Talk:Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Uncategorized discussion

Why is there one space on each side of the hyphen in the title when the intro bolded word isn't? --Menchi 00:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I moved this page here from Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod so it would match the index page and didn't check the article for spacing problems. OK, I fixed it. Thanks! Emperorbma 23:25 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I Google]d it, and it seems although " - " is common, "--" is the digital official and "—" the print official punctuation. Maybe make article title "—" and redirect the others here? If you think so, please work it out. If not, which one should be our "official" title? --Menchi 23:50 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm there are no pages that would block such a move. Its up to you... Either way, people will get what we mean. Emperorbma

Done. --Menchi 00:39 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

"...it is often difficult for visitors to know if they are visiting a Lutheran Church or a generic Evangelical Church." Here are my problems with this statement:

(1) It is a figurative argument used by lcms opponents of contemporary worship. It is not a literally true statement. Of course visitors know they are visiting an LCMS church; it says "LCMS" right at the door. In an encyclopedia we should not use hyperbole or figures of speech, especially ones used to support a certain position, namely, opposition to contemproary worship.

(2) The phrase "generic Evangelical" is inherently biased. An Evangelical would not call their church generic. Evangelical churches are certainly quite different from traditional LCMS churches, but they are certainly no more or less "generic."

I think one thing we could do is add something like "Many members of the church body feel that incorporating Contemporary worship styles will destroy their distinct Lutheran heritage." This gets the point across while being literally true and unbiased.

Thanks for listening, Fishal 05:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• You should note that the LCMS was once called the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States. The fact that they dropped 'Evangelical' from their name over sixty years ago could mean they considered it generic. Tcschenks 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding above: In fact it often does not say "LCMS on the door" or on readily available printed material. Many snow birds traveling to Florida do not know what which Lutheran Denomination they are attending. In fact, they often relate that they are not even sure they are in a Luthean Church.

As far as POV, The article is already full of it. I was just trying to add some honesty which you obviously disagree with. Makes no difference to me. But I would say the FACTS do indeed reflect the atatement: "...it is often difficult for visitors to know if they are visiting a Lutheran Church or a generic Evangelical Church."

In addition there are many "generic" Evangelical churches, i.e. conservative, protestant, Reformed, Arminian congregations that play down or disguise their denominational affiliation as many LCMS congregations are seeking to do. You many want to take a closer look at the churches in larger population areas. It is almost impossible to figure out the denominational connections that most newer congregations have.

While this may be a sore spot for you. If you read the LCMS article carefully, you will find that there are a number of observational statements.

Hey, sorry about the long time away. But thanks for not going ahead with another revert or anything; that kind of courtesy is hard to find!

Anyway, it sounds like this has actually been a problem for you, that peopel walk into LCMS churches and think they're in a "generic evangelical" church. If you ask me, that could be put in its own paragraph, apart from music, because it leads to a whole new issue: should the LCMS remain distinctly "Lutheran," visibly different from the other denominations? Or should it make itself look more universal, more Evangelical, to better fit with the current trends in American Christianity? Which is more important, preserving the church's heritage or attracting new members? That, I think, is an issue that transcends simple music, and should get a paragraph all its own.

And PS--I still feel that "generic" sounds rather condescending. How about "non-denominational?"

PPS-- I think this issue, along with the rest of the article, needs much more elaboration. Right now it would be very confusing to an outsider. For example, many times the synod is described as Confessional, yet nowhjere is htis defined. Heck, I go to a Concordia and am active in the ministry life there, and I still couldn't tell you what it means.

Love and peace, Fishal 02:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

OK, this last change, implying the LCMS no longer exists, got my goat. For those who may be unaware, the LCMS Convention, where its officers are elected every three years, is going on right now. There was speculation that the evangelical-minded president would be voted out and replaced with someone more "confessional." In fact the opposite happened, and of the five vice-presidents, at least four of those elected are sympathetic to the presidency, which was not the case three years ago.

So this article is going to be controversial for a while. Just a heads up.

Hey, I don't think the vandalism was supposed to imply that the lcms doesn't exist. Look at the sentences that got past-tensed: It was a confessional church body; it professed Scripture Alone; it stood on hte conservative side. I think this was the work of someone trying to say that the good old days are gone. --Fishal 02:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also will note that the stating that there isn't really much difference between "evangelicals" and "traditionalists," is offensive and objectionable to many in the synod. I have been to loads of synod churches, and I see the diferences first-hand. Some churches have charismatic style pastors that like to get the congregation shouting and make the third use of the law the main thing, others have Law/Gospel sermons, some are creationist, some permit teachers (synod members)of old-earth evolution (that really believe it, too, not just because it is what Modern Science says) to be congregation members, another that has the confirmands on questioning day explain that if evolution is true, you might as well throw the whole of Christianity into the garbage, some that allow members of the Roman church, the Methodist church, the Baptist church, ect. to take communion, and some that don't allow certain synodical or district officials to commune, some that practice church discipline against free masons, another one that does not, some pastors that are permissive of women pastors in the synod, some that aren't, one church that keeps it's pastor on a month by month interim Call (so they can fire him at will by not renewing the interim call), other churches that think that the practice is indicative of false doctrine, some churches that have female presidents/officials, others that won't let females vote, some churches that think the Muslim god is the same God as the Christian God, others that think those that believe this are guilty of false doctrine, some that think communion with leavened bread is valid, others that think it is invalid, some that think communion with grape juice is valid, others that think its invalid, some that think allowing females to give testimonials in church is a good thing, others that think that allowing females to lector is sin, some that believe the synod is an umbrella organization so total agreement on Scripture-doctrine is uneeded, others that think the synod is dead because it has become an umbrella organization, some that redefine Biblical Inerrancy to whatever they want it to be, others that use Pieper's explaination of it, some that commune WELS/ELS congregation members, others that regaurd the teaching of WELS/ELS as heterodox, some that use the hymnal Christian Worship, others that use Best of the Best, some that sing about how we "chose God now," others sing that such doctrine is a "false, misleading dream," some pastors that protest in front of abortion clinics, a teacher (synod member) that tells his students that life doesn't begin at conception so research that kills embryos is okay, another teacher (synod member) that says it is not a sin if you kill an abortion doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, some that think article 5 of the AC means that the ministry is a sacrament, others that think people that believe this are guilty of false doctrine, some that think Brief Statement is still binding, others that do not...I'm sure there is more, but I feel I've commented about it enough. You might criticize me for not naming names, proving myself specifically, etc., but the fact is I really don't want to risk my neck. These are not rumors but actual instances of what a congregation, a pastor, or teacher, all synod members, believe or do. I've been a wittness to most of these things I mentioned. Those that I was not a witness to, I either had a reliable person I know that was a wittness to or I've read from a credible source, like the notice from the president/BOD about the article 5 and the Concordia: TLC revokation. Christian News here is considered a credible source inasmuch as it reproduces named, original documents. As for as editorials go, they may be credible, but because some don't I'm not going to argue for that now.

You can see that this stuff here is really hot. I don't dare give out my name. Please understand why I don't have my name out here.--192.160.64.49 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics of the Lutheran rift

What distinguishes this group from Lutherans in general for most Wikipedia readers is the historic position it took on the issue of slavery. Not to mention what lay behind the establishment of the Missouri Synod makes it somewhat incomprehensible to the outsider. Wetman 22:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is a presumptuous statement. The Saxon German immigrants who later established the Missouri Synod did not own slaves. The very sight of slaves being sold disgusted them. They certainly couldn't afford slaves. Slave ownership was not a part of their home culture in 1830's Germany.

Law and Gospel

As an LCMS pastor, I appreciate the addition of the Law and Gospel section. The current language is not quite the way we teach the doctrine, however, and really doesn't get to the heart of it all. I intend no disrespect to the authors of the section, but will edit it to bring it in line with our teaching. If something doesn't appear correct to any of you, please discuss it here before making any changes. Thanks! Rev. Bob Smith, Electronic Resources Librarian, Concordia Theological Seminary. --CTSWyneken 02:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't actually had anything to do with writing this article, but it's always a delight to see contributions from people who actually have training in the field. The current reading is much more clear. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah! -- Bob --CTSWyneken 12:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Differences with WELS

Could someone add to the three points of difference between the LCMS and WELS? These differences have practical repercussions (i.e. when one may worship with other Christians and when not), but a non-Lutheran reading this page might be mystified by a free-standing mention of the distinction between alter, pulpit, and other forms of fellowship. Same thing with pastors as a divinely established office. I think this would be better if someone mentioned what these disagreements mean in practice, aimed at a non-Lutheran. Thanks! Ropcat 04:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main differences with WELS are the view of the Office of the Holy Ministry, the role of women and the practice of close(d) communion. Women do not have voting rights in WELS and they do in most LCMS congregations. Though the vast majority of LCMS pastors and congregations still hold to LCMS teaching on close(d) communion, WELS believes that the LCMS has become too lax in enforcing this. Also, WELS members do not pray with other Christians not in altar and pulpit fellowship with them, and LCMS members will in most cases, though they will not pray with non-Christians, nor take part in Christian prayers such as praying for the dead, praying to Mary or praying to saints, as in the Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches. --MarshallStack 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference between the LCMS and ELCA?

The ELCA generally practices open communion, LCMS practices close(d) communion.

The ELCA ordains women to the pastorate, the LCMS does not.

The LCMS officially states belief in the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. The ELCA has avoided this, though there are many within the ELCA who believe in Biblical inerrancy.

The LCMS teaches that non-celibate homosexual conduct is a sin. There is increasing movement toward acceptance of open homosexuality in the ELCA, including same-sex blessings and ordination of openly homosexual pastors, though this is a strong point of contention within the ELCA.

The ELCA maintains full-communion partnerships with non-Lutheran denominations (Presbyterian Church USA; Episcopal Church; Reformed Church in America; and are currently in discussion with the United Methodist Church about such a relationship). The LCMS does not maintain altar and pulpit fellowship with non-Lutheran bodies, nor with the ELCA (generally, an ELCA member may not commune at an LCMS congregation without first speaking to the pastor).

The LCMS officially states a pro-life position; the ELCA does not, though there are many within the ELCA who are pro-life. --MarshallStack 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the NOW

Why is a sizable percentage of the article devoted to the current squabbles in the Synod? They are nothing but a blip in the history of the LCMS, and ought not be included in the article until they are, themselves, history. Not nearly enough NPOV, indeed. -Rekleov 14:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, not. A huge section of the LCMS is concerned with what is happening now. Some think X will happen, some think Y, but anyone that really knows what is going on knows that we are at (or perhaps just past) a crossroads. Some of the doctrine listed, like, "Creation," is no longer practiced in the teaching of some in the synod. And doctrinal discipline is not happening in a good number of cases where it should. This is because Bohlmann was sucessful in ending the aducation system, and replacing it with something that would better suit his politics. This has caused drastic change in the actual, day to day teaching of the synod, allowing for many more contradictory voices. I'm sorry if I'm vauge here, but I dont want to gossip--or get in troubl with some folks in the synod.--192.160.64.49 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Law and Gospel

I added a page for Law and Gospel. Would someone like to help add more information there? If I have my copy here I will add his Thesis in the beginning. N9urk 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some corrections anonomously, since what was written was incredibly inaccurate. Aquaeus

Ordination

I added a section on ordination with just a brief addition explaining its adiaphoristic nature. Would anyone care to elaborate about the process some more. I will dig out my LW and such and add some more later. N9urk 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good section with good information. Would it be better to somehow incorporate this into the "Practices" section of the page? Dulcimerist 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine Subsection

This section sounds kind of funny to my ears and I can't seem to find the assertions in it anywhere in Christian Dogmatics. I was taught that the doctrine of the church was unified, but made of two parts -- Law and Gospel. Does anyone know where I can find the assertion that the Gospel contains the law? If not, does anyone mind if I delete the paragraph as inaccurate? --CTSWyneken 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I am deleting this section. --CTSWyneken 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the section sounded "kind of funny", and that the two parts of church doctrine are Law and Gospel, but if Gospel is understood in the wide sense, then it includes the Gospel in the narrow sense and the Law in the narrow sense. In essence, Gospel in the wide sense is all of scripture. This may have been what the original writer intended, but I'm not sure. Tkleinsc 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought of that, too. That is the way we explain scriptural usage of the word "Gospel." But we do not assert it as a doctrine. In other words, we speak of the two doctrines of Scripture, Law and Gospel, but not: One doctrine. If you can find a way to work the concept into the Law and Gospel section, feel free. --CTSWyneken 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

May I be the first to say, amen... The "doctrine" section was quite inaccurate. The Law and Gospel does a much better job describing true Lutheran theology. -- EmperorBMA|話す 05:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, it is funny...I was reflecting on the concept of "Gospel"--the broad Gospel that David P. Scaer tends talks about in his books. It is hard to write about the broad Gospel without people thinking you are talking about the narrow Gospel. The reason why I put this is because some in the LCMS like to ignore what Pieper says about "scripture doctrines." I simply combined Scaer's big Gospel with Pieper's insistance that all doctrine in Scripture is needed for church-fellowship. This deals with the concept of the whole Doctrine of God. Specifically, I am referring to "The Sermon of n the Mount" by your fellow faculty member, Scaer.-192.160.64.49 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Rejecting Recent Mass Changes

Many substantial changes were made by anonymous user 192.160.64.49. At least one is an incorrect statement of LCMS doctrine. I have reverted them since there are too many to evaluate at once. If the editor will register, come here to talk about it, provide citations to substantiate his/her changes and sign their posts, I and other would be happy to talk it out here. --CTSWyneken 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I've just restored some changes I've anonomously made before. The article has it has stood is woefully biased in favor of the Kieschnick/Benke position not only on the Yankee Stadium service but of its labeling of the conflicting parties. Especially outrageous is the suggestion that fair-minded individuals of either party would accept "evangelical" as an accurate label for the revisionists, and it's ascription of some sort of definitive, neutral status to President Kieschnick- a party to the dispute- and bodies he appointed! Please- some effort at balance!

Aquaeus 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Saxon Immigrants as Utopian Community

An anonymous editor removed the description of the Perry County settlement as a Utopian community, stating that the LCMS has always been against such. There are two problems with this reasoning. One is that a utopian community is an attempt to organize an ideal society in a colony located away from the rest of the world based upon principles, often religious. It was a real phenomenon in 19th Century America that included even mainstream religious groups. The second problem is anachronism. The LCMS was formed after the Perry County attempt at Utopia failed.

If the editor wishes to pursue the issue, he or she is welcome to register as a user, discuss the issue here and sign their posts. --CTSWyneken 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the 1880 history that I read really shows that it wasn't a utopian community type effort, but an effort to avoid persection by the GEC, the state church. It doesn't make any sense, that, giving the theological implications of utopianism, would mean that Walther was a flaming heterodox for agreeing to come over to America to support a utopian community. Lutherans know too much about total depravity to think that a utoptian society is possible. They simply thought life would be better in America, but not ideal. Also it contradicts what what my confirming pastor said about the origins of the LCMS.--192.160.64.49 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, please read the article on utopian communities. I think you're overreading what it is about. It was a movement that included a very wide range of groups. Aspects of its philosophy are a part of the American fabric. We can always move, start over and make a better life. The Pilgrims were our first utopians. Also read Zion on the Mississippi On the theological point, they later admitted that they had been in error. They bore all the marks of such a movement. I'll comment more later. --CTSWyneken 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Historian Bachman calls the community an utopia in his review of Zion on the Mississippi (E. Theodore Bachmann Church History, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1957) , pp. 393-395) --CTSWyneken 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "utopian" is misleading and inaccurate. It's use here is unhelpful. Simply because Bachman uses the word in a review of a book is no justification for its use here. Please leave it out of this discussion. ----Paul T. McCain

Dear Paul: Thanks for dropping by here to discuss this issue.

Actually, the word is quite accurate and I do not see how it is misleading.

Why is this word a problem for you? It is a sociological term that is well described in the wiki article Utopia:

Utopia, in its most common and general positive meaning, refers to the human efforts to create a better, or perhaps perfect society.

This was exactly what Stephan and his followers were doing. The called for all true Lutherans to leave the state church and emigrate, where they could live in obediece to a truly Evangelical bishop. They looked forward to a much better life in the wilderness of America, following God's Word. This is exactly what other utopian movements, from the Pilgrims to the Amish, to the Moravians, to the Amana colonies, to the Mormons, Shakers, etc. and seculars ones did.

Re Bachman's view: it does justify the use of the term here. Wikipedia relies on published sources, not the opinions of editors, even those like you and I who have written in LCMS history. You are welcome, of course, to cite counter opinions and document them. If you do find such opinions, then we can discuss whether it fits best here or in an new article on the Perry County colony. So far, however, I have found only Bachman addressing this issue specifically.

For the moment, I will leave it out here. But let's talk. --CTSWyneken 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob, if any student in one of the courses I taught at the seminary ever would have asserted that the Saxon and Fraconian communities were "utopian" based on *a* comment made by *a* person in *a* book review of a book they would have been marked down severely. That is just sloppy scholarship, but if you are correct that this is standard procedure on Wikipedia it serves to confirm what I've noticed for years about Wikipedia: it is about as reliable as the morning newspaper and probably less so. Utopianism is the belief in the perfection of mankind, a vew held neither by the Saxon nor the Franconians. You go ahead and change whatever you want. I simply do not have the time to waste here on it, and I regret the time already wasted. --McCain

Paul, can you tell me where you get that definition from? All the definitions I've seen do not include such. --CTSWyneken 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob, ok I'll play along a bit longer. Assuming many users of Wikipedia will pop over to the Internet for definitions, let's take a look at what they will find:

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/utopian

Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

utopian A noun 1 Utopian

		an idealistic (but usually impractical) social reformer; "a Utopian believes in the ultimate perfectibility of man"

Category Tree: entity ╚object; physical object ╚living thing; animate thing ╚organism; being ╚person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human; soul ╚disputant; controversialist; eristic ╚reformer; reformist; crusader; meliorist ╚Utopian B adjective 1 utopian

		characterized by or aspiring to impracticable perfection; "the dim utopian future"; "utopian idealists"; "recognized the utopian nature of his hopes"

2 utopian, Utopian

		of or pertaining to or resembling a utopia; "a Utopian novel"

Or how about this one?

For "Utopian" Merriam-Webster online indicates:

Main Entry: 2utopian Function: noun 1 : one that believes in the perfectibility of human society 2 : one that proposes or advocates utopian schemes

Or...dictionary.com

utopian

adj 1: of or pertaining to or resembling a utopia; "a Utopian novel" [syn: Utopian] 2: characterized by or aspiring to impracticable perfection

The point is, again, that to describe the Saxon and Franconian immigrant communities as "utopian" is to suggest that they held to the believe that it is possible to have a "perfect" community. Clearly, they did not.

Again, the use of the word "utopian" is misleading and inaccurate. Perhaps you can come up with some other word? But I wonder why you feel such a burden to say anything of the sort about these communities. ptmccain

"Utopian" by itself would clearly be innacurate; "utopian community", however, is not necessarily so. It is a generally-used term used to reference various communities that attempt to set themselves apart from the culture at large to one extent or another. If this is what is objected to, that needs to be hashed out. As we are actually discussing "utopian communities" (and whether these Lutheran settlements fit in that grouping), rather than the term "utopian", the dictionary definition of utopia( ) carries no argumentative force. For various uses of this category, check out google, or the Wikipedia itself. --Rekleov 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you guys get this sorted out. Today in History (TIH) emailed daily by the LCMS has Wikipedia hyperlinks all over it. If it's that unreliable, well ... you two (Bob and Paul) are among the historians in the LCMS and might have some say on the continuation of this practice, right? Tcschenks 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This "Utopian" debate has sure gone on quite a while! My ancestors were actually amongst the Saxons who settled Perry County, and were charter members of the Altenburg and Wittenberg congregations. From family accounts, letters, and biographies, the settlement was in no way a "utopian" colony. Several townships were formed, and homesteads were established. For some extra reading, I highly recommend the new book "Wittenberg, Missouri - In Touch with the Past" by Mary Beth Mueller Dillon. She will also be publishing a book on Altenburg, Missouri in the near future. Thanks! Dulcimerist 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

References to the Saxon Emmigration

To help with this issue, I'm doing a little reading. I'll put what I find here.

"Their spiritual motivation is made clear by the "Emigration Regulations," signed by all before leaving Germany, which might be called their "Mayflower Pact:" "All the undersigned... After deliberate and mature counsel, they can, humanly speaking, see no possibility of retaining in their present home this faith pure and undefiled, of confessing it and transmitting it to their posterity. Hence they feel in duty bound to emigrate and to look for a country whence the Lutheran faith is not endangered and where they can serve God undisturbed in the way of grace revealed by Him and where they can enjoy fully and without interference or modification they means of grace ordained by God for men unto salvation and can preserve them in their intergrity and purity for themselves and for they children..." (Abdel Ross Wentz, A Basic History of Lutheranism in America Philadelphia: Muhleberg Press, 1995. p. 116.

--CTSWyneken 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephan "Confessed" to Walther

I do not recall seeing this rumor in print anywhere. Would the anonymous user please cite the source of this information please? --CTSWyneken 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is in a history book..."The Lutherans," copyrighted in 1880. I loaned the book out, forget the author, and may not have the book back until next fall. There is a chapter on "The Missourians." Perhaps CTS has this book in the library?--192.160.64.49 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please register as a user and sign your comments. While not necessary, it is very helpful in extended discussions to know who you are. The IP address, assigned by your service provider, is often given out by servers at random to whoever from your service logs in. So, it could be abyone. It is hard to build a relationship with someone who does not have at least some sort of account name.

Thanks for the note here. However, a title like "the Lutherans" is a little to vague to look up. I'm afraid that I cannot support the change, however, without some sort of reference. The issue is very sensitive to descendants of Stephan and needs to be documented. I'm removing it pending documentation. --CTSWyneken 10:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Camps

Ptmccain just added the following: "One element in the Synod includes a number of individuals who remained in the Synod and did not leave during the Seminex controversy. The other element in the Synod forthrightly rejects the theology of the Seminex movement and strives to retain and expand a strong confessing Lutheran identity." Well, by definition, the entire Synod (not just an "element") consists of "individuals who remained in the Synod and did not leave during the Seminex controversy." Obviously I see what he or she is trying to suggest, but the choice of phrasing makes this sentence merely a tautology. One other point: no one under the age of fifty was an adult during the Seminex events. Probably more than half of the LCMS membership has no memory of the events, and couldn't tell you the issues that were at stake if their life depended on it. Doesn't framing current church divisions purely around that controversy ("Seminex sympathizers vs. rejectors") overplay its current relevance just a bit? Ropcat 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me raise one other question related to this LCMS "camps" section. As I've watched this page evolve, the competing factions have been defined successively as "liberal vs. conservative," "moderate vs. conservative," "liberal vs. confessing," "liberal vs. traditionalist," "evangelical vs. traditionalist," and now a sort of "Seminex fellow-traveler vs. Seminex rejector" dichotomy. The assumption in most versions seems to be that the social/theological conservatives are also liturgical and organizational traditionalists, and that social/theological liberals (or moderates, or what-have-you) are also evangelicals (contemporary worship, low-church styles, mega-church, "church growth," jettison old liturgy, etc.). Now here I'm asking for my own edification: but aren't there also two other possibilities? Are there social/theological conservatives who are also into evangelical, contemporary liturgy and outreach approaches; and are there social/theological liberals who are staunch conservatives or traditionalists when it comes to liturgy and outreach strategies? Certainly this is true in other American Protestant denominations -- for example, the Episcopalians are more liberal socially/theologically, but are mostly quite traditional in worship style and church structure; by contrast, many non-denominational evangelical groups are non-traditional (or even anti-traditional) in worship, but quite conservative socially/theologically. So wouldn't there, broadly speaking, be about four main camps one could fall in, rather than the two generally cited? Or do these alternative tendencies not have constituencies in the LCMS? Thanks. Ropcat 02:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In the LCMS liturgical conservatism tends to be associated with theological conservatism, and same with people who hold liberal ideas on theology and worship. My perception is that in the major, large-scale debates these two "camps" do indeed dominate the discussion. But you are right, Ropcat, that the two categories are an oversimplification of how individuals and congregations really think, feel, and behave. Fishal 05:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the biggest problem is that describing current events and controversies is difficult. Unlike historical facts and official Synod doctrine, disputes like these are hard to pin down. If anything, subjective, touchy material like this needs more documentation than easily verifiable facts. I fear that too much of this article is based upon "it seems to me" or "I have noticed lately" kinds of sources. This has been going on since the article's early days; just look at the discussions on the top of this page. But it needs to be addressed. Fishal 05:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to work on this article lately. Why not solve the problem by referring to published sources and citations? --CTSWyneken 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic Facts

These need to be at the top --- they do not do their job, which is to give a quick set of facts for a browsing reader, in this new position at the bottom of the page. Perhaps someone with a bit more wikixperience could find a way to code it to flow in a more pleasing way? --Rekleov 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert of anon user; verify tag

I'm a little tired of the back and forth exchange of POVs here. The article needs some citation discipline. So, please folks, look things up and cite them.

To the anonymous user, please create a user account and sign in here. You had some point and will find kindred voices here. Let us know who you are (not necessarily in real life, but at least as a screen name), explain what you want to change and why. Also, it would be helpful to use the clearest possible english. Even as is, reading this article is like wading through molasses. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an account, and I am using it. The article as it has stood is woefully biased in favor of the revisionists! ----Aquaeus 11:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Welcome, by the way. Yes, the article needs some substantial reworking. I would ask a few favors.

1. Please do not use terms like "revisionists" for other users. It is not helpful to characterize other editors.
2. Please find a reliable source to back up each point you wish to change and cite it. This whole article needs citations to back up what is being said, to have a complete overhaul relative to neutral point of view.
3. It would be very helpful if you would explain here what you want to change first to see if there is any reaction. --CTSWyneken 12:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the edits in the history for the article do not show your account name. Please log in before editing. Also, you are correct that the statement you edited was slanted. However, your changes were slanted the other direction and not cited from any source beyond your own opinion. In wikispeak, the latter is original research, and so has no place on Wikipedia. Since the orginal was also WP:OR, I've deleted it entirely.

Please... discuss here first. --CTSWyneken 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Name and Typography

As I understand it, the official name of the Missouri Synod uses an m-dash, like this: Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, not a hyphen. Is this not the form used on its website and publications? A small point, but an Ipod isn't an iPod, is it? Janko 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

Yes, that is true. Em-Dash it is. But, to be honest, typing it a few dozen times a day, an occaisonal En-Dash slips through. At least we're not Der Deutsche evangelische Lutherische Kirche von Missouri, Ohio und andere Staate any more. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being that again. ;P Or at least Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States. Tcschenks 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LCMS President Pages created and linked

Dear Friends: I've created the very beginnings of stubs for all the LCMS Presidents and linked them all with a succession box. I'd appreciate it if someone would check these and expand the ones just begun. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of Hope?

Why is Point of Hope Lutheran Church listed on the external links? I think this is theological 'vanity' editing. Surely it is not so significant a congregation that it should be linked from the LCMS entry.

I think it should be removed.

Uac1530 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Vanity Link

This time to CrossFeed Religious news.

The fact that it is hosted by two LCMS pastors doesn't make it relevant to be listed in the LCMS page. There are thousands of LCMS-related webpages; they don't all belong on this page.

Uac1530 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)