KagomeShuko
Welcome!
Hello, KagomeShuko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
High Church Lutheranism
Yes, I am Lutheran. I don't know any more about it than you do. My edits to that page were mostly cleaning up what others had written; taking the information that was there and rephrasing it more clearly. I have learned, though, in the course of various religious debates on Wikipedia, that it is unwise to assume that a set of religious beliefs or practices don't exist just because you have never heard of them. The Lutheran Church is worldwide, and it's not too surprising that practices and terminology vary from place to place. For example, I had a debate here some months ago with another Lutheran (in the same country as me! In the same Church!) who insisted that in his Lutheran church they practice reservation of the sacrament, and that most Lutheran churches in his area have tabernacles for this purpose. I have never heard of such a thing where I'm from. It's a big world, and we each see only our little piece of it.
The article may well need to put this movement in context, to better explain who practices it and where. That can only be done by someone familiar with it, though.--Srleffler 04:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The link you posted leads to a chat forum where many people seem to be using "high church" quite happily to describe Lutheran practices. Maybe I'm not seeing the same discussion as you were. As to your other questions, yes this is not a "traditional" Lutheran term, and not one likely to have been used in seminary education. It's a terminology that has been "imported" from the Anglicans, who refer to their more liturgically-oriented branch as "high" and their less liturgical branch as "low". The worldwide Lutheran community has member churches that are more and less liturgical. Some people have begun to use the Anglican terminology of "high" and "low" to refer to these differences. It's just a convenient description. It doesn't imply that "high" church Lutherans are better than "low" church ones. Note also that it doesn't necessarily correlate with "liberal" and "conservative". In general, a "high" church (of any denomination) is one that has a very traditional and formal (liturgical) style of worship. Such churches may in general have either liberal or conservative social values. My impression is that most of the major North American Lutheran denominations (ELCA, LCMS, ELCiC) are fairly "high church". ELCA and ELCiC are relatively liberal. LCMS is more conservative. In Lutheranism, "low church" is mostly related to pietism, which all of the major North American Lutheran denominations reject. I think some of the Lutheran churches in Europe are still pietist, but I'm not sure which ones.
From what I have read on Wikipedia, it appears that the history of the Lutheran church and its theological and liturgical practices has been pretty complicated. My impression is that the early Lutherans were pretty similar to the Catholics in religious practice, which is not surprising since Luther was not trying to start his own church, but to reform the Catholic church. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Lutherans in Europe absorbed worship practices and doctrinal views from the Calvinist Reformed churches, forming what is called "pietism". Some Lutherans resisted this trend, forming separate "confessional" churches dedicated to the Lutheran Confessions and traditional Lutheran practices and doctrine. The LCMS is descended from those Lutherans. Meanwhile, the pietist movement lost some of its hold on the church in the late 19th century. There was a movement within the church to return to traditional Lutheran beliefs (neo-Lutheranism). I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the ELCA and ELCiC traditions come from this branch of the Lutheran family: Lutherans who returned to the traditions of Lutheranism after the century or two of Pietism ran its course.--Srleffler 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I read more of that chat forum. It seems to me that NordicLutheran misread the Wikipedia article, projecting his own prejudices into it. The others on the forum are primarily refuting his interpretation. "High" vs. "low" is primarily about worship practices rather than liberal vs. conservative. The article more or less says this, but the issue is confused because many of the "high church" reform movements also happened to be conservative. Not all are, though. The article does mention that high church groups eventually developed liberal forms. The article isn't all that well-written.--Srleffler 05:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Lost and Found (Christian rock band)
I've nominated Lost and Found (Christian rock band), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Lost and Found (Christian rock band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found (Christian rock band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Lost and Found (Christian rock band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.RJASE1 Talk 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Normal LAFextra2007.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Normal LAFextra2007.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Returntony.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Returntony.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Lutheranism
The WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration Project is under way. Please help improve this month's article, or make a suggestion for next month's article. To add the collaboration banner to your userpage or talk page, use {{Lutheran COTM}}. -- Pastordavid 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Barnstars
Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Something.gif
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Something.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Speedwoodthree.jpg
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Speedwoodthree.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Speedwoodone.gif
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Speedwoodone.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Christmasalbum.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Christmasalbum.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Somethingdifferentlaf.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Somethingdifferentlaf.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Lost and Found
Hi Kagome - I wasn't proposing the article for deletion, just questioning its notability. Per the WP:MUSIC notability guideline, having an entry at Allmusic and some trivial coverage elsewhere doesn't necessarily make a band notable enough; and to me, that's what this case kind of looked like at first. The second "Articles for Deletion" nomination was two years ago (and sometimes standards change), but it looks like there was good consensus to keep, so I'm not concerned about that anymore. Feel free to remove that "notability" tag at the top of the page now. :) I re-added those references that you mentioned: I wasn't aware that TheLutheran.org was a reliable magazine which has an article on here. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Jamie☆S93 16:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nomination of Preacher's kid for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Preacher's kid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nat682 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination). You are welcome to participate in the discussion, and to add material to the article that is backed up by reliable sources. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)