how emphasizing that helps in this context. The sentence deals with the place of Lutherans in the Christian church at that time.--Srleffler 07:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I felt that "ancient" was necessary becasue the point of the movement, in stressing its differences from the pietists, on the one hand, and Rome, on the other, was to stress connection to and continuity with the primitive "Church catholic."

Nrgdocadams 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Apologies and Explanations

I want to begin by saying that I never understood the term "Little Catholic" to be pejorative, or 'sneering' as Nrgdocadams puts it. As a Lutheran, I always understood "Little Catholic" to be a term of endearment that welcomed the comparisons between the liturgics of the Roman Catholic Church and that of mainstream Lutheranism, and never dreamed of using it as an insulting term. My natural reaction to suggesting that "Little Catholic" is insulting is those those who are doing so are suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with Roman Catholicism, which is a personal opinion that is definately a point of view that should not influence Wikipedia's content OR editing. I have used the term "Little Catholic" to describe myself, as a Lutheran, for years, and as a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University in Washington state have heard other Lutherans (and Catholics) do the same. However, my experience may be unique, and as the purpose of Wikipedia is to compile information on significant points of information, I'll say that this reference to "Little Catholics" is too insignificant to be included on this page.

It very much bothers me that some people are offended by the term, and I never meant to offend anyone by including it in this article. My thinking was that including that tidbit would expand upon the connections between Catholicism and Lutheranism, which makes High Church Lutheranism distinctive. I promise to never enter it into Wikipedia again, however, I would still very much like to know just why they find "Little Catholic" so 'mean spirited'...to me its just an expression that Lutheranism is very similer to Catholicism in that each celebrate the mass and the historic episcopal (lower case 'e') system, but that the Lutheran liturgy is somewhat adapted. Perhaps I've been misreading the meaning of it for all these years...I would like to know so that I won't offend anybody else in the future in some other situation.

I did not create this page, however, I added to it. I do not feel that I added anything to it without a journalistic point of view. I had never heard of the term "Neo-Lutheran" before, however, I can say, as a Lutheran, that there is a significant division within the worldwide body, much more prevalent in Northern Europe than in the United States, that subscribes to a viewpoint very similar to that of Anglo-Catholicism. What I added is merely an explanation of what High Church Lutherans would adhere to, not an argument for what Lutheranism should be, and I did not mean to offend anyone. I also understand that there are many other divisions within Lutheranism, and I view Nrgdocadams's objections to "Neo-Lutheranism" as a highly biased personal opinion stemming from a adherence to a different Lutheran division, rather than a disagreement with this page's journalistic standards. This article does not state that Lutheranism is a reform of the Roman Catholic Church, but states that a significant branch BELIEVES that it is a reformed version of the Catholic Chruch. There's a significant difference there. High Church Lutheranism is much less an important factor in North American Lutheranism, however, in some places in Northern Europe, especially the Church of Sweden, High Church Lutheranism is a significant influence, and as Wikipedia is international in scope, it is therefore a relevant topic to be included.

Wikipedia must not only be anti-Point of View in its content, but also in its editing. If this article is to be cut, it would only be fair that the articles on Pietism and Confessional Lutheran be cut as well, as they too present explanations of sub-denominations within greater Lutheranism. Perhaps all articles on divisions within Lutheran thought should be compiled under one article so that readers may be given a better overall viewpoint of the variety of Lutheranism. In the meantime, however, I suggest that the present article remain as such AS A STUB until someone has more unbiased content to add; I don't think there's anything controversial in it now except for the title. If "High Church Lutheranism" is deemed a better name for the title, I'm all for it.

I'm sorry to have caused any problems.

10 January 2006

I am a full-fledged member of this movement and I think "Neo-Lutheranism" is the wrong term. "High Church Lutheranism" is the popular term. I don't much like it, but it has meaning. It works. Neo-Lutheranism doesn't. http://www.redeemer-fortwayne.org

---

Petersen

The King of Sweden

I have lived in Sweden all my life, and I have a major interest in constitutional and political issues, but I have never heard it claimed by anyone that the King of Sweden is the head of the Church of Sweden. Certainly, that ought to have been true some time ago, but certainly not now. Probably that ended with the entering into force of the Instrument of Government of 1973 (or perhaps much, much earlier), or perhaps it theoretically remained until the formal separation of church and state in 2000.

What I do know is that the government appointed the Archbishop of the Church until the year 2000, but after 1973 that would not have been something the King would have had anything to do with, since in 1973 he lost all formal powers. I also know that the King has to be a member of the Church of Sweden as per the Order of Succession of 1809 (still in force). But I can find no mention of the King being the head of the Church of Sweden, neither in the Swedish Constitution nor in the Constitution of the Church of Sweden (Kyrkoordningen). In short, this seems to be wrong, and I will delete it.

DE

Hmm, it might actually be the case that the King is the formal head of the church, like he is (or was) formally the supreme commander-in-chief over the Swedish Armed forces to be appointed in war time. If this role is formal-symbolic or a true profession, I don't know, but if the latter is the case, I know he is properly educated in an officers school, so he would do an acceptable (at the least) job of it. I'll take a look at this connection between the Swedish Church and the royal family. According to practices of the protestant side in the Reformation, it would be logical to appoint a king or a duke to the position of formal head of a Lutheran church. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

DE was perfectly right – I read the Kyrkoordningen (the Order of the Church) HERE, and found that the king has the right to elect the royal preacher. It also contains the rules for belonging to the royal parish, but nothing whatsoever about any other royal post or role. The head of the Swedish Church is the archbishop. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edition of 3th August 2006

I edited this article quite roughly, I hope no-one will be offended. Now, when there are separate articles for Evangelical Catholicism and High Church Lutheranism, this article about Neo-Lutheranism should be concentrated on this specific historical, mainly German phenomenon. I hope some parts of that old article could still be used in other articles, for example I removed already ELCIC statement to Catholic Evangelical (Terot 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)).

Everyones an expert?

Just an FYI: Unless you have a degree in Theology this page makes no sense as do many of the other religious pages. may want to think about explaining concepts and ideologies in lay terms rather than using widely unknown lingo and terminology Macutty 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a must-fix that was my immediate reaction when reading this article. The article must be cleaned, clarified and enhanced. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neo-Lutheranism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051020135512/http://www.lsfmissiology.org:80/Essays/SchererTriumphofConfessionalism.pdf to http://www.lsfmissiology.org/Essays/SchererTriumphofConfessionalism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)