The Term "Lutheran"

[AngelusSax]

Several people, mostly LCMS and WELS people (both on here and in my offline life) have suggested that the ELCA should remove "Lutheran" from our name. While this is meant as a denegrating remark (and we can hold debates over which church strives to listen to God today more in other threads), I wonder... should we?

I mean, Martin Luther wanted us to call ourselves Christians, since we follow Christ, not Lutherans (since we don't follow Luther as we do Christ). Perhaps we should do that, then? If we are to follow in Luther's footsteps (being reforming [as opposed to reformed and stuck in the middle ages or something] and striving to be as close to original Christianty as possible, and as close to Christ's wishes as possible), perhaps we should just call ourselves something which doesn't say "Lutheran"?

Or am I being silly again?

 

[Korah]

Several people, mostly LCMS and WELS people (both on here and in my offline life) have suggested that the ELCA should remove "Lutheran" from our name. While this is meant as a denegrating remark (and we can hold debates over which church strives to listen to God today more in other threads), I wonder... should we?

I mean, Martin Luther wanted us to call ourselves Christians, since we follow Christ, not Lutherans (since we don't follow Luther as we do Christ). Perhaps we should do that, then? If we are to follow in Luther's footsteps (being reforming [as opposed to reformed and stuck in the middle ages or something] and striving to be as close to original Christianty as possible, and as close to Christ's wishes as possible), perhaps we should just call ourselves something which doesn't say "Lutheran"?

Or am I being silly again?

I had hoped when I joined ELCA in 2004 that we would belie our name and tend towards becoming "The Catholic Lutheran Church". But we're clearly not going that way.
Far more than we're diverging from Luther we're going against the "Evangelical" in our name. Call us "The UNevangelical Lutheran Church"?
We're not at all like what are called in the US Evangelical churches.

 

[AngelusSax]

I may be misunderstanding you, but as I read your post Korah, I would have to say I'm glad we're not like what are called "Evangelical" in the US, because their version of Christianity is not like the more traditional "Evangelical". In the US, the "Evangelicals" are very much aligned with Neo-conservative Politics (which is their right, though I believe this makes them misguided as a religious entity), whereas truly, "Evangelical" should mean that we are proclaiming Christ and the Gospel to the world. Now, we are woefully lacking in this area as well, but I wonder if part of that is precisely because we don't want to be associated with the American Evangelicals who all but equate being Neo-Con Republican with being saved, and if there isn't some way to begin a movement to reclaim "Evanglical" and then become truly Evangelical.

 

[Big Mouth]

I wouldn't mind if we added the 'Christian' but I would mind if we took out the 'Lutheran.'

 

[AngelusSax]

So do you feel that we need to keep "Lutheran" in order to maintain our identity then? (That's fine, and frankly, after so long being a Lutheran, I don't really want to drop it either, just asking where you're coming from there).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think until we declare that our heritage theologically and our doctrine is based in something other than Lutheranism, then we should be Lutheran. The point is not what other Lutheran bodies think of us but how we see ourselves. And yes Luther did not use the term Lutheran, but ultimately that is the term that has come to define bodies that submit to the BoC. And I think it would be highly confusing to people to use a different name all of the sudden. We don't use the term Lutheran hollowly, it means something. As long as it does we should use it. If ultimately we see ourselves as something else, then scratch Lutheran. But on that day I walk.

On that topic, I thought to myself the other day that I could see in 25-30 years a new body forming called the "Ecumenical Church" made up of mergers of several denominations that have been in long standing ecumenical relations and are struggling individually. If the ELCA became a part of that I won't (not that I'm against ecumenism, but I think differences are important too and unity is more than skin-deep), but whether they are or not, I could realistically see something like that happening in the greater global church.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

Good points, doulos. Honestly, I'm not too keen on removing "Lutheran" either. It is a good identifier, and we don't use it hollowly or shallowly.

If we did change our name though, as confusing as it would be for a while, it would eventually be less so as people would get used to it. If our doctrines all remained but the name changed, I could still stay, but I'd probably always call myself Lutheran.

Now if lutefisk becomes required eating for membership, I may have to leave, lol

 

[BoC]

I may be misunderstanding you, but as I read your post Korah, I would have to say I'm glad we're not like what are called "Evangelical" in the US, because their version of Christianity is not like the more traditional "Evangelical". In the US, the "Evangelicals" are very much aligned with Neo-conservative Politics (which is their right, though I believe this makes them misguided as a religious entity), whereas truly, "Evangelical" should mean that we are proclaiming Christ and the Gospel to the world. Now, we are woefully lacking in this area as well, but I wonder if part of that is precisely because we don't want to be associated with the American Evangelicals who all but equate being Neo-Con Republican with being saved, and if there isn't some way to begin a movement to reclaim "Evanglical" and then become truly Evangelical.

Look to your hurch history and you'll notice the difference between Lutheran Evangelical and Evagelical Lutheran. Big difference.