Ship of Fools: Should the Lutheran church be renamed?

Thread: Should the Lutheran church be renamed? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026020

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The Lutheran church (there are several branches) are named for Martin Luther. Martin Luther said some pretty nasty things, particularly about Jews. How far has Lutheranism moved from Luther, and should it still be named Lutheran after him given what he wrote? Considering "On the Jews and Their Lies" (Von den Jüden und Ihren Lügen) for starters.

Should the Lutheran church(es) be renamed?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Luther also wrote a lot of magnificent, awe-inspiringly godly things. The man was not a one-dimensional anti-Semite but a man of his time - finding a Christian from that era who wasn't anti-Semitic would be more of a challenge.

What could the Lutheran churches be called instead?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Most Lutheran Churches actually call themselves "The Evangelical Church of Wherever." Not that "saying some nasty things" invalidates everything he ever said.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I don't think that they should be re-named, but my impression is that the name 'Lutheran' is mostly used in English. In Germany, it is the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, which is admittedly a combination of Lutheran and non-Lutheran Protestant churches, but my impression is that Germans Lutherans do not usually use the word 'Lutheran', saying instead that they are 'Evangelische'.

Of the Established Lutheran Churches (other than the Church of England [Razz]

), only the Icelandic Church officially uses the word Lutheran, and then only in its very formal name (Hin evangeliska lúterska kirkja). Less formally, it's called the National Church (Þjóðkirkjan).

The Danish Lutheran Church is called the Danish People's Church (Den Danske Folkekirke), its Norwegian counterpart is simply the Norwegian Church (Den norske kirke or Den norske kyrkja). The (now disestablished) Swedish Church is similarly called just that (Svenska kyrkan).

It would seem that 'Lutherans' only really become 'Lutherans' where they are a minority. I may be wrong, but my impression was that even in North America, people used to say they were 'German Church' or 'Norwegian Church' until that became politically incorrect on or about 2 April, 1917.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It would seem that 'Lutherans' only really become 'Lutherans' where they are a minority.

In Finland, at least, where over 80% of the population are baptised Lutherans, it is referred to as the Lutheran Church or in Finnish, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I wasn't really thinking of the non-English churches with my question. My Berlin-born father discussed this yesterday - left Germany in 1936 - as inappropriate to have these churches named after a, in his words, a "Jew baiter".

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most Lutheran Churches actually call themselves "The Evangelical Church of Wherever." Not that "saying some nasty things" invalidates everything he ever said.

At least in my area this is not true. I was curious whether my anecotal evidence was valid, so I looked at ECLA churches within 40 miles of me--since I'm in a city, a couple hundred--with the ECLA church's website and it looks like almost all of them have the word Lutheran in the name.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most Lutheran Churches actually call themselves "The Evangelical Church of Wherever." Not that "saying some nasty things" invalidates everything he ever said.
At least in my area this is not true. I was curious whether my anecotal evidence was valid, so I looked at ECLA churches within 40 miles of me--since I'm in a city, a couple hundred--with the ECLA church's website and it looks like almost all of them have the word Lutheran in the name.

I think they meant internationally. In Germany for sure it's called the evangelical church, no Luther in included.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Luther also wrote a lot of magnificent, awe-inspiringly godly things. The man was not a one-dimensional anti-Semite but a man of his time - finding a Christian from that era who wasn't anti-Semitic would be more of a challenge.

What could the Lutheran churches be called instead?

Actually I do not buy that. The other Reformer were far less anti-semitic see a paper on Protestant Anti-semitism by a Jewish Scholar. Those named include Huldrych Zwingli, probably as close as you can get for a parralel for Martin Luther among other Reformers. Swiss, home territory and the same generation as Luther and pretty high status. John Calvin just does not make it; French refugee in Switzerland and generation later.

Jengie

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

John Wesley wouldn't recognize the USA Methodist Church that no longer mentions hell.

King Henry wouldn't recognize the TEC that ordains women and gays/lesbians/et al.

Churches morph.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Luther also wrote a lot of magnificent, awe-inspiringly godly things. The man was not a one-dimensional anti-Semite but a man of his time - finding a Christian from that era who wasn't anti-Semitic would be more of a challenge.

What could the Lutheran churches be called instead?
Actually I do not buy that. The other Reformer were far less anti-semitic see a paper on Protestant Anti-semitism by a Jewish Scholar. Those named include Huldrych Zwingli, probably as close as you can get for a parralel for Martin Luther among other Reformers. Swiss, home territory and the same generation as Luther and pretty high status. John Calvin just does not make it; French refugee in Switzerland and generation later.

Jengie

Well, I was thinking of the 16th century in general - to be honest, one could use the whole of the Early Modern era and find very few non-anti-Semitic Christian theologians.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

In the case of anti-Semitism, if Luther goes, so does St. John Chrysostom and his prayers and liturgies. (Although with John C, his prejudice against Jews seemed more in the way of a turf war.)

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
King Henry wouldn't recognize the TEC that ordains women and gays/lesbians/et al.

To be fair, King Henry would have been pretty disapproving of the CofE even 5 years after his death.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

As a point of clarification no prophet, are you or your father a member of a Lutheran church ?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
As a point of clarification no prophet, are you or your father a member of a Lutheran church ?

No. I have never been. He was not after leaving Germany. Anglican was the choice made later. Recently he was reading [url= http://http://eriklarsonbooks.com/the-books/in-the-garden-of-beasts/]In the Garden of the Beasts[/url], and remembered his young years in Berlin. He also mentions this church with its Nazi inspired woodwork. My grandparents' house was just off the Tiergarten (which is what the 'garden of beasts' roughly translates to, I would have said 'animal garden'), though the house no longer exists.

[ 19. August 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Luther also wrote a lot of magnificent, awe-inspiringly godly things. The man was not a one-dimensional anti-Semite but a man of his time - finding a Christian from that era who wasn't anti-Semitic would be more of a challenge.

What could the Lutheran churches be called instead?
Actually I do not buy that. The other Reformer were far less anti-semitic see a paper on Protestant Anti-semitism by a Jewish Scholar. Those named include Huldrych Zwingli, probably as close as you can get for a parralel for Martin Luther among other Reformers. Swiss, home territory and the same generation as Luther and pretty high status. John Calvin just does not make it; French refugee in Switzerland and generation later.

Jengie
Well, I was thinking of the 16th century in general - to be honest, one could use the whole of the Early Modern era and find very few non-anti-Semitic Christian theologians.

Zwingli is sixteenth century, basically the rest of the Protestant theologians we know about from Luther's day were not as bad as him.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

For Jade's education

Martin Luther 1483-1546, German
Ulrich Zwingli 1484-1531, Swiss

To give you some idea why I am using Zwingli and not Calvin

John Calvin 1509-1584, French refugee

Jengie

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm well aware of when they lived and where they were from, actually. I just don't see a massive amount of difference between them - and they're all Early Modern Protestant theologians who lived mostly in the 16th century.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Interesting that Anglican churches never got called Cranmerian (or Henrician I suppose). I wonder why?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting that Anglican churches never got called Cranmerian (or Henrician I suppose). I wonder why?

That's a very good question. My first take on the opposite end of your question is that there was no German nation to call the Lutheran church the German Church, until mid-19th century, with an argument that it couldn't have been called that because of the Roman Catholics in the south (mostly).

With the Anglican or C of E, the English nation existed, and they wanted to use the church as an instrument of nationhood and policy, among other purposes. Someone may have a more considered answer beyond speculation.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most Lutheran Churches actually call themselves "The Evangelical Church of Wherever." Not that "saying some nasty things" invalidates everything he ever said.
At least in my area this is not true. I was curious whether my anecotal evidence was valid, so I looked at ECLA churches within 40 miles of me--since I'm in a city, a couple hundred--with the ECLA church's website and it looks like almost all of them have the word Lutheran in the name.

Capital C Churches, as in denominations.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

I'm a little bothered by some of the nastier bits of Luther's legacy. I suppose every person has a dark side.

"Evangelical" wouldn't work in the States on its own - it's an already loaded word coopted by (mostly) fundamentalists.

Catholic Reformed maybe? Evangelical Catholic?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The Lutheran reformers actually called themselves the Evangelical movement of the Catholic Church or the Evangelisch Kirke. Roman Catholics during the Council of Trent started referring this movement as Lutheran.

Luther himself did not want a church named after him. But the name stuck especially as it migrated into English speaking countries.

Nearly all Lutheran bodies have passed resolutions renouncing Luther's Anti Semitic writings. Just recently the Evanglical Lutheran Church in America's then presiding bishop, Mark Hansen, formally apologized to the Anabaptist traditions of the remarks Luther and other Evangelical Reformers had made against them. I also think the Lutheran World Federation has also passed a resolution formally apologizing to the Anabaptist movements.

You must also remember during the Nazi Holocaust the Free Lutheran Church of Germany under the direction of Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke up against what the Nazis were doing.

Luther was a product of his day. He was both a saint and a sinner--not any different than the contemporary Anglican Reformers. After all, there were also a lot of evil remarks that came from their mouths and pens too.

Remember, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm well aware of when they lived and where they were from, actually. I just don't see a massive amount of difference between them - and they're all Early Modern Protestant theologians who lived mostly in the 16th century.

So when I compare Luther with them do you think Luther is different?

Jengie

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It would seem that 'Lutherans' only really become 'Lutherans' where they are a minority.
In Finland, at least, where over 80% of the population are baptised Lutherans, it is referred to as the Lutheran Church or in Finnish, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko.

In that case, would it not be because the co-establishment of the Finnish Orthodox Church precluded styling the Evangelical church as "the" Church of Finland?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It would seem that 'Lutherans' only really become 'Lutherans' where they are a minority.
In Finland, at least, where over 80% of the population are baptised Lutherans, it is referred to as the Lutheran Church or in Finnish, Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkko.
In that case, would it not be because the co-establishment of the Finnish Orthodox Church precluded styling the Evangelical church as "the" Church of Finland?

It's possible but I'm unable to say either way.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Obviously it's for the Lutherans themselves to decide what they should be called, and I am not one of them; but I can't help feeling another name might further ecumenical relations.

There are some people--like me--who when growing up as Catholics were taught that Luther was pretty much evil incarnate.
A dark shadow remains --beyond rational thought, obviously!--about his name willy-nilly and unconsciously.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
There are some people--like me--who when growing up as Catholics were taught that Luther was pretty much evil incarnate.
A dark shadow remains --beyond rational thought, obviously!--about his name willy-nilly and unconsciously.

To be fair though, I think that's partially because of prejudice. I obviously haven't heard what you were taught about Luther as a child, but I think sometimes it's just tribalism. I was taught that Catholics were evil. But I was taught it by a church I disagree with on about everything now days anyway, so the belief was relatively easy to throw off with the rest of what they taught. The reason I was told Catholics were evil is because they don't have bibles in their pews. Since I have been to Catholic mass multiple times, and don't remember whether or not those churches kept bibles in the pews or not. Still, even if they didn't, I wouldn't tell them that I thought changing would improve inter-denominational relations. I rather suspect the haters I heard would find something else...

Mind, don't take that as intended to dismiss your point, Cara. Just a thought based on a related experience growing up.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
There are some people--like me--who when growing up as Catholics were taught that Luther was pretty much evil incarnate.
A dark shadow remains --beyond rational thought, obviously!--about his name willy-nilly and unconsciously.
To be fair though, I think that's partially because of prejudice. I obviously haven't heard what you were taught about Luther as a child, but I think sometimes it's just tribalism. I was taught that Catholics were evil. But I was taught it by a church I disagree with on about everything now days anyway, so the belief was relatively easy to throw off with the rest of what they taught. The reason I was told Catholics were evil is because they don't have bibles in their pews. Since I have been to Catholic mass multiple times, and don't remember whether or not those churches kept bibles in the pews or not. Still, even if they didn't, I wouldn't tell them that I thought changing would improve inter-denominational relations. I rather suspect the haters I heard would find something else...

Mind, don't take that as intended to dismiss your point, Cara. Just a thought based on a related experience growing up.

Interesting, Gwai! Yes, of course, it is tribalism, or partly; and in the convents of my childhood, especially earlier on, the Reformation was seen as a tragic schism and Luther as evil for having started it all....obviously a very simplistic, wrong, and prejudiced viewpoint. I'm no longer Catholic, though I treasure much about my Catholic upbringing--but I don't treasure at all the hidebound narrow thinking there used to be.

Of course, like you with the teaching that Catholics were evil (!!! we were both being taught basically the opposite thing, sigh. Tribalism indeed), I have long since thrown off this belief.
I do hope it's clear I wasn't saying I still believed Luther was evil!

But I said that, because of the very early associations, the word "Luther", qua word, has a dark shadow over it... a sound thing, a subconscious thing, a sort of poetry thing...
not that I still believe what I was taught about him!

I'm not telling the Lutherans they should change their name because of any truth in the erroneous beliefs I was taught and have long since thrown off.
I'm just saying that, completely beyond my control or intention, the word is stuck with a dark aura, for me. Maybe I'm just weird and the only one this happens to. It's a language thing.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The reason I was told Catholics were evil is because they don't have bibles in their pews.

Well, *that* church is evil because they confuse worship with Bible study. So there! [Razz]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The Danish Lutheran Church is called the Danish People's Church (Den Danske Folkekirke), its Norwegian counterpart is simply the Norwegian Church (Den norske kirke or Den norske kyrkja). The (now disestablished) Swedish Church is similarly called just that (Svenska kyrkan).

It would seem that 'Lutherans' only really become 'Lutherans' where they are a minority.

While the Church of Norway doesn't use the word 'Lutheran' (or 'Evangelical') in the title, she officially describes herself as 'Evangelical Lutheran.'

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gwai wrote:

quote:
Since I have been to Catholic mass multiple times, and don't remember whether or not those churches kept bibles in the pews or not.

I don't think they do. I was a regular mass-attendee for about 20 years of my life, and I rarely, if ever, saw that.

[ 20. August 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I haven't seen a Bible or other books on the pews in Catholic churches either. I'm not sure how they cope when they have a wobbly Eucharist table.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Cara wrote:

quote:
But I said that, because of the very early associations, the word "Luther", qua word, has a dark shadow over it... a sound thing, a subconscious thing, a sort of poetry thing...

For me, the word "Nixon" carries the same sort of aura. It's a combination of the negative image of the most famous person to sport the name, with the sound and especially the appearance of the name itself. The big "x" in the middle and whatnot.

As for "Luther", it sounds rather harsh and cutting, like "ruthless". So probably lends itself well to a negative aural sensation for someone already trained to regard his legacy as negative. Possibly the guys who created the homonymal villain for DC Comics saw the same potential.

Posted by eppendorf (# 13961) on :

Lutherans in the United States are quite happy to be identified as such. Last week when the ELCA chose Elizabeth Eaton as its new Presiding Bishop, she spoke of the need to preserve a Lutheran identity. She reminded folks that Lutheran teaching is distinct from Protestantism in general. Several people said her comments about Lutheran identity went over very well with delegates to the Churchwide Assembly.

As for Germany, there are several large Landeskirchen that are 'evangelisch-lutherisch.' These include the churches in Saxony, Bavaria, Wuertermberg, central Germany (Thuringia and Saxony Anhalt), Brunswick, and northern Germany (everything north of the Elbe).

The Prussian Union Church of Frederick William III was a triumphalist endeavor of an absolute monarch, a Calvinist, who had Calvinist ideas of a powerful united Evangelical church that would unite the people of his kingdom. The union was enforced with a heavy hand.

[ 21. August 2013, 00:54: Message edited by: eppendorf ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most Lutheran Churches actually call themselves "The Evangelical Church of Wherever." Not that "saying some nasty things" invalidates everything he ever said.
At least in my area this is not true. I was curious whether my anecotal evidence was valid, so I looked at ECLA churches within 40 miles of me--since I'm in a city, a couple hundred--with the ECLA church's website and it looks like almost all of them have the word Lutheran in the name.
Capital C Churches, as in denominations.

First of all, they are called Synods, not denominations. Second of all, all of the synods have the word "Lutheran" in there somewhere.

See here.

I have noticed that some Lutheran congregations do opt to name their parishes "Evangelical" such-and-such, which to be fair, was what Luther preferred the church be called. However, in a church-rich city such as mine, it would not work to drop "Lutheran" from the name of a church, as it would be confusing-- there would be a dozen "evangelical" churches p and down the block of various denominations (Lutheran and other.)

I'm torn about the name thing. On the one hand, some of the things Luther said were absolutely despicable. While anti-semitism was part of the larger culture, he pretty much went for the gold medal in it. His tract referenced in the OP above was the product of childish spite at the Jews' lack of interest in converting en masse to Lutheranism; prior to that pamphlet, he condemned the pogroms. I don't think it is exaggerating to suggest that the textual temper-tantrum he threw above largely contributed to the propaganda campaign of the Third Reich that numbed Germans to what was happening to the Jews.

However-- at least in the US, a good portion of settler history involves an influx of Norwegian, Swedish, and German immigrants who populated the midwest, bringing Lutheranism with them. Thus, the re is a Lutheran culture that is less to do with any religious doctrine and more to so with remnants of old country values and attitudes. it is not all a bad thing. And It has very little to do with the spiritual paternity of Luther himself.

In short, if we changed the names of Lutheran churches, how the heck would the Lutherans know which church to go to? [Big Grin]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I went right to wikipedia to prove you wrong, but it turns out all those Evangelical Churches in Germany are actually united Churches. Oh well, I still have the Church of Sweden, The Danish People's Church, and the Norwegian Church. Three is a high percentage, right? [Snore]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh I probably should have said, I don't know a thing about Europe, the above stuff I said was about the US.

I thought the Danish/ Swedish/ Norwegian state churches were a sort of Lutheran/ Calvinist fusion, like the Covenant church.

[ 21. August 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh I probably should have said, I don't know a thing about Europe, the above stuff I said was about the US.

I thought the Danish/ Swedish/ Norwegian state churches were a sort of Lutheran/ Calvinist fusion, like the Covenant church.

Not that I've heard, but plenty of German national Churches are.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think it is exaggerating to suggest that the textual temper-tantrum he threw above largely contributed to the propaganda campaign of the Third Reich that numbed Germans to what was happening to the Jews.

Actually, the idea that 'Accurate scholarship can/ Unearth the whole offence/ From Luther until now/ That has driven a culture mad' (of 'Der deutscher Sonderweg' as it's generally known amongst the German and/or pretentious), has been generally discredited. The main argument, as I remember it, is that France with the Dreyfuss scandal and the enthusiastic anti-Semitism of the Vichy regime makes it hard to see Lutheran Germany as different from the rest of Europe, even when 'Europe' is defined solely as the industrialized countries along its western edge.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Cara wrote:

quote:
But I said that, because of the very early associations, the word "Luther", qua word, has a dark shadow over it... a sound thing, a subconscious thing, a sort of poetry thing...

For me, the word "Nixon" carries the same sort of aura. It's a combination of the negative image of the most famous person to sport the name, with the sound and especially the appearance of the name itself. The big "x" in the middle and whatnot.

As for "Luther", it sounds rather harsh and cutting, like "ruthless". So probably lends itself well to a negative aural sensation for someone already trained to regard his legacy as negative. Possibly the guys who created the homonymal villain for DC Comics saw the same potential.

Exactly, your Nixon example is the sort of thing I mean....but for me "Luther" isn't harsh and cutting...the "th" sound isn't crisp enough for that..."ruthless" is a difficult example, because "ruth" of course is a positive quality, soft and gentle....yet it too has a dark feeling about it. (I can't imagine a blonde girl or woman called Ruth, for example.) "u" for me is always a dark letter and combined with the L in Luther sounds, not harsh and cutting, but sinister in a dark, cloudy, all-pervasive sort of way. I can see exactly why the DC comic people chose it.

Again, I hope it's clear that I've been making a fairly trivial point about the aural associations of the word/sound "Luther," for me, which are nothing whatsoever to do with what I actually think now about him as a man. It's just that, because I can't help having these associations, a church called The Lutheran Church is never going to sound especially benign or positive to me on a gut level--again, of course I'm not talking about the conscious, thoughtful level, on which I have many positive feelings for Lutherans, our brethren, united with the TEC.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

I can recall that when the ELCA was formed eons ago a friend of mine who was a Pastor proposed that the name should have been The Evangelical Catholic Church in America. He thought that name would have disassociated the church from any idea that it was the exclusive home for those of German and/or Scandinavian ethnicity. I tend to agree with him.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In Brazil, the denominations are called Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession in Brazil (Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterana no Brasil — IECLB) and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil (Igreja Evangélica Luterana do Brasil — IELB). The former is associated with immigrants from Germany, the latter is Missouri. At times I have experienced huge rivalry between both churches at the local level.

Both churches call themselves 'Lutheran' in day-to-day speech, to distinguish them from other Evangelical churches. It is sometimes quite difficult in the Brazilian context, where the population tends to divide Christians into católicos and evangélicos, associating the latter with strong pentecostal movements. The fact that there are also historical Protestant churches goes largely unnoticed, even if their combined membership is considerable.

Another complicating factor is that there are also some weird sects around, some of which randomly insert 'Lutheran' in their name. The presiding pastors of IECLB and IELB already have had to publicly distance themselves from those.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think I have heard that near the end of his life, Luther's attitude towards the Jews became much less extreme.

Can anyone tell me whether this is true?

Moo

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think it is exaggerating to suggest that the textual temper-tantrum he threw above largely contributed to the propaganda campaign of the Third Reich that numbed Germans to what was happening to the Jews.

Actually, the idea that 'Accurate scholarship can/ Unearth the whole offence/ From Luther until now/ That has driven a culture mad' (of 'Der deutscher Sonderweg' as it's generally known amongst the German and/or pretentious), has been generally discredited. The main argument, as I remember it, is that France with the Dreyfuss scandal and the enthusiastic anti-Semitism of the Vichy regime makes it hard to see Lutheran Germany as different from the rest of Europe, even when 'Europe' is defined solely as the industrialized countries along its western edge.

Except when we consider that anti-semitism became extermination for Germany. Even pogroms in the east do not compare easily to that.

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Gramps49 has pretty much said it all. I agree with what he wrote. Luther has undergone quite a rehabilitation in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. Credit for that is due to Pope Benedict.
But you would find a nice summary of contemporary RC thought HERE

And Kelly, if they took the word Lutheran out of our Church's name, I suppose we'd have to rely on the lingering aroma of green jello salad to find our way there! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Although it is virtually unheard of to have pew copies of the Bible in Catholic churches it doesn't mean that Catholics are unaware of the Bible.Every liturgical service will have several readings from the Bible.Sunday Mass will typically have a reading from the Old Testament,from the New Testament two readings,including always a reading specifically taken from one of the four Gospels - the whole interspersed with parts of the Psalms of David.

Many Catholic churches will feature (particularly on the European mainland) an open copy of a large New Testament open at the Gospel reading of the day.Similarly there are very often book stalls at the back of a church where copies of the Bible may be purchased.
Many Catholic churches will produce written copies of the readings of the day in the form of missalettes - i.e. the text of the Mass
with its biblical readings for the day.

Though few Catholics can quote chapter and verse from the Bible it is certainly not true to think that because there are no pew Bibles that observant Catholics are unaware of the contents of the Scriptures.

My wife - a non observant Catholic was just asked yesterday if Catholics would be allowed to go to a show at the Edinburgh Festival which concerned in some way the Gospel of Mark and then she was asked by the same person if she had ever heard of the New Testament. I cannot believe that the questioner was a typical Scottish Presbyterian.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't think it is exaggerating to suggest that the textual temper-tantrum he threw above largely contributed to the propaganda campaign of the Third Reich that numbed Germans to what was happening to the Jews.

Actually, the idea that 'Accurate scholarship can/ Unearth the whole offence/ From Luther until now/ That has driven a culture mad' (of 'Der deutscher Sonderweg' as it's generally known amongst the German and/or pretentious), has been generally discredited. The main argument, as I remember it, is that France with the Dreyfuss scandal and the enthusiastic anti-Semitism of the Vichy regime makes it hard to see Lutheran Germany as different from the rest of Europe, even when 'Europe' is defined solely as the industrialized countries along its western edge.

Fair point, although Luther certainly didn't freaking help. Also a good point is that Lutherans were at the forefront of significant liberation/ seclusion/ sabotage efforts in Germany.

In short, Luther is not Lutherans' fault.

[ 21. August 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Confusingly, the British and American Lutherans have inverse nomenclature. The Lutheran Church of Great Britain, whose female bishop notably participated in the installation at Canterbury, is the LWF/Porvoo-oriented synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in England is the ILC franchise, the descendants of the resistance to the Prussion Union, now self-styled by the cheekily tautologous "confessional Lutheran." This mirrors the American situation of the ELCA/ELCiC and LC-MS/LC-C.

The alphabet soup really calls to mind the old saw that "Anglicans will endure any amount of heresy to avoid schism; Lutherans will put up with endless schisms to avoid heresy" - which may no longer be as true as it once was.

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I can recall that when the ELCA was formed eons ago a friend of mine who was a Pastor proposed that the name should have been The Evangelical Catholic Church in America. He thought that name would have disassociated the church from any idea that it was the exclusive home for those of German and/or Scandinavian ethnicity. I tend to agree with him.

I have had a pastor who would have said the same thing. He was staunchly Reconciling-in-Christ and pro-Concordat, ordered the first run of the "cranberry book" hot off the press, and his study was covered with photos and notes of goodwill from various RC prelates. At seminary, he had been offered scholarships by both the LCA and the Episcopalians and opted for the former after comparing the Book of Concord with the Articles of Religion and favouring Luther's catholicity over Cranmer's and Hooker's. (I never asked him what he thought of Melanchton!) I still have the Service Book & Hymnal he gave me.

[ 22. August 2013, 07:19: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Gramps49 has pretty much said it all. I agree with what he wrote. Luther has undergone quite a rehabilitation in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. Credit for that is due to Pope Benedict.

But you would find a nice summary of contemporary RC thought HERE

And Kelly, if they took the word Lutheran out of our Church's name, I suppose we'd have to rely on the lingering aroma of green jello salad to find our way there!

Luther has not been rehabilitated by the RCC and never will be. Decontextualised soundbites from scholars is not going to make it otherwise.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

LQ, I always keep my ancient copy of SBH on the organ bench with at all times. The hymn arrangements are better than LBW, SBH, WOV, and the "Cranberry" book. This is most certainly true!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

'Never' is a very long time.

Maybe, by some miracle, Rome will admit that it didn't always get everything right and that Luther did what he did for love of the church.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, I was thinking about this thread earlier today, and I still can't let Luther off the hook. He may have not invented european anti-semitism, but he was in a position to speak up against it-- and he did, at first. His petulance and spite prevented him from being an agent of change.

Maybe the Nazis didn't need Luther to do their stuff, but how much harder would it have been for them to do if religious tolerance had been a Lutheran core value?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe the Nazis didn't need Luther to do their stuff, but how much harder would it have been for them to do if religious tolerance had been a Lutheran core value?

Hitler and most of the top Nazis were raised Catholic. Nazism started in Bavaria, which is predominantly Catholic.

I think that the influence of Luther on Nazism is exaggerated.

Moo

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I can recall that when the ELCA was formed eons ago a friend of mine who was a Pastor proposed that the name should have been The Evangelical Catholic Church in America. He thought that name would have disassociated the church from any idea that it was the exclusive home for those of German and/or Scandinavian ethnicity. I tend to agree with him.

That being the case, why not do what I as an outside observer have long thought to be logical, and merge with the Episcopal Church? Nowadays there isn't much, theologically or liturgically, that separates Lutheranism from Anglicanism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting that Anglican churches never got called Cranmerian (or Henrician I suppose). I wonder why?

I can't actually think of many churches (as in denominations) that are named after people. Hussites, Nestorians, Waldensians, maybe, none of whom are particularly well-known. I don't think there's any major church that's officially called 'Calvinist' (as opposed to 'Reformed') but I may be wrong.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting that Anglican churches never got called Cranmerian (or Henrician I suppose). I wonder why?
I can't actually think of many churches (as in denominations) that are named after people. Hussites, Nestorians, Waldensians, maybe, none of whom are particularly well-known. I don't think there's any major church that's officially called 'Calvinist' (as opposed to 'Reformed') but I may be wrong.

I have a liberal Methodist friend who proudly calls himself a "Fosdickian." [Smile]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I can't actually think of many churches (as in denominations) that are named after people. Hussites, Nestorians, Waldensians, maybe, none of whom are particularly well-known.

Indeed, the Church of the East (and its various descendents) have always disliked being described as Nestorian. It's roughly on a par with describing the Roman Church as Papist.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
That being the case, why not do what I as an outside observer have long thought to be logical, and merge with the Episcopal Church? Nowadays there isn't much, theologically or liturgically, that separates Lutheranism from Anglicanism.

Fond ties to words.

Give it time. The few ELCA Lutherans of my generation that are still actively involved do not hold the prejudices of the past, wherein the local Lutheran congregation is the One True Church, and other denominations are beyond help. Also, most congregations are completely unrecognizable to each other, except for the L word being on the sign, the link between them being tenuous at best.

I hope merger comes, and I even propose as a transition that we allow churches to retain their current signage for a fixed number of years.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Maybe the Anglicans can join the Lutherans if they agree to the Augsburg Confession.

There are several things that divide us structurally, though. 1) Lutherans are for the most part congregational in polity. A Lutheran Bishop assists a congregation in its calling their pastor, but the Bishop has a limited role in the selection of a pastor. 2) A Lutheran pastor also has more autonomy when it under the Lutheran system--for instance, the congregational pastor will actually confirm the catechumens, no need to wait for a bishop to come through.

But I think the one thing Lutherans would hate to give up is their latitude when it comes to liturgy. While traditional Lutheran liturgy is similar to BCP, there is wide variance within Lutheran circles.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe the Nazis didn't need Luther to do their stuff, but how much harder would it have been for them to do if religious tolerance had been a Lutheran core value?
Hitler and most of the top Nazis were raised Catholic. Nazism started in Bavaria, which is predominantly Catholic.

I think that the influence of Luther on Nazism is exaggerated.

Moo

Yes, but you also had all those Sieg Heiling Lutheran bishops of the official church and Nazism had extremely wide support in heavily Lutheran areas
But then , there was Bonhoeffer as the Catholics had Count Von Galen and Bishop Von Preysing

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Maybe the Anglicans can join the Lutherans if they agree to the Augsburg Confession.

Many of whose articles map one-for-one to the Thirty-Nine Articles anyway... (But on the level of sheer personal anecdotes, when I registered for something or other with the German Bible Society, I decided to declare my religion as "Altkatholische Kirche".)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

Give it time. The few ELCA Lutherans of my generation that are still actively involved do not hold the prejudices of the past, wherein the local Lutheran congregation is the One True Church, and other denominations are beyond help. Also, most congregations are completely unrecognizable to each other, except for the L word being on the sign, the link between them being tenuous at best.

I hope merger comes, and I even propose as a transition that we allow churches to retain their current signage for a fixed number of years.

Sadly, the Lutheran Church here - at least in NSW - has a very closed table and limited dialogue with others, despite being a constituent member of the NSW Council of Churches and having formal meetings with both the Anglican and Catholic Churches on theological matters. I'm fairly sure that Porvoo does not apply to Anglican relationship with it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Maybe the Anglicans can join the Lutherans if they agree to the Augsburg Confession.

There are several things that divide us structurally, though. 1) Lutherans are for the most part congregational in polity. A Lutheran Bishop assists a congregation in its calling their pastor, but the Bishop has a limited role in the selection of a pastor. 2) A Lutheran pastor also has more autonomy when it under the Lutheran system--for instance, the congregational pastor will actually confirm the catechumens, no need to wait for a bishop to come through.

But I think the one thing Lutherans would hate to give up is their latitude when it comes to liturgy. While traditional Lutheran liturgy is similar to BCP, there is wide variance within Lutheran circles.

In practice, most Anglican bishops no longer send clergy to parishes but assist parishes in finding the right pastor.

I don't think Lutheran liturgy is at all similar to BCP - for example the stand alone words of institution are far removed from Cranmer's Prayer of Consecration.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Yes, but you also had all those Sieg Heiling Lutheran bishops of the official church and Nazism had extremely wide support in heavily Lutheran areas
But then , there was Bonhoeffer as the Catholics had Count Von Galen and Bishop Von Preysing

I think those Sieg Heiling bishops were not influenced by Luther nearly as much as they were influenced by the idea that they were supposed to support the state.

The Catholics also had Franz Jägerstätter. His behavior was especially impressive because he had only eight years of schooling, and no one encouraged him in the stand he took.

Moo

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think Lutheran liturgy is at all similar to BCP - for example the stand alone words of institution are far removed from Cranmer's Prayer of Consecration.

Gramps was undoubtedly referring to the American BCP 1979, which was essentially written in tandem with the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978). During the mid-20th century, there were a couple of very Episcopal-friendly Lutheran liturgical scholars who had a heavy influence on the development of our hymnals/worship books (bound together, in standard American Lutheran practice).

Some of the prayers in the Lutheran Book of Worship and the BCP 1979 are almost identical in wording--the Collect for Purity and the prayer of confession are particularly close. Before the LBW was published, the intent was even to take on the "Anglican" location for the confession of sin--between sermon and Great Thanksgiving--but there was a big kerfluffle about it, and in the final published version the confession appears at the beginning as an optional rite.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I thought the Danish/ Swedish/ Norwegian state churches were a sort of Lutheran/ Calvinist fusion, like the Covenant church.

They are not. And thank God for that. (No TULIP for us, thank God.) All of the scandinavian 'state churches' are Lutheran,* and they have shunned calvinism.

* The Church of Sweden is no longer a 'state church,' and neither is the Church of Norway (supposed to be). The Church of Sweden follows the Book of Concord, while the Church of Norway and the Church of Denmark do not follow the whole Book of Concord, but only the three ancient symbols (the Apostles's, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds), the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's Small Catechism.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I don't think that they should be re-named, but my impression is that the name 'Lutheran' is mostly used in English. In Germany, it is the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, which is admittedly a combination of Lutheran and non-Lutheran Protestant churches, but my impression is that Germans Lutherans do not usually use the word 'Lutheran', saying instead that they are 'Evangelische'.

Nope.

EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) is NOT a church. It is a federation of 20 regional+denominational churches who are each completely independent. EKD has no legal power whatsoever over them.

Of those 20, two are Reformed (Presbyterian/Calvinist), nine are Lutheran and nine are United, i.e. a union of Reformed and Lutheran going back to the 19th century.

Of the nine Lutheran Churches, seven have "Lutheran" in their name. Plus the "Lutheran Free Church" (SELK), that is not in EKD.

Seven of the nine Lutheran Churches also form a sub-federation of EKD, called VELKD or Vereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Deutschland. The Lutherans have a very strong denominational consciousness, far more than the United Churches, so they often stress the "Lutheran".

If you want to drop the name "Lutheran" because of Luther's failings, you'd probably never be able to name anything after a person:
a) everybody fails in some things
b) what counts as "failing" is notoriously subject to fashions. So you'd be obliged to change names every so often (anti-semitism would not have counted against Luther in the past and what is mandatory for a "good Christian" today may well be judged as very bad tomorrow... pick your own example)

Admittedly at present name-changing seems to be the order of the day. With today's speed of re-naming things and groups etc. in the name of political correctness we'll soon be running out of breath, I'm afraid, because every new word for a negative thing tends to assume the negative meaning of its predecessor at some point.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

If you want to drop the name "Lutheran" because of Luther's failings, you'd probably never be able to name anything after a person:
a) everybody fails in some things
b) what counts as "failing" is notoriously subject to fashions. So you'd be obliged to change names every so often (anti-semitism would not have counted against Luther in the past and what is mandatory for a "good Christian" today may well be judged as very bad tomorrow... pick your own example)

Well put.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I'm a Lutheran Christian who isn't particularly interested in no longer being a Lutheran Christian. We have, in many ways, a unique theological point of view and historical experience to bring to the table . I'm not saying that it isn't possible to be a theological Lutheran within some larger big-tent church body; I have friends in The Episcopal Church who are self-admittedly Lutheran in their general theological thinking and appreciation of the Lutheran confessional documents even though they prefer the worship aesthetics and polity of TEC. I'm also not saying that ecumenism is a bad thing. The ELCA is involved in many levels of ecumenical partnerships.

But the idea that we can all just moosh together into one amorphous church body and all find some comrpomise in thought and worship that "works for everyone" is, I think, on this mortal coil, an idea that flies in the face of actual human experience. There is no monolithic Christian way of doing or thinking, in the same way that there's no monolithic Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or pagan or atheist way, and that is why ALL belief systems tend to spawn multiple schools of thought/organizations whose members tend to group together.

And...just a minor, admittedly whiny kvetch here...I wonder why churches identified as "Wesleyan" or "Mennonite," etc., don't seem to be criticized as much about their names the way Lutherans are. It's just a shorthand way of knowing what the theological point of view of a particular faith community is.

[ 28. August 2013, 21:46: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And...just a minor, admittedly whiny kvetch here...I wonder why churches identified as "Wesleyan" or "Mennonite," etc., don't seem to be criticized as much about their names the way Lutherans are. It's just a shorthand way of knowing what the theological point of view of a particular faith community is.

I think the criticism of Luther in this thread had to do with his specifically antisemitic statements. Which IMHO is unfortunate since if that part of what he said could be removed, he had a lot of good things to say theologically, again IMHO.

But anyway, LutheranChik, I agree with you, that the Church Universal doesn't have to be just a big mosh pit. I take extremely seriously Jesus' prayer "that all may be one". But, by that, I don't think Jesus meant that we all have to do everything the same way. People are different, culturally and otherwise. Speaking just of worship styles, on that continuum I guess I would place myself somewhere around the MOR Rite Two US Episcopal and RC Novus Ordo (pre-revised translations anyway!) but I consider myself fortunate to have been exposed to a wide range, from African-American pentecostal services to Tridentine Roman rite liturgies and Ethiopian Orthodox, and I have found value in all of them. (Well with a few exceptions which I have not and will not name here). This shows the beautiful diversity of the Body of Christ. Diversity doesn't have to mean disunity.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think Lutheran liturgy is at all similar to BCP - for example the stand alone words of institution are far removed from Cranmer's Prayer of Consecration.

The practice of (normally) celebrating the Eucharist with the words of Institution standing alone is not that common in Europe. In the Church of Norway, we have whole Eucharistic prayers. A given Eucharistic prayer (which contains the words of institution at its center) is seen as a single whole. The American tradition may be different.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I also think that to say the Lutheran liturgies are "not at all" similar to Anglican liturgies is an overstatement, even when referring to Lutheran liturgies that use only the institution narrative instead of a full eucharistic prayer.

Of course that is a very significant difference, but, even so, the liturgy is more than just the eucharistic prayer. Certainly the liturgy of the Word is very similar in both Lutheran and Anglican liturgies, as are opening and closing rites, I believe.

As is noted, many Lutheran liturgies now incorporate full eucharistic prayers.

The only Lutheran eucharist I was ever at, last year, had a full eucharistic prayer. My subjective impression was that it was indeed very similar to an Anglican eucharist, and perhaps even more to a Roman rite Novus Ordo eucharist.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think Lutheran liturgy is at all similar to BCP - for example the stand alone words of institution are far removed from Cranmer's Prayer of Consecration.
The practice of (normally) celebrating the Eucharist with the words of Institution standing alone is not that common in Europe. In the Church of Norway, we have whole Eucharistic prayers. A given Eucharistic prayer (which contains the words of institution at its center) is seen as a single whole. The American tradition may be different.

I would associate the practice more so with the self-styled "confessional" groups. But then, it's also in the cranberry book and so could presumably be used with the authorisation of an Anglican diocesan bishop.

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I also think that to say the Lutheran liturgies are "not at all" similar to Anglican liturgies is an overstatement, even when referring to Lutheran liturgies that use only the institution narrative instead of a full eucharistic prayer.

Yes, that's a bit much. The LBW and the American BCP certainly developed side by side (informed by the post-conciliar Roman Rite too, of course). I have a copy of this slender volume which lays the two rites out next to each other.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

People:

I am not talking about the similarities of the official Lutheran Liturgies in comparison to the Anglican Liturgy--they are indeed very much the same. What I am talking about is the relative latitude individual Lutheran pastors have in using various worship styles apart from the official liturgy. I think many Lutheran would chafe if they would have to get permission from their bishop to make those changes.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
A given Eucharistic prayer (which contains the words of institution at its center) is seen as a single whole. The American tradition may be different.

Put together a dozen ELCA pastors, and 11 of them will prefer Words of Institution alone, with 9 of them citing 'shorter' as their compelling reason. And then they'll give a 25-minute sermon and 10 minutes of announcements. Trust me, I deal with this all the time! (Of course, our texts are not exactly the greatest, either, but nobody has cited that yet.)

quote:
Gramps49:
I think many Lutheran would chafe if they would have to get permission from their bishop to make those changes.

All pastors I've dealt with certainly would. In fact, all bishops I've encountered would chafe if they had to get involved with this at all. Yet, I can't tell you how many times I've heard from people who have moved away, "I can't find an ELCA church like us," and then they end up unchurched. They're talking liturgy and music, because when probed they have never been at a place long enough to scratch the surface of their programming or camaraderie.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Put together a dozen ELCA pastors, and 11 of them will prefer Words of Institution alone, with 9 of them citing 'shorter' as their compelling reason. And then they'll give a 25-minute sermon and 10 minutes of announcements. Trust me, I deal with this all the time!

There's nothing new under the sun. Here's what good old Percy Dearmer had to say about what the Puritans wanted from James I:

'When James I came to the throne, the Puritans drew up a "Millenary Petition" for reform ; and as a result the Hampton Court Conference (1604) was held by the King, who loved disputations above all things. The familiar petty objections were raised to the cross in Baptism, to the square cap, and the surplice ("a kind of garment," said they, "which the priests of Isis used to wear") ; the wedding-ring, the word "priest," bowing at the name of Jesus; the Puritans also disliked the Thirty-nine Articles as not sanctioning Calvinism; they desired that Baptism should never be ministered by women, that Confirmation should be taken away, and also the Churching of Women, that "examination" should go before Communion, that "the longsomeness of service" should be "abridged" and "Church songs and music moderated," that the Lord's Day should not be "profaned" (by the playing of games), that an uniformity of doctrine should be prescribed, and a few other things. Some of these requests (especially that for uniformity) were very bad indeed, and few would be defended to-day: even that against "longsomeness," we fear, was only to gain more room for sermons and ex tempore prayers that were more longsome still.'

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0