This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
North American Lutheran Church is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
The second paragraph under Doctrine of Ordained Ministry is slanted, very misleading and needs to be reworked. First of all, the NALC is not attempting to form a new "conservative" branch of Lutheranism and therefore not at odds with other "conservative" Lutheran bodies as the writer refers to them. The reference to "conservative" should be removed. The issue is Confessional in nature, being true to the Augsburg Confessions. Second, the "call to agree to disagree" as described by the writer is pure conjecture and opinion, and not the focus of the two "bound conscience" documents posted on the ELCA's website in pdf format. Third, the following quote from the article-"Further, Lutheran CORE acknowledges "the diversity of opinion that exists" in ordaining women as professional leadership in the church . The ELCA names this call to agree to disagree as one church "bound conscience"- implies that "bound conscience" as newly defined by the ELCA was part of the discussion on women's ordination back in the 1980s when the ELCA was formed when it was not, as women were already being ordained by the LCA and ALC in the 1970's. The point here is how the article focuses on the contradiction the writer has set up under a confused false premise, when the real focus and issue for the NALC is how far away the ELCA is moving from over 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the confessional teachings of the Lutheran church. I write as a member of Lutheran CORE.
Furthermore, the ELCA's description of "bound conscience" as described in the two ELCA documents cited above diverges from Luther's historical position. The ELCA's description would have a person's bound conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit trump the authority of scripture! For example, two people with opposite views both of whom are guided by the Holy Spirit must respect each other's "bound conscience". If both are guided by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is contradicting itself. No where in the Lutheran Confessions is it proclaimed that the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, which is what the ELCA's new "bound conscience" definition allows. Luther, on the other hand, states that bound conscience is "chained to the Word of God and reason" (Luther always phrased it in that order) and always states that should one's bound conscience be in opposition to the Word of God, then the Word of God must always win (see What Luther Says by Ewald M. Plass, copyright 1959, pages 333-339) It is Luther's understanding that CORE uses to object to the ELCA's position. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has also challenged the ELCA's new position concerning these matters, (see "Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions," a 10-page document commissioned by the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, LCMS president on the LCMS website). Neither of the two ELCA documents point to what Luther says one is to do when their "bound conscience" stands in opposition to scripture. Luther says ones conscience is "chained" to scripture (again, see What Luther Says cited above.) It will be interesting to see how the new ELCA Task Force assigned to come up with an "official" explaination of bound conscience addresses these issues. Mixing the ordination of women into the gay controversy in the same paragraph is a weak attempt to confuse the issues involved, slanted to create a false premise about conservatism within American Lutheranism, and claim contradictions concerning the NALC that simply do not exist outside the writer's ideology. [Unsigned comment by User:188.8.131.52 02:48, 12 May 2010, revised and expanded 02:12, 20 May 2010]
There seems little more than argumentative conjecture, opinion, and ideology in the above statement. But I think the article, while slanted, does have a valid point where the conservatives breaking with the ELCA can 'agree to disagree' on female ordination, while not on gay-lesbian ordination. Maybe we can clean that up a bit. The article doesn't really confuse the separate issues as such, but points to a contradiction on how disagreement has been handled on the two issues within conservative splinter groups of the ELCA. While saying they cannot live with one disagreement, they are very willing to accept another. Also, female ordination started in 1970 in the ELCA's predecessor bodies (ALC and LCA), not in the '1980s' as stated above. [Unsigned comment by User:Biry0501 10:41, 13 May 2010]
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not a "conservative splinter group of the ELCA", yet is used to point to "a contradiction on how disagreement has been handled on the two issues...." in order to impose contradictions which exist in the mind of the writer only. Likewise, it is not political "conservatives" who are "breaking with the ELCA" as stated in the article, but confessional Lutherans who refuse to both rewrite or redefine traditional Lutheran dogma and doctrine. Nor have discussions among themselves and the ELCA been focused on "'agree to disagree' on female ordination" as the article implies. The writer is imposing the issue of female ordination into the issue to slant and distort. Anyone can go to the CORE and Word Alone websites and note the absence of statements regarding female ordination relative to all the other confessional and doctrinal issues raised by these two groups. [Unsigned comment by User:184.108.40.206 02:38, 26 May 2010]
The female ordination statement is provided in the citations on the lower part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yet the author continues to leave the self-admitted "slanted" article intact with their own argumentative conjecture in order to challenge a "planned" denomination that does not even exist yet?!? [Unsigned comment by User:18.104.22.168 13:51, 17 July 2010]
It exists, and is no longer a planned demonination. Please, keep a neutral point of view, and sign your posts. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the submition date, June 30,2010. It was not in existance then and all the remarks are to an article and author who has since withdrawn their comments, yet I am not being allowed to withdraw mine. Please, look at the posting dates and pay attention to what the comments are in reference to. >]]1994—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone check on that number? That's a huge number of members for a church body that started three years ago. I'll give it that it had churches already going, but I don't recall ELCA loosing a thousand churches, which is a minimum needed to reach such a number, much less can I imagine that a majority joined NALC.126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It's on the NALC website. It's legitimate. — Confession0791talk 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)