The Hinge Volume 16, Issue 2: Moravian Theology Today, Student Reflections

The

Hinge

International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church

Moravian Theology Today: Student Reflections Cindy Good, Anthony Hayworth, Andrew Heil, Nola Reed Knouse, John Lawrence, Linda Osborne, Philip Pfeiffer, Caroljane Roberson, Amanda Singleton, Ginny Tobiassen

Summer 2009

Volume 16, Number 2

The Hinge Volume 16, Number 2: Summer 2009 The Hinge is a forum for theological discussion in the Moravian Church. Views and opinions expressed in articles published in The Hinge are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or the official positions of the Moravian Church and its agencies. You are welcome to submit letters and articles for consideration for publication.

One of the early offices of the Moravian Church in Bethlehem, Pa. was that of the Hinge: “The office of the Hinge requires that the brother who holds it look after everything and bring troublesome factors within the congregation into mutual accord without their first having to be taken up publicly in the congregation council.”

— September 1742, The Bethlehem Diary, vol. 1, tr. by Kenneth Hamilton, p. 80.

The Hinge journal is intended also to be a mainspring in the life of the contemporary Moravian Church, causing us to move, think, and grow. Above all, it is to open doors in our church.

The Hinge is published with the assistance of the Center for Moravian Studies of Moravian Theological Seminary, 1200 Main St. Bethlehem, PA 18018, and all rights are reserved.

Recent issues of The Hinge may be found at www.moravianseminary.edu/center/hinge.htm.

Articles in The Hinge may not be republished or posted on the Internet without the express permission of the author and the editor of The Hinge. Articles may be duplicated according to “Fair Use” rules, which allow for discussion in church classes and similar forums.

The cover design was provided by Todd Tyson of Kernersville, N.C.

Moravian Theology Today

Notes from the Editor This issue of The Hinge is a little different from the norm. Rather than having a lead article followed by several responses, we have ten essays exploring modern Moravian theology. What makes this issue particularly special is that the essays were written by students in a course titled “Theology of the Heart: Moravian Theology from Zinzendorf to the Present,” which was taught at Wake Forest University School of Divinity in the spring of 2008. Some of the participants in the course were (or are) pursuing the Master of Divinity degree at Moravian Theological Seminary; others expect to attend there after graduating from Wake Forest. Several of the participants, including two of the non-Moravians, had already taken a course on the theology of the Ancient Unity the previous spring.

Almost half of the students were not Moravian, which was refreshing. As you will see, the non-Moravian students dug deeply into Moravian theological statements and found things often overlooked by Moravians. One of the students is working on a master’s in religious studies rather than divinity, and she brought an outsider’s perspective to theological questions. More than half of the students in the class were female, which led to some interesting discussions, especially about the motherhood of the Holy Spirit. All of the Moravians are members of the Southern Province.

The course dealt extensively with the theology of Zinzendorf, but students also read Spangenberg and a variety of documents from the 20th century. Some of the students were initially put off by Zinzendorf ’s provocative theological language and ideas, but most of them found something valuable in his thought. Some of the students were much more comfortable with Spangenberg, although some were surprised by how Calvinist his writings are. One of the issues that kept coming up in the course was the question of how did the Moravian Church become so traditional and conventional?

Another persistent issue was why is it so difficult for modern Moravians to discuss theology? For a church that is proud of its educational heritage, we have done very little in the area of theology, especially in America. This does not mean that the Moravians do not have a theological tradition, but it does mean that it is often hard to articulate Moravian doctrine.

The students were asked to reflect on Moravian theology today, using current Moravian doctrinal statements, especially The Ground of the Unity. Some of the students analyzed and critiqued The Ground; others critiqued the Moravian Church itself. Some of the most interesting and helpful essays identified aspects of Moravian theology that could contribute to the wider ecumenical church. Most encouraging for me is that the essays demonstrate the vitality of Moravian theology in the 21st century.

1

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Ginny Tobiassen Every church with a Pietist heritage—which is at least to say, nearly every Protestant church in America—experiences some degree of struggle with similar issues. It is difficult to reconcile the Pietist insistence on individualistic, experiential religion with the organizational needs of a church. During the Reformation, when church still relied on the support of state, this reconciliation was effected by confessions of faith (the first being the Augsburg Confession) intended to demonstrate a church’s legitimacy, setting uniform boundaries for belief. These confessions soon proved useful for church discipline as well, providing a sort of contract language that could be cited as grounds for ejection if a church member transgressed the boundaries of belief. Like all contract language, the confessions tended to become more complex over time.

Picture this, Moravians of long standing: You are a teenager again, and it is a summer day, the last day of a week at Laurel Ridge. You and your friends are coming down the mountain, arms around each other’s waists, laughing and crying and talking about the great week you’ve had. And one question comes up over and over: Why can’t church be more like camp?

As I have reflected these last few days on the Moravian experience—life, The Ground of the Unity, and everything—I have concluded that a really good week at Laurel Ridge recaptures something of the experience of the Bethlehem community; and that the trip down the mountain to our home congregations recaptures the Moravians’ gradual evolution from experiential and experimental community to mainstream Protestant church.

Naturally, compared to the ecstatic mountaintop community, the staid building in the Piedmont leaves much to be desired. For the space of a week, the campers have discovered how it feels to have a lived theology. What they fail to realize—because it has not been made obvious to them—is that somewhere under all the layers of organization, tradition, and social propriety, their home congregation was built on a foundation of that same lived theology. The Moravian Church in America can retain that foundation as long as it retains a commitment to its heritage of theological simplicity and “heart religion.” In the present era, some are calling for sharper theological lines; so far, the Moravian Church has resisted the temptation to draw them.

Standing against this trend was the Ancient Unity of the Brethren, who felt that confessions should allow for change in the presence of new revelation. As long as today’s Moravian Church claims an inheritance from the Unity, they must acknowledge, and honor, their ancestors’ reluctance to bolt the theological shutters against the winds of change. This heritage is reflected in The Ground of the Unity’s approach to creeds and confessions. Although a reference to creeds’ “marking the boundaries of heresies” might well have disappointed the Ancient Unity (given that they suffered persecution as “heretics” themselves), the document at least acknowledges the Unity’s stance with the assertion that “all creeds 2

Moravian Theology Today

formulated by the Christian Church stand in need of constant testing in the light of the Holy Scriptures.” Furthermore, The Ground refuses to specify one creed or confession for the Moravian Church and instead simply lists ten creeds that have “gained special importance” for the Moravians through their simplicity and clarity of expression. These creeds are not even recommended except by implication; they are simply offered in a list for the reader to consider or, presumably, ignore.

doctrinal system, so the Unitas Fratrum has not developed any of its own because it knows that the mystery of Jesus Christ which is attested to in the Bible, cannot be comprehended completely by any human mind or expressed completely in any human statement.” Similarly, the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living states, “We decline to determine as binding what the Scriptures have left undetermined, or to argue about mysteries impenetrable to human reason.” These are remarkable assertions for church documents; after all, the very purpose of describing a church in writing is usually to draw boundaries around a church’s beliefs. This is the very thing the Moravians here refuse to do.

The Moravians’ other theological inheritance is the legacy of Zinzendorf, who argued for “Heart Religion,” an intuitive experience that did not lend itself to—in fact, would be enervated and destroyed by—detailed systematic theology. While he believed in the importance and authority of Scripture, he was not disposed to argue its finer points, believing that its essential truths—the knowledge required for salvation—were clear. He acknowledged that Scripture also contained “dark places” whose meaning was less clear; these might be the result of a particular author’s limited understanding—for God “let the authors speak according to their abilities and understanding” (Freeman, 129)—or they might be mysteries to which not all readers of Scripture have access.

Regarding these mysteries, Zinzendorf felt it was not only unprofitable but dangerous to speculate, since one might draw the wrong conclusions and lead others astray.

Nevertheless, The Ground of the Unity and the Brotherly Agreement are not without specific theological wording. Among the matters specified are faith in the Trinity, in the resurrection and in our redemption through Christ; belief in Christ’s presence in Word and Sacrament (though, characteristically, the specific nature of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament of Communion is not defined); and belief that through baptism we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection. In these matters the Moravians are entirely in line with mainstream Protestantism. What is unique about the faith as described in these documents is the almost overwhelming emphasis on community.

Here, too, the Moravians draw on their heritage, which emphasizes Christianity as a relational faith. The Ancient Unity revered the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, which could hardly be lived in isolation (“Blessed are

In today’s Moravian Church in America, Zinzendorf ’s feelings about theology and Scripture are most obviously reflected in The Ground of the Unity’s assertion that “just as the Holy Scripture does not contain any 3

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

the merciful” doesn’t mean much if there is no one around to whom one can show mercy); ethical treatment of one’s fellow humans was crucial. This ties in with the Unity’s insistence on openness to change, which left room for peaceful resolution of conflict within its membership. Preserving the Unity was more important than arguing fine points of doctrine, which they labeled “inessentials.”

Zinzendorf ’s basically positive view of humanity.

In fact, another cardinal doctrine emphasized Jesus’ divinity to the virtual exclusion of his humanity, whereas Zinzendorf had emphasized Jesus’ humanity as the source of our salvation.

Meanwhile, Zinzendorf ’s wariness of systematic theology was mistranslated into a growing antiintellectualism that discouraged openness to scientific discovery.

As for Zinzendorf, he believed that community was itself the developing ground for theology. He wrote about “the miracle of community theology [Gemeintheologie]… a countless number of opinions can be under one hat and be brought into a system and still people, who have their origin in a particular understanding, do not therefore need to change all their opinions and styles of speaking…. We know from experience that all people whose ideas are gathered in their heart, think out of one principle and speak from one mouth” (quoted in Freeman, 96). For Zinzendorf, diversity contributed to a richer theology, so long as the diverse opinions were the speech of the heart. His concept of community voices blended into one is most fully realized in the Moravian liturgical tradition, which brings worshippers together in speech and song.

In the nineteenth century, the American Moravians tried to shore up their crumbling community life by laying down tighter rules of discipline and clearly spelling out doctrine emphasizing duty, authority, and the wages of sin. The more they sought to codify doctrine and community life, the faster the community dissolved as rebellious young people took flight. The Moravian community life had been the Moravian theology. Now the generations to come would grapple with the problem of what happens to a lived theology when the life that created it is gone.

Hence it was in the nineteenth century that the Moravians seized on their historical roots as a means of establishing a new identity. Claiming Jan Hus and John Amos Comenius as their ancestors in faith gave Moravians historical grounding without resurrecting the theology of Zinzendorf, which at this point made Moravians nervous with what they perceived as excesses of emotionalism. Proclaiming 1457 as the founding date of the Ancient Unity, the Moravians celebrated their 500th anniversary in 1957 by publishing The Ground of the Unity.

The Brotherly Agreement of 1727 was revised and republished in 1966; this is the basis for today’s Moravian Covenant for Christian

That these elements of the Ancient Church and Zinzendorf remain in the Moravian Church today is somewhat remarkable, considering the church’s history from the death of Zinzendorf till today. A series of synods after Zinzendorf ’s death made a determined effort to codify church doctrine; one of the four cardinal doctrines introduced was the concept of universal depravity, very much a change from 4

Moravian Theology Today

Living. These two documents, then, are part of the church’s effort to link its current theology with its proclaimed heritage.

greatly exaggerated, judging by the passion that these posters express for their church and its heritage. But how well do they really know its heritage? When posters accuse church leaders of cowardice for refusing to take a stand on various issues, are they aware that the Moravian heritage keeps an ear open for new revelation and understanding, or that it emphasizes the importance of listening to diverse voices in the community? It takes enormous courage for leadership to stand firm on that heritage in the face of open rebellion among church members demanding that specifics of doctrine be written into the Moravian tradition.

What is remarkable about these published statements on Moravian doctrine is that despite their broad wording and their somewhat tenuous historical connections, they do appear to successfully shape a Moravian theological identity, one that is strong enough to withstand a recent onslaught of criticism from within the church. Specifically at issue was a controversy that erupted when one Moravian minister expressed doubt about whether “there is no salvation apart from [Christ]”—one of the few very specific theological statements that appears in The Ground of the Unity.

At the same time that many Moravians are finding fault with the church’s response to hotbutton issues of the day, many are also turning away from the Moravian liturgical tradition— the principal ground of its theology. The liturgies are too long, the language too archaic, and, worst, the music isn’t “relevant” or “user friendly.” Congregations who once sang:

Through this apparent fissure in the faith burst the voices of numerous disaffected Moravians arguing that the church was no longer standing firm on essentials—especially when, after a year of discussion, the Provincial Elders’ Conference overturned their original decision to remove the minister from his pastorate. At the 2002 Synod of the Southern Province, an attempt to pass a “resolution affirming salvation through Christ alone” was defeated, leading to remarks that “Jesus Christ is on trial again,” this time at the hands of Moravian leadership. A website, Moravians.org, was launched as a forum for debate on the direction of Moravian theology and doctrine in the new century.

To avert from men God’s wrath Jesus suffered in our stead By an ignominious death He a full atonement made And by his most precious blood Brought us sinners nigh to God are now singing: Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, Your love makes me sing Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, Your love makes me sing…

The song is pleasant and easy to sing, no doubt “user friendly”; but Zinzendorf would be hard pressed to find much theology in its lines.

The emotional tone of the postings on that site shows that Moravian theology is not just an academic issue. Rumors of the death of the Moravian Church have, it appears, been 5

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Today, membership in all Protestant denominations is declining steeply, and Protestants who do attend church regularly often switch easily from one denomination to another, feeling that few have any particular identity.

In this climate, many churches feel the urge to blend, to accommodate present religious fads in order to increase or at least retain members. Do the people want praise music? They shall have it. Do they want a forceful condemnation of homosexuality? So be it.

specific doctrine, we might search the works of Zinzendorf—let’s get more of them translated into English, first thing—for theological energy. Meanwhile, we should continue the effort to explain the position of community in our theology and to preserve the liturgical heritage that provides a worship experience no other Protestant church can offer. With energy, community, and music, church can be… well, more like camp.

See you on the mountain.

Yet it seems to me that the Moravians have a chance to survive more by standing apart than by blending—by offering the world what is truly unique about the Moravian church, namely its heritage in Zinzendorf ’s theology.

Rather than trying to blend in or to lay down

References: Freeman, Arthur. An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf. Bethlehem PA: Moravian Church in America, 1998.

Ginny Tobiassen is a Moravian and is in her second year in the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

6

Moravian Theology Today

John Lawrence In the present context, the Moravian Church is not unlike other Christian denominations. The Church itself is imperfect, largely divorced from its rich historical roots, and struggling to interpret its place in an everevolving postmodern world. While the latter characteristics began to emerge within their communities and congregations long before the turn of the 21st century, Moravians have gradually become estranged from the more “radical” theological views of their past. This assertion is evidenced by the fact that, among other things, Moravian theology is no longer dictated by the type of unwavering commitment to pacifism of the Old Brethren, the intensely intimate and almost tangible relationship with Christ that Zinzendorf advanced, and the Brüdergemeine’s deeply ingrained appreciation for broad ecumenism.

more normative and socially acceptable belief system. As a result, Moravians have failed to claim the inherent richness and uniqueness of their theological history and, therefore, have let their shame (or ignorance) of their group’s past beliefs inhibit them from expanding their religious perspectives. Thus, if the Moravian Church were to reclaim their past beliefs and faithfully meld them with their present views, the significance of their theology would readily rest in its potential to allow the group to represent a wholly radical and transformative witness in the world.

Given the aforementioned assertions, it is odd that the Moravian Church continuously refers to itself as the Unitas Fratrum in The Ground of the Unity since the document itself fails to advance any of the radical theological beliefs of the ancient Unity that would suggest any immediate ties between the Old Brethren and the present Moravian Church. Specifically, there are no overt references to Christ’s “Sermon on the Mount” as being central in the lives of all present-day Moravians. Due to the centrality of the “Law of Christ” among the original Unity, one would naturally expect a group bearing the Brethren’s name to fully claim this biblical passage in their theological approach to the world.

Although one could argue that the group’s movement away from their more controversial and atypical views is attributable to general societal adjustments and the natural evolution that occurs in the theology of churches over time, it is undeniable that the Moravian Church now subscribes to a brand of Christianity that is broadly mainstream and uncontroversial.

Despite the fact that there are certainly exceptions to the latter characterizations in the various Moravian congregations, it is clear from The Ground of the Unity that the Church has both consciously and unconsciously abandoned many facets of their powerful theological foundations for the sake of a

Additionally, though the document does state that the Moravian Church “recognizes the Word of the Cross as the center of Holy Scripture,” it does not firmly or clearly assert support for the beatitudes or Christ’s prohibitions against “non-violence and 7

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

non-participation in the structures of oppression and abuse.”1 While there could be several factors contributing to these particular omissions, I think that it speaks to the fact that the intense commitment the original Unity had for following Christ’s commands in the “Sermon on the Mount” has been overlooked and lost in the Moravian Church of today. Hence, while Christ’s commandments throughout the gospels certainly remain powerful guiding forces for individual Moravians, it could be contended that, to genuinely claim the Unitas Fratrum in name, the Church should fully embrace the group’s core beliefs.

the Moravian Church only devotes one line in The Ground of the Unity to discussing peace and the faith community.

It is also telling theologically that the latter part of the document does not assume any overt position on promoting peace in the world beyond general feelings of hope for its attainment. Even then, this desire is rather diluted given the fact that it is coupled with the statement that the Church wishes to seek “to attain what is best for the world.” This position appears to leave open the possibility that Moravians could theologically support war and various other forms of force if they were deemed as globally necessary. Thus, it is evident that the Moravian Church has generally abandoned the Brethren’s conceptions of unwavering peace for an image of peacefulness that is more conducive to and readily acceptable in an often difficult and hostile world.

In considering the above points, it is intriguing to note that The Ground of the Unity does briefly allude to desires for peace in the world. It states: “The Unitas Fratrum challenges humanity with the message of the love of God, striving to promote the peace of the world and seeking to attain what is best for all.” This reference to peace in the document is significant when one considers that the ancient Unity literally interpreted Christ’s statement, “blessed are the peacemakers.”

The previous observation also underscores the fact that The Ground of the Unity fails to acknowledge that the original Brethren was a group that intentionally set itself apart from the societal and religious norms prevalent in their specific context. Their unique approaches to living out Christ’s commands in the “Sermon on the Mount,” including the pursuit of complete peacefulness, often resulted in them being branded as “heretics” by the Catholic Church and a range of Protestant groups.

This particular label frequently exposed the group to the threat of intense hostilities and even execution. Hence, another odd addition to The Ground of the Unity is the suggestion

As a result, the Old Brethren sought to live in a manner that embodied absolute pacifism, so that their lives could be testimonies to their love for the divine and all of humanity.

Due to the fact that this theological basis for peacefulness was not widely accepted in 15th century Europe, the Unity was frequently persecuted for their refusals to bear arms and have any involvement in military affairs. With these acknowledgements, it is interesting that 8

Moravian Theology Today

that the creeds and confessions of the Church assist in “marking the boundary of heresies” in Christianity.

This pursuit is similar to the goals held by the members of the Old Brethren, who each sought to emphasize that the journey of faith is meant to be one that is grounded in mutuality and collegiality amongst those in the service of the Savior. In addition to this parallel, The Ground of the Unity also contends, “We oppose any discrimination in our midst because of ethnic origin, sex, or social standing.” Specifically, this statement indicates that the Moravian Church has retained, at least in print, the spirit behind the Brethren’s devotion to treating all citizens of the larger world as equal gifts from God to be unequivocally valued.

The idea that the Moravian Church even acknowledges the existence of heresies in the faith today highlights the level of discontinuity between present Moravian theological positions and those of the Old Brethren. This assertion is rooted in the fact that, if Moravians were conscious of the many charges of heresy that the ancient Unity continuously faced and suffered under, the group would not likely use or recognize “heresy” as an official or legitimate term. Thus, it is quite telling, both theologically and historically, that the Moravian Church has used the term “heresy” in a discussion of the value inherent in creeds and confessions.

It is worth noting, however, that the Church’s position opposing acts of discrimination directed towards individuals based on ethnicity, sex, and social standing, though significant, is inherently limited. While the latter categories in which inequality and maltreatment are to be opposed are broad, the document does not clearly include one’s economic status or sexual orientation as aspects worth acknowledging or defending. Although one could posit that “social standing” covers both of these areas, it is difficult not to consider those terms as incredibly vague and noncommittal.

Despite these positions, it must be stated that The Ground of the Unity is not completely devoid of any vestiges of the Brethren’s theology. Throughout the document, the Moravian Church asserts its commitment to recognizing and overcoming the divisions amongst Christians in the world; a point that is powerful yet convoluted considering the group’s acknowledgement of heresy. The Church states, “We confess our share in the guilt which is manifest in the severed and divided state of Christendom… We recognize the danger of self-righteousness and judging others without love.” Theologically, this position is one that speaks to the seriousness that Moravians hold for humbly striving to love their brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of denominational and congregational disparities.

Hence, despite the fact that the Old Brethren would not have gone so far as to defend homosexuality in the late 1400s, I think it is theologically significant that the current Moravian Church feels that it must generalize some of the things that it supports and opposes.

This tendency, likely based on a desire to not alienate the various beliefs of all Moravian 9

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

congregations, appears to readily exemplify the Church’s loss of its radical roots. If Moravians claim the title of the Unitas Fratrum, is it not imperative that the Church clearly and radically oppose oppression and discrimination in all areas of existence? While I believe that the answer to this question is “yes,” I think current Moravians must examine why they have lost many facets of their theological past that are inextricably tied to inclusion. Concurrently, the Church must consider if their radical witness in the world has diminished as a result of their overall desire in previous and present generations to be more fully acculturated in and accepted by secular and religious society.

teachings, Zinzendorf provided 18th century Moravians with a way of interweaving their daily lives with the life of Christ in an almost tangible and relevant manner. In examining The Ground of the Unity, however, there are little traces of the Count’s “wounds theology.”

The document states that the Lord “joins us together mutually, so that knowing ourselves to be members of His body we become willing to serve each other.” Although this position does center on a connection to Christ, the union it portrays is far less intimate and visual than the images of Christ as one’s constant companion, friend, and bridegroom that Zinzendorf continuously advanced.

In addition to some of the clear differences between the theology of the ancient Unity and the Moravian Church, The Ground of the Unity consists of several aspects that represent obvious shifts away from the theology of Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf. In particular, Zinzendorf ’s theological views, upon which the Moravian Church was originally founded, were steeped in his perspective that Christians should seek to establish a deeper connection with Christ through the wounds he suffered during his crucifixion. This relatively unique theology maintained that, because Christ’s wounds grant him a sense of vulnerability and humanness, the faithful can connect to him through those injuries in a manner that creates a profound sense of transcendence and a great degree of intimacy.

I think the aforementioned movement away from emphasizing living in and with Christ occurred in the Moravian Church largely because the group began to become more acculturated and influenced by less radical social conceptions of the Savior. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, for instance, Moravians started to more fully realize that many of Zinzendorf ’s perspectives of Christ and the rest of the Trinity were controversial and considered as “extreme” by other Christian groups. As a result, the Church distanced itself from the Count’s views of the Holy Spirit as Mother, Christ as the Creator, and God as the Father. They also began to readily absorb more “normative” understandings of the Trinity as isolated Moravian communities disbanded and the members of the Brüdergemeine became more active citizens of the world. This assertion is furthered highlighted by the fact that the present version of The Ground of the Unity

Hence, by consistently maintaining the latter beliefs in hymns, litanies, and general 10

Moravian Theology Today

only briefly mentions the Holy Spirit in a few places and focuses primarily on the embedded and more traditional patriarchal images of the divine, which have typically dominated understandings of the Trinity in Christianity.

ideas, however, the Moravian Church seems wholly disconnected from its significant and nonconformist Christian concepts.

Coupled with these positions, it is necessary to realize that The Ground of the Unity not only fails to openly claim Zinzendorf and his views, it also omits any references to Joseph Spangenberg and some the other early leaders of the group. While one must acknowledge that the document is meant to primarily emphasize the Church’s theology rather than its history, it still remains curious that the Church elected to mention the Old Brethren and not the beliefs of the more directly connected Moravian forbearers. The only allusion in the document to the latter group of individuals states, “Nor can we ever forget the powerful and unifying experience granted by the crucified and risen Lord to our forbearers in Herrnhut on the occasion of the Holy Communion of August 13, 1727, in Berthelsdorf.”

In addition, there is even part of The Ground of the Unity that appears to subtly apologize for Zinzendorf ’s more controversial views of the nature of Christ and the other essential components of the Trinity. It maintains that the Unitas Fratrum “knows that the mystery of Jesus Christ which is attested to in the Bible, cannot be comprehended completely by any human mind or expressed completely in any human statement.” While one could claim that this position applies to all of the faithful and speaks against unnecessary theological arguments regarding the Trinity, I would not be surprised if it also acts as an implied admission of and justification for the Moravians’ past connections to Zinzendorf ’s theology.

Concurrently, regardless of whether or not the latter was intended, the fact still remains that the Moravian Church lost a valuable part of its theology when it opted to abandon Zinzendorf ’s relational views of the Trinity.

This assertion is based on the idea that present constructs and conceptions of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit have been far too intellectualized and virtually all of them are inaccessible to the faithful. Hence, Zinzendorf ’s specific approach to the Trinity, though controversial, acted as an effective source of mediation and reconciliation between humanity and a distanced concept.

Due to the their movement away from this and other more radical theologically-based

This rather cursory and indirect mention of the main figures in the early Moravian Church underlines, again, the distance existent between The Ground of the Unity and the theological tenets on which the group was originally founded. Thus, I cannot help but feel that this failure of the document in faithfully bridging the divide between Moravian history and theology inhibits Moravians from reclaiming the significant aspects of their past beliefs that are so needed in our present context.

The aforementioned claim is particularly powerful given the fact that we live in a largely intolerant world, which is often defined by 11

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

judgmental attitudes/actions and general hostility in the religious realm. There is a sense of heightened suspicion between faiths, and conservative Christians, unfortunately, often have a tendency of trying to establish a monopoly on God’s truth. It is because of these feelings that I believe that The Ground of the Unity is also limited because it fails to rightly claim Joseph Spangenberg’s position in the Idea Fidea Fratrum that there is truth to be found in all denominations and that Christians have a responsibility to demonstrate a level of collegiality with other faith traditions.

Though it must be acknowledged that he had obvious issues and frustrations with Judaism, the Moravian Church of today should consider Spangenberg’s overall theological ideas of acceptance and tolerance as extremely relevant and valuable.

members of all faiths, the Moravian Church could simultaneously reconnect with one of the best aspects of their past theology and more effectively serve as witnesses for Christ in the world.

Though this paper has focused primarily on the theological beliefs that the Moravian Church no longer holds, it is important to realize that such an examination is meant to point out what the group is, at its core, and can more completely become in the future. Hence, it is important to underscore the fact that The Ground of the Unity is not wholly divorced from some of theological perspectives that characterized the Moravian Church in the past.

The document clearly highlights the fact that Moravians continue to recognize themselves as imperfect believers who, through their deep love of the Christ, are committed to striving to continuously connect with the theological truths revealed by God over time. Additionally, the Church has retained a strong commitment to world missions and sees the pursuit as being grounded in the theological imperative of “confessing witness to God and His love in unselfish service.”

Hence, it is crucial to realize that The Ground of the Unity only focuses on the connections that are discernable between groups within the Christian faith. The document maintains, “We recognize that through the grace of Christ the different churches have received many gifts.

It is our desire that we may learn from each other and rejoice together in the riches of the love of Christ and the manifold wisdom of God.” While this is a significant statement of commonality within the faith, it can be seen as exclusive because it does not embody the type of love for all of one’s neighbors that the Old Brethren, Zinzendorf, and Spangenberg all supported as dictated by Christ. Thus, it is not unfounded to claim that, by openly prompting an uncompromising love for

Moravians also have remained relatively dedicated to fostering a type of ecumenical spirit in their relationships with other Christians, and have never wavered from asserting that Christ is the central mediator of humanity. Thus, these theological positions, and others, represent vestiges of the Moravian Church’s past that should be maintained, enhanced, expanded, and celebrated. With this assertion, however, 12

Moravian Theology Today

Moravians must consider reclaiming some of their lost theologies as an appropriate and necessary way of deepening their understanding of their history. Similarly, the Church must find, absorb, and reapply the latter theological premises in a manner that would more faithfully meet the world’s desperate needs and reflect the group’s genuine identity.

think we would all do well to remember that we serve a radical Christ whose claims and actions cannot be conformed, tempered, or silenced. Thus, if they could reconnect with the theologies of their forbearers, I think that Moravians could help infuse Christianity with the progressive and holistically loving spirit that we all are divinely charged to bear in this world.

On a personal note, I must state that I have tremendous respect for the Moravian Church.

Hence, perhaps my criticism in this paper of the Church’s theological shifts reflects the fact that, as a non-Moravian, I have a degree of perspective in this analysis. Although my particular viewpoint is by no means advanced or impervious to inherent imperfections, I think that it has allowed me to plainly see that the Moravian Church could be even more influential in religious life if it would remain true to its core theological beliefs and own its roots. I have been inspired by the theological basis for peace that defined the Old Brethren, the sense of intimacy that Zinzendorf sought to more fully unveil between Christ and the believer, and the Moravian Church’s past recognition of the truth and goodness in other denominations and religions. As a result of the transformative power that could emerge if these theological views were openly advanced by Moravians, I desperately want every Christian to become aware of these perspectives and connect with them at some level.

Endnotes 1

Craig Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (Penn State Press, 2009), 156 in manuscript.

John Lawrence is a Baptist and is a 2009 graduate of the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

While it is true that the Moravian Church’s past is largely steeped in a type of radical theology that many present Christians are not used to, I 13

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Nola Reed Knouse Too often I have heard members of the Moravian Church say, “The Moravians have no theology.” Too often I have heard this statement, or something very like it, spoken either with pride, as if this should be a welcoming feature of a church (“you can believe anything and be a member here”); or with shame, as if this were an indication of an endemic weakness of the Moravian Church. Whatever their intent in using this statement, however, the speakers seem certain that the Moravian Church has no theology and no doctrine.

This essay will briefly examine two documents which are widely accepted as of critical importance in the life of the Moravian Church in America today: the Easter Morning litany and The Ground of the Unity. The two statements have different purposes and roles in the life of the church; they differ significantly in structure and focus; yet they work together to help interpret, for Moravians and non-Moravians, what it is to be a Moravian Christian.

The Ground of the Unity is first and foremost a document of unity, a statement of “the unity of the Unity.” Reading The Ground provides a sense of where the “center” of the Moravian Church is. This document does not draw a circle which excludes those outside it; it rather defines a focus and a center seeking to draw people in. This is a specifically Moravian document intended for use within the church, as we seek to define how so many different provinces, regions, and cultures can claim to be part of one unity.

However, I submit that any group of people professing any kind of faith in any kind of supreme being has a theology. Any individual who claims to be Moravian has a theology and a doctrine; for any one of us, there is at least one claim that is a “deal-breaker,” one statement the denial of which would make us question whether the denier was a Moravian at all. Whether or not we can clearly state our theology, our doctrine, it does exist.

Moreover, the theology of any individual and any group is discernable by others, at least in part. One’s individual life, and the life of persons in community, reveals one’s grounding principles. How one treats other people shows how one views them, and how one views another person is intrinsically related to how one views God and God’s saving work in Christ. The toooft-repeated thesis that Moravians have “no theology” stems, not from a lack of theology, but rather from a reluctance, a shyness, to proclaim Christ with all our words and all our lives in an increasingly anti-Christian society.

The Easter Morning litany is a very different sort of thing; it is a public confession of faith, intended for use in worship. It is written and designed to lead the believer, through an experience of corporate public worship, into a reaffirmation of the scope of Christian faith. While this litany has features that “feel Moravian,” it is broadly Christian. This document does indeed outline the faith of the church, in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; in the efficacy of the sacraments; and 14

Moravian Theology Today

in the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of believers.

be used on a graveyard, focuses on the Church Triumphant, on the resurrection from the dead: on the appropriation of the benefits of faith.

This section of the litany is joyous, exultant, filled with praise for the risen Christ and the assurance of resurrection.

The two documents differ in structure as well as in purpose. The Ground begins and ends with Christ’s call to the church. Between these two “book-end” statements are sections on belief; on unity; and on service. We read about the purpose of creeds and confessions. Reading between the lines, it becomes clear that doctrine is a tool, not a goal; it is a means to be used towards “ever clearer proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Written as it was following the devastating conflict of World War II, the document focuses on various “levels” of unity: unity among members and provinces of the worldwide Unitas Fratrum; the unity of the larger Christian church; unity of Christians as experienced in Holy Communion; and unity in outspoken opposition to any form of discrimination against persons. Moreover, The Ground makes clear that this unity is not for our own benefit. This unity is for service and mission, in following the example of Christ.

These two documents do, in fact, outline a powerful and effective theology. While the more “radical” elements of Zinzendorfian piety are not present here, there is nothing in either document that contradicts Zinzendorf ’s focus on the wounds of Christ, on the mystical marriage of Christ and the soul, on the example of Christ’s life as an effective guide for dayto-day living. Christ is truly central in both documents; while both proclaim God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, both begin and end with Christ, and in every section of each document, Jesus Christ is proclaimed. It is through Jesus that God is revealed.

Both of these documents offer gifts to the Moravian Church today. The Ground offers an understanding of unity within the Body of Christ which is forgiving, loving, faithful, strong, yet humble enough to know that any part of the Body of Christ does not have the whole truth. The Easter Morning litany offers a clear exposition of the church’s faith, expressed in worship which strengthens the individual believer and the entire worshiping congregation.

The Easter Morning litany, as an order of worship, falls into two sections. The first, to be used at the church, contains clear statements of the belief of the church and the life of the Church Militant. Following the greeting (“The Lord is risen! The Lord is risen indeed!”) and opening hymn, there are sections proclaiming faith in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each concludes with a prayer. Statements of the significance of baptism and Holy Communion follow, and the entire first section concludes with a hymn. The second section, which may

Neither statement of faith gives the individual believer a yardstick with which to measure the faith or orthodoxy of another.

Neither allows us to determine who is the 15

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

“wheat” and who is the “weeds” (Matthew 13:24-30). This is one of the great strengths of the two documents: they leave the sorting and judging to Him who alone is worthy to do so. However, this very strength may be one of the reasons for many Moravians thinking that “we have no theology.” Our very humility and reluctance to judge, our “unobtrusiveness,” leads us to be too shy to proclaim what we do know.

This is counter-cultural thinking indeed.

Yet this is a peculiar gift of the Moravian Church, and one which I believe to be of inestimable value. There is a refreshing peace in knowing that we do not have to know “who’s in and who’s out.” I submit that the Moravian Church, because of this gift, is particularly wellequipped to face post-modern society’s search for meaning. We have a theology indeed, one which is based upon mission and service in the name of our crucified and risen Lord. We have acknowledged, in The Ground of the Unity and in the Easter Morning litany, that our Lord loves us and calls us together into a church to serve him, and that the determination of who is “saved” and who is not is His business.

Today’s seekers after meaning, relevance, and authenticity should find these tenets refreshingly honest and appealing. It is time for the Moravian Church to stop disclaiming its own theology and to begin living it more boldly, proclaiming it more widely, and going forth in passionate service to the Christ proclaimed in both The Ground of the Unity and the Easter Morning litany.

Our contemporary society would have us commit ourselves beyond what we can rightly do. For instance, let us consider a possible interpretation of this statement from The Ground: “God has revealed Himself once and for all in His Son Jesus Christ; that our Lord has redeemed us with the whole of humanity

by His death and resurrection; and that there is no salvation apart from him.”

Many would interpret this as meaning that all who do not confess Christ publicly during their earthly life are destined for eternal damnation; that has made too many Moravians reluctant to affirm that statement of faith, as they really do not want to believe that all the Jewish babies burned in the Holocaust could never be saved. Other Moravians, however, assert that this is exactly what that statement must mean. The statement itself, however, does not say this at all; it simply says, in the words of Rick Sides (personal conversation), “Where there is salvation, there is Christ.” Specifically how that salvation is effected is not our business; it’s God’s decision, and we need only trust him.

Nola Reed Knouse is Director of the Moravian Music Foundation and is a 2009 graduate of Moravian Theological Seminary.

16

Moravian Theology Today

Caroljane Roberson Moravians have had a long, complex, and sometimes colorful history. Starting as a persecuted order, they found refuge and inspiration in their relationship with Count Zinzendorf. Although most of his more radical ideology has been erased from Moravian worship, his dedication to living for Christ lives on within the Moravian community.

Consequently, Moravian theology, as manifest in The Ground of the Unity, is service to God as manifest in taking an identity within God, working for ecumenism, undertaking missions, and serving humanity. This theology of service is vital in a world whose human inhabitants are increasingly self-absorbed.

their dependence upon God. This dependence is taken even further when it is said that Moravians “live only through the mercy of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (1). The first line of The Ground of the Unity makes the Moravian identity within God clear, as it states “The Lord Jesus Christ calls His Church into being so that it may serve Him on earth until He comes” (1). The Church is established for the service of God, and thus the Moravian identity in relation to God is one of Christian service. Thus, the Moravian Church has “the aim and end of its being based upon the will of the Lord” (1).

Working for Ecumenism: One of the central tenants for Moravians is ecumenism. This has been a Moravian focus since their beginning.

Having suffered during the Thirty Years War, which was focused on religious differences, the Moravians wished to avoid such violence on the grounds of doctrinal divergences, and thus embraced ecumenism as a founding principle.

Ecumenism serves God by preserving His/Her people from destruction and promotes a united church in His/Her name. Accordingly, The Ground of the Unity addresses ecumenism.

It bases the Moravian openness to doctrinal changes in the desire to avoid doctrinally-based conflict, as too much emphasis on particular doctrinal stances has been highly divisive in the Christian community. Instead of pointing to a foundational doctrine, aside from the Incarnation and Resurrection, The Ground of the Unity reasserts the Moravian understanding of Jesus Christ as essentially a mystery beyond

Identity within God: An essential piece of Moravian theology is its carving of a place within society as a distinctly Christian community.

Moravians are united in their belief of Jesus as the only incarnation of God upon earth (1).

They agree upon the redemptive nature of his death as well as belief in him as the only means of salvation (1). The presence of Jesus in the sacraments is acknowledged, though the nature of that presence is not clarified. Additionally, the spirit of Jesus is understood to be guiding the Moravian Church (1).

Moravians define themselves as Christians through their focus and reliance on God as guiding them. In The Ground of the Unity, Moravians acknowledge their church as “a Church of sinners” that “[requires] forgiveness daily” (1). Thus, Moravians maintain a perspective of humility, in which they recognize 17

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

than human.

human comprehension (2). Additionally, the Moravian Church understands that divisions within the church also obscure the true meaning of the Gospel.

Missions serve God by bringing the message of the Gospel to the world. Thus, the Moravian commitment to missions remains, as seen in The Ground of the Unity. Moravians are to undertake missions, “both at home and abroad” (3). However, they are to perform this duty “with unselfish service” (3). One may stretch the definition of “unselfish service” to incorporate the cultural awareness of the past Moravian missionaries, in order to promote it to the current ones. Missions are a manifestation of the belief that Christ died for the salvation of all of humanity. Also, they can be understood as a “fearless testimony”, which Moravians are ordered to give “in every age” (2).

In addition to a deep desire to avoid interreligious conflict, the Moravians embrace ecumenism for the sake of pursuing a unified Christian church. Moravians understand the death of Christ as serving to “unite the scattered children of God” (3); thus, they work towards the realization of this unity. However, the Moravians are clear to maintain that unity does not mean homogeneity. They assert that they “recognize that through the grace of Christ the different churches have received many gifts” (3). Thus, the ecumenical focus of the Moravian Church allows a toleration of interdenominational difference that coexists with a striving for inter-denominational unity.

Service to Humanity: Moravians have a history of serving humanity. Even in times of war, Moravians pacifism prompted them to care for the wounded among their enemies. Although Moravians are no longer strict pacifists, they continue to serve humanity through charitable works in their community. Even when they lived in closed communities, the Moravians still maintained interaction with the outside world.

Undertaking Missions: Another founding principle of the Moravian Church was missions.

Although the idea of missions did not originate with the Moravians, they further developed the process. In fact, Moravians became known for their missions as they put the full weight of their community behind mission-work.

They were distinct in recording elements of the native culture of the peoples they were trying to convert, including the language of several Native American groups. Zinzendorf supported missions and their cultural sensitivity; he felt that all peoples had a notion of God before the missionaries arrived, and that missionaries could tap into that. He seemed to reject the notion of non-Christian peoples as being less

Both of the previous principles of Moravian theology fit within the overarching theme of service to humanity. Ecumenism, as it deters violence and helps Christians in working towards their vision of a united Church, benefits people. Missions help bring Christianity to other cultures, as well as allow Moravians to act as witnesses on the behalf of Christ.

Additionally, mission and service to humanity 18

Moravian Theology Today

are directly linked in The Ground of the Unity (1). Thus, both ecumenism and missions serve God as well as humanity.

In conclusion, The Ground of the Unity shows Moravian theology to be service to God through identifying with God, striving for ecumenism, undertaking missions, and serving humanity. In an age of extreme self-centeredness, a Moravian theology of service is sorely needed.

Moravians are Christians who serve Christ in even the darkest of times; one only need look to the story of the Moravians who impressed Wesley by maintaining faith in the face of a potentially lethal storm to understand the Moravian sense of service. This dedication, much more than Osteen’s gospel of “belief while waiting to be served,” will provide inspiration in a world that sorely needs an ethic of service.

A Much-Needed Doctrine: Moravian theology, as exemplified in service to God and all that entails, is needed in the world today as a counter-balance to the prevalence of egotism.

In addition to fighting secular self-centeredness, Moravian theology must face it within the religious sphere as well. An example of egotism taking on the veneer of Christianity is the sermons of Joel Osteen. I will briefly compare Moravian theology to a sermon given by Joel Osteen to show the importance and need for Moravian theology in the world today.

While Moravians define their purpose as to serve God, Osteen would seem to define his congregation’s purpose as to be served by God. According to Osteen’s sermon, one has only to be open to God and open to seeing God as working through even the bad events in one’s life, in order to receive God’s rewards. There is no essence of serving God or one another in this sermon. The focus is entirely on oneself and the benefits one can derive from being a Christian. Moravians emphasized that each individual must develop a personal relationship with Christ; however, they did not intend for that relationship to become the focus to the point of excluding an individual Moravian’s other Christian duties. For Osteen, the Moravian tenants of service to God and service to humanity have been collapsed and reversed; humanity is forgotten, and God is to serve the believer.

Caroljane Roberson just completed her Masters of Religion at Wake Forest University.

Her thesis was on medieval Italian saints.

19

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Anthony E. Hayworth view toward the rear has been obscured with enculturation and syncretism. Going back to my “diluted” adjective, our theology is like weak tea, why bother? It seems that many do not bother!

What is Moravian theology? This is the question I will address in this essay. We will find that getting an answer is only possible through some significant digging. The reason for required digging? Moravian theology seemed alive and well in the Ancient Unity and the Renewed Moravian Church until 1760. That was the year Zinzendorf died. The Ancient Unity had become what Comenius called “the hidden seed.” It was from the hidden seed that the Renewed Moravian Church was born in 1727 by an act of the Holy Spirit. Following Zinzendorf ’s death, elements of the church were so worn down by the struggle of convincing others that Moravians were not heretics, that they dismantled Zinzendorf ’s heart theology.

Moravian theology was so linked and intertwined with Zinzendorf, that his theology of the heart was replaced with more orthodox Protestant theology; Moravian theology was diluted and weakened. What now exists is a theological concoction that is not nearly as “Moravian” as it was in the 18th century. Moravian theology does in fact exist even though veiled by current tradition and practice and not distinguishable as a distinct theology.

The reason to bother is that theology is the fiber that binds the faith life together, particularly one that exists within a faith community (as if there is another way). I never expected to become a theologian by going to seminary. Someone should have warned me.

There have been all the warning signs. I seem to be most close to my Moravian Theological Seminary (MTS) theology professor. How did that happen? I knew inside of my being that taking Moravian Theology at WFU Divinity School was a must, even if I could not explain why. Even if my wife could not understand why I would take another class that I did not need (graduating with 19 extra credits). And that pained questioning look on my motherin-law’s face when she made the statement/ question: “So doing a thesis is not required for graduation!?”

My declaration is that pastors must reflect theologically on all aspects of their ministry and congregational life! I have become a theological reflecting machine, albeit a very inefficient and untested one, but one nevertheless. Now that I have excised my random thoughts about theology—it seems this last seminary paper was the place to do it—I will move on to a more coherent path. The main thrust of this paper will be my reflections on a golden nugget that

I continue to be fascinated at the unfolding of the spiritual journey. I am thinking of my own journey; however, groups, congregations, and denominations also have distinguishable journeys. The journeys seem to always be visible from the backside, after the path has been crossed. My concern with Moravian theology is that there is no guiding light forward and the 20

Moravian Theology Today

I came across—one that we seemed to have missed this semester. It allows me to focus and reflect on my own theological birthing, reflect on the state of Moravian theology, and to unfold my own idea for a path forward. The nugget is “Faith, Love and Hope: the Moravian Theological Heritage” presented at the 2004 Moses Lectures by Craig D. Atwood. I consider it “golden” because it is a modern theological statement—we need more scholarly research and theological statements.

Herrnhut. That first light he gazed upon through the woods was more than a lamp on a cabin. It was a light into his future. In his sermons, writings, hymns, and liturgies, I find a clear connection between his conversion experience and his theological reflection; he is passionate and driven. Zinzendorf’s statement, upon his reading Ration Disciplinae, indicates that he was a person of deep theological reflection. He was looking into the history of the Unitas Fratrum and making a connection with his time period. Zinzendorf’s reflection: “‘I will, as far as I can, help to bring about this renewal.

And though I have to sacrifice my earthly possessions, my honors, and my life, as long as I live, and as far as I will be able to provide, even after my death for such a consummation, this little company of the Lords’ disciples shall be preserved in Him until He comes.’ ”1 As a Moravian, I pray that Zinzendorf’s passion and theology of the heart come alive, in appropriate rituals and structures within the Unitas Fratrum again. In our individualistic culture we are a people far removed from the spirit of sacrifice of which he speaks.

My own experience, as I noted above, certainly bears out the truth “that the pastor is first a theologian, second a preacher, and third a teacher.” I have learned from my own experience that the life of a pastor is filled with things to do. There always seems to be some “urgency” vying for the minister’s attention.

Might we never then get to the “important” things? There are two most important things for the pastor that often get pushed aside: theological reflection and spiritual formation.

They exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other. Merriam-Webster’s second definition is the one that fits “symbiotic:” “a cooperative relationship.” I believe this connection, in regard to Moravian theology, is ignored and/or broken.

Somewhere in the past the spiritual/theological connection was purposely severed.

Arthur Freeman’s comments about those things ESSENTIAL seem a good jumping off point. Freeman says that “Zinzendorf defined the Essential as ‘the heart relationship with the Savior.’ ”2 Freeman gives a great summary of Zinzendorf: “By being in relationship with the Savior one experienced all of God and the heart (not the physical heart but a spiritual inner organ of perception) was understood as our capacity for knowing, perceiving and responding to God.”3 What an awesome and

The connection of one’s spirit and theology is an essential that I experience in Zinzendorf ’s heart theology. His own spiritual awakening occurred at ten years old. This conversion experience was able to bear fruit in his relationship with the exiles who gathered in 21

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

descriptive phrase “spiritual inner organ of perception.” Thinking back over this semester, maybe the one thing that we Moravians have lost contact with is our “spiritual inner organ of perception.” I have the distinct impression that the conservative movement that followed Zinzendorf ’s death effectively hid the Moravian spiritual organ. In Zinzendorf ’s language, might the “spiritual inner organ” be the Christcenter within us? Because denominations consist of communities of faith, the Christcenter takes on a communal nature. When the communal nature of the Unity was removed via conversion of the communal communities to secular economies, Moravians lost what I have called the “spiritual compass.”

Atwood says that Moravians “have defined doctrine through administrative fiat rather than sustained serious engagement with both our own theological heritage and the main currents of modern theological discussion.” I discovered this to be true when I was a student at Moravian Theological Seminary. Near the end of my first semester, we Moravians were discussing how to establish a structure to open up most substantive theological dialogue. We were very close to establishing a group for passionate theological discussion (something akin to the Order to the Grain of Mustard Seed) when my main cohort left seminary after his first year. My second attempt was to re-establish the Moravian Evangelism Circle as a weekly tabletop discussion. But alas, I came back to Winston-Salem after my second year and that project was not completed. Needless to say, even in the Moravian Seminary there is a need for improved theological discussion.

If it is not happening at that institution, it is difficult for me to see it happening anywhere else. Atwood concludes: “The fact that we are not engaged in open discussion is itself both a symptom and a cause of our current crisis” (2).

It is time for some open discussion.

Instead of a Moravian spiritual compass, the Moravians intentionally took on the look and feel of any old Protestant faith. Moravians have lost their true bearing which bore much fruit in the church’s history from the 15th to 18th centuries. Atwood’s statement draws the same conclusion: “One reason we are finding it difficult to confront the challenge posed by the current cultural changes is that we do not know what our church has taught or even how Moravians have done theology.”4 I concur with this assessment. Instead of a Christ-centered community, the Moravians have tended toward the North American ego-centric notion of individualism. In a conversation with a Moravian pastor, he expressed remorse at how frequently members are lost during a family crisis. The faith community is obviously not the safe, compassionate, and loving sanctuary that Moravian doctrine suggests.

I have seen signs of a lack of unity within the Moravian Church. This takes on personal as well as corporate dimensions. Atwood’s statement is too true: “It is easy to see evil in others and ignore the evil in ourselves.”

Arthur Freeman states, when discussing the centrality of Moravian fellowship and resolving differences, The Moravian Church’s “ability to work in this way [finding resolution] indicates 22

Moravian Theology Today

that there is an implicit supposition that the sustaining of relationship is a divine imperative.

The greatest heresy in the Moravian Church is to break relationship.”5 My own experience confirms Atwood: “It is time for us all to pull back and think about who we are and what we stand for” (3).

principal of the existence and authority of God’ (B.T. Arachin 1 5b). ‘God does not accept the prayers of one who speaks lashon hara’ (Zohar, M’tzora).”7 In Judaism gossip comes in several forms. There are no fewer than 31 biblical commandments violated by gossip and slander. The rabbinical witness is ripe with exposition. “The greater the number of people who hear one’s lashron hara, the greater the sin.

Those who habitually gossip… are guilty of a much greater sin… One who continuingly speaks lashron hara commits a greater sin than idolatry, adultery, and murder.”8 From these interpretations one can understand the great emphasis the Hebrew Bible places on the power of one’s words and that slander and gossip are grievous sins. The extreme level of sin associated with gossip is hard for us in the 21st century to understand: however, the Hebrew Bible is clear: gossip is sinful and dangerous.

Theological reflection can help God reveal to us our errors in judgment and behavior.

A practical example is a tendency to avoid addressing our differences directly, tending toward the “parking lot meeting” and gossip to effect change. Often we avoid speaking with “prophetic clarity,” because “there is no security when justice is denied.”6 Prophets are not popular. “Speaking with slander and malice against each other” seems to have become a pastime. I did some research and the Israelites consider slander a more grievous sin than murder or adultery. Gossip and other forms of malice are an easy path forward and tear apart community. We do need to get back to the Essential of Moravian faith and move into a time of renewal.

How can we apply these teachings to our own day and time? Wayne E. Oates, in a book about the systems of our interactions with one another, tells us that if we want to overcome gossip we must move “out of a ‘blame frame’ into a shared responsibility mode… [which] distributes the burden throughout the system [the system being the established forms of communication in organizations]; [Oates says that] no one is to blame but everyone is responsible.” He goes on to say that “withheld information creates damaging secrets, whether in the family or in the church; a free flow of information is needed for healthy relationships.

When information is held back from one part of the system, conflict arises and troublesome

Is there a theological basis to interpret specific contemporary issues such as gossip?

That is, does the Word of God offer any guidance about gossip? Yes, in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible we learn how the Jewish people regarded the power of words. In an article “Sacred Speech Sacred Communities” Margaret Wenig explains the sinful nature of gossip. For “rabbis, gossip was a serious crime: ‘One who speaks lashon hara [gossip] … denies the fundamental 23

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

people surface as leaders of subsystems.”9 Oates’s work is tailored for the business world. Are there similar applications to congregational life?

Another practical application of theology: As Moravians shouldn’t we more fully rediscover our ecumenical and missionary spirit? During my trip to New York City with Dr. Bailey’s Urban Ministry Class, I attended worship at Metropolitan Community Church. It meets the needs of the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transsexual) community. I thought of this when reading “Just when it is most vital that we offer the world the good news of redemption and reconciliation, we are gnawing on old fruitless debates about salvation.”11 The LGBT congregation is a community that has been oppressed and marginalized. I so desperately pray that Moravians could be an inclusive denomination. If we are unable to come to terms with our doctrine of salvation, how can we advance to the next step and include those that Jesus ministered? With all the evidence of discord, it may be awhile.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer describes the important aspects of Christian community in his book Life Together.10 Bonhoeffer explains the power of the spoken word, our human tendencies toward one another and how we must act. All persons will be drawn to compare themselves to others, which is to determine how they are greater than another. From Luke 9:46 “There arose a reasoning among them. Which of them should be the greatest.” “This is enough to destroy a fellowship. Hence it is vitally necessary that every Christian community from the very outset face this dangerous enemy squarely, and eradicate it” (90). “It is the struggle of the natural man for self-justification.

He finds it only in comparing himself with other, in condemning and judging others.

Self-justification and judging go together, as grace and serving go together” (91). “Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if absolutely reuse to allow them to be expressed in words” (91). “Thus it must be a decisive rule of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him… to speak about a brother covertly is of forbidden, even under the cloak of help and good will; for it is precisely in the guise that the spirit of hatred among brothers always creeps in when it is seeking to create mischief ” (92).

“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).

Moravians have neglected their heritage.

How it must have been to know theology within life itself, to live as Atwood says: “People did not study Moravian theology because they lived it” (4). Moravian theology is taught as one-half of a two-hour course at Moravian Seminary. I conclude that not only do we not live Moravian theology; we don’t teach it to our clergy. As more and more Moravian pastors obtain their M.Div. degrees from places other than MTS this problem will compound. I have been fortunate to have four credit hours of Moravian theology. I feel as though I am only scratching the surface. I have numerous books to reread and a thesis to write. Maybe then I will be getting closer. The thesis itself 24

Moravian Theology Today

is a theological topic. Now that a thesis is not required for graduation from the MTS, the amount of scholarly work must have dropped.

I do not have any firm data on this; however, just looking at the thesis shelves in Reeves Library confirms my suspicion. If our seminary students are not creating new scholarship about Moravian theology, I believe the denomination is at a severe disadvantage. This disadvantage must translate into a lower level of theological knowledge in Moravian congregations.

idea what theology really was. Now coming out of seminary, I have found that all of life requires theological reflection. We must reflect on our most foundational documents such as The Ground of the Unity and the Moravian Covenant for Christians Living as well as other mundane topics. A case in point: golfing.

Before I went to seminary I played golf most every weekend and I practiced two or three times per week. As one who is theologically reflective I now ask the following questions: Is golf a proper use of a pastor’s time? Is it too expensive? Is it a proper activity for pastor’s selfcare? Should I be a volunteer during the time I golf? Is it OK to do in the morning before my office hours? It is a great benefit to theologically reflect; it is also a burden as well because it may lead to modification of current practice.

I suppose it was much easier in the communal towns of 18th century Moravians when all aspects of life (religion, social, economic) were interwoven. It is much easier to look at the secular world as the standard of comparison instead of Moravian history and tradition.

Ultimately, more “God-inspired and Goddirected discourse” (7) will have an impact of the lives of our clergy, families, congregations, denomination, and communities around the Moravian churches.

I have wondered this semester about where Zinzendorfian theology and liturgy can be found. There is little evidence of it where I have worshiped. This is evidence of low practical knowledge about theology, traditional Moravian liturgy and worship, and history. Biblical knowledge is nearly absent and people do not seem interested in learning. In my first student ministry, the congregation of about 80 active members did not have an Adult Sunday School Class. Without the opportunity for Christian Education, people will become more and more like their Protestant neighbors and friends.

Whatever distinctive qualities Moravians have will become diluted to the point of oblivion.

Based on these observations it is true that “Moravian history [and worship practices have] become a matter of ancestor worship rather that a critical and fruitful engagement with the past” (5). If we are to climb out of this hole of ignorance, our seminary needs to be the first resource.

Moravian doctrine is selectively applied. I know this from my own experience and from the stories that “make the circuit.” I agree that “a doctrinal tradition [is needed] is order to function and carry out its mission” (8). However, I observe that doctrine has taken a back seat to maintaining the institutional church. I am

Yes indeed, “Theology is the life of the church.” Before going to seminary I had no 25

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

I favor a small group model similar to the banden, the precursor to the choir system.

All members of the congregation could be associated with a small group. Within the small groups, theological discussions could take place.

The groups could be a place for specialization of worship, spiritual formation, Christian Education, service to the congregation, and mission work. Mission work should be balanced (80/20) on the local community and the world.

When I read The Moravian there are many articles on overseas mission. These efforts seem to downplay mission in North America. Local mission could be a training field for renewing world-wide mission activity. Within the groups we could retell the history of the Ancient Unity and the early Renewed Moravian Church.

Appropriate forms of theological expression from Zinzendorf ’s heart religion could be taught and revisioned for the 21st century. For this plan or any other to take place, a significant time of prayer and discernment would be necessary. By reorienting toward Christ as Chief Elder, the Holy Spirit might better renew the Moravian Church. With patience, humility and devotion, the church would prepare for the Holy Spirit to work according to God’s timetable. I pray that the Moravian spiritual inner organ of perception is brought back to life by and through the power of the Holy Spirit.

a newcomer and I have little experience as a minister, but faith, love, and hope need to make a comeback. Moravian practice does not match its doctrine. The crux is that Moravians have lost Christ as the central element. A healthy dose of Zinzendorf might get renewal started.

Efforts at spiritual formation must become the focus of all congregations at the congregational level, not just the purview of a few people taking Gemeinschaft. Moravian theology needs to be recovered for this to happen. It will be a slow and difficult challenge. With many people only willing to spend one hour out of onehundred and sixty-eight hours available per week in church life, any request for a deeper spiritual journey might fall on many deaf ears.

The history of Moravian communal life is not recoverable or even desirable. The spirit and piety of Zinzendorf might be. How might the 21st century “sifting period” look? I think that we are in the middle of one.

Enumerating the theological challenges facing the Moravian Church indicates that the passion and piety of Zinzendorf ’s heart religion has been lost. However, with challenge and adversity we might expect renewal and restoration. I believe Moravians should reestablish some Pietist ideals in a new format within a community structure that provides an opportunity for worship, fellowship, spiritual formation, Christian Education, historical studies, theological reflection, service (to the faith community), and mission (primarily to the local community but also to the world).

Community, appropriate to the 21st century, must be discovered, planned, and implemented.

26

Moravian Theology Today

Endnotes 1

2

Edmund De Schweinitz, The History of the Church Known as the Unitas Fratrum or the Unity of the Brethren, 2 ed. (Bethlehem, PA: The Moravian Publication Concern, 1901), 605.

6

Ibid., 4.

7

Arthur Freeman, ed., Commentary on The Ground of the Unity, vol. 12, No. 2, The Hinge (Moravian Theological Seminary: Summer 2005), 3.

Margaret Moers Wenig, “Sacred Speech--Sacred Communities,” Reconstructionist 67, no. 1 (2002): 43.

8

Ibid.

9

Wayne E. Oates, The Care of Troublesome People (New York: The Alban Institute, 1994), x.

3

Ibid., 3-4.

4

Atwood, “Faith, Love, and Hope: The Moravian Theological Heritage,” 1.

5

Arthur J. Freeman, An Ecumenical Theology of the Heart: The Theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (Bethlehem, Pa.: Moravian Church in America, 1998), 8.

10

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, English Translation of Gemeinsames Leben ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1954), 90.

11

Atwood, “Faith, Love, and Hope: The Moravian Theological Heritage,” 4.

The Rev. Anthony Hayworth graduated from Moravian Theological Seminary in 2008 and is pastor of Grace Moravian Church in Mount Airy, NC.

27

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Andrew Heil of humanity from the stains of sin. The word of the cross, the mystery of Jesus Christ, is “revealed completely and clearly” within the Holy Scriptures and is the center of the Old and New Testaments.

The opening words of The Ground of the Unity read: “The Lord Jesus Christ calls His Church into being so that it might serve Him on earth until He comes.” This phrase serves to encompass the entire document, and in my experience summarizes the uniqueness of Moravian theology for the Church today. This phrase contains what has consistently been the foundation for the history of the Unitas Fratrum, a firm proclamation of the significance of both Jesus Christ and His Church. There is much more to be found within The Ground of the Unity, however, everything comes back to these central themes.

The Ground of the Unity understands the Church to be made up of sinners. This is reminiscent of Martin Luther’s theology of the Church, a people who are simultaneously sinners and saints. The cross of Jesus Christ is the shield of faith for Moravian theology; the instrument of God’s grace which covers the sins of humanity’s past, present, and future.

There is not an explicit doctrine of sin or an extended list of forbidden behaviors found in The Ground of the Unity. The only references available for us to formulate an understanding of sin are found: 1) in the reference to the historical creeds and confessions of the Christian Church, and 2) two references to redemption in Jesus Christ, whose mercy redeems believers from their isolation (division) and unites the children of God into His Church. Once again, it is not difficult to notice that there remains an emphasis on the importance of the Church of Jesus Christ. Within the recognition of the certain historical confessions of faith, it is important to notice that the council of Chalcedon is missing. This is most likely a statement against political resistance that took place around the council. Also, this council witnesses to the first major divisions among the churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Armenian). In true ecumenical fashion, the

In The Ground of the Unity the doctrine of the Trinity is presented quite clearly. However, a description of the make-up of the divine essence and its perichoresis cannot be found.

Like the theology of the Count Zinzendorf, modern Moravian theology teaches that God in Jesus Christ reveals in fullness the nature of the Trinitarian God. Consequently, the Christian life in its entirety is manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. There have been Christians throughout history to accuse the Moravian brethren of neglecting the Father. However, the Church wholeheartedly stands under the writings of the gospels when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Therefore, in my understanding of Moravian theology, the revelation of the Son is the revelation of the Father. God’s complete revelation in Jesus of Nazareth existed for the purpose of his death and resurrection, the full redemption 28

Moravian Theology Today

Moravian Church has chosen to distance itself from events that have elements of doctrine that create division.

the grace of Christ the different churches have received many gifts.” This firmly establishes the continuity that the Moravian Church seeks with the diverse Christian community—not a submission of authority, but a common confession of witness and purpose. Without this unity, The Ground of the Unity argues that ecclesiastical divisions thwart the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this way, all churches are responsible for this division until all seek unity in Jesus Christ.

“He (Jesus Christ) joins us together mutually, so that knowing ourselves to be members of His body we become willing to serve each other.” Within The Ground of the Unity, the gift of the Church is not only indicative of the salvation found in Christ, but is also its present manifestation on the earth.

However, the Church is currently divided, indicative of the world’s current fallen state.

Nonetheless, the sacrament of communion is the means by which we are reminded of Jesus’ promise to unite the Church. The real presence of Jesus Christ in communion “makes evident” the unity that believers have in Christ. Unity in Christ is the foundation for unity of the Church. When believers are gathered in the name of Christ, their united confession of faith unites them, a foreshadowing of a greater unity still to come.

The firm declaration of The Ground of the Unity to unite the Church also provides a detailed description of how the members of the body of Christ should act toward one another.

First, the Moravian Church seeks to recognize no distinction between the members of the body of Christ, forbidding any discrimination on the basis of “ethnic origin, sex, or social standing.”

Being aware of Moravian global missions, this declaration seems quite necessary. For all of humanity to be united in Christ (the purpose of the Church), there is a need for the Church to be open to all people.

The practice of communion within the Moravian Church is not a mystical experience, but a true witness to the unity of the Church.

For this reason, The Ground of the Unity reminds the reader of the Holy Communion of August 13, 1727 in Berthelsdorf, the day in which the historical tradition of the Unity of the Brethren was reborn, establishing continuity of witness and purpose within the Christian tradition(s). The Ground of the Unity also speaks to the diversity of the Christian Church.

Not only does it specifically refer to the different churches as such, but recognizes that “through

In addition, the Church of Jesus Christ is a unique manifestation of grace, and therefore should not to succumb to the hate that has consistently divided humanity throughout history. This example of love extends to neighbors within the Church and the entire world, challenging “humanity with the message of the love of God, striving to promote the peace of the world and seeking to attain what is best for all.” The witness of love towards all of humanity is the beginning and fulfillment of 29

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

the task of the Church to create an atmosphere for the return of Jesus Christ; victorious over sin and death.

there is a need to expound upon this proclamation. Also, although the Moravian Church suggests that it has intentionally neglected to articulate a doctrinal statement, its reliance on certain historical confessions and the statement concerning the lack of doctrinal systems within scripture is in fact a doctrinal statement. And because all of the historical confessions included in The Ground of the Unity are all traditionally accepted by the churches of the Reformation, clarification is needed when relating to the Roman Catholic Church and younger Protestant traditions in ecumenical dialogue. Nonetheless, the theology of The Ground of the Unity coincides with the attempt of the Moravian Church to remain but one member of the body of Christ among many, rather than its authority.

The theology of the Moravian Church is founded upon both scripture and tradition(s), in continuous reflection upon the original revelation of God in Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit. In the hope of communicating a “fuller understanding and clearer proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the function of tradition within the Moravian Church remains congruent with that of the reformation churches. The Moravian Church argues that there is not one, single doctrinal system found within the Holy Scriptures. As a result, they have not developed a doctrinal system, believing that “the mystery of Jesus Christ which is attested to in the Bible, cannot be comprehended completely by any human mind or expressed completely in any human statement.” But the Holy Spirit has revealed God’s will for salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Moravian Church also relies upon certain creeds within the history of the Christian Church which have explained the essential doctrines of Christianity in “clear and simple expression.”

Moravian theology today within The Ground of the Unity articulates the Christian faith within the confines of the relationship of Jesus Christ to His Church. Every principle of the document takes place within this relationship and all creeds are tested on account of it. In my opinion, this document is significant for the Church today for several reasons. It provides a voice of unity and hope into a Church that is fractured and broken.

This document also makes room for dialogue between different congregations, instead of arguing for a strict allegiance to an individual system of principles. This encourages churches to exist within their uniqueness, similar to the ecumenical concept of unity within diversity. This creates certain difficulties when attempting to relate to diverse traditions. Since

There are statements within The Ground of the Unity that are in need of attention for the sake of the Moravian Church’s future involvement in the ecumenical movement. It would be beneficial to explain their insistence that all of Christendom holds to a Trinitarian confession of faith. Unless this is an intentional statement against Unitarian congregations, 30

Moravian Theology Today

The Ground of the Unity includes a discussion on the “boundary of heresies,� therein specifies the limit for diversity to occur. In such a case, churches who do not adhere to orthodoxy find themselves on the margins of the Christian faith. This raises the common problem within ecumenical theology on the role of tradition, authority, and the extent of Christian diversity.

age of wars between Christians. The Renewed Moravian brethren were also marginalized within their unique communities; attempting to be Christian witnesses to the ever-changing modern world. In this way, I think it is profound that The Ground of the Unity exists within this tradition of Christians who know how it feels to be left out of the unity. The history of the Moravian Church is filled with men and women who attempted to remain faithful to their ecumenical convictions. If the current ecumenical movement seeks to move forward in its quest for unity, it is necessary for it to pay more attention to their elder brothers and sisters.

Lastly, I would suggest that The Ground of the Unity is significant because of its honesty.

The history of the Unitas Fratrum is a history of people on the margins. The Ancient Unity was largely ignored during the ecumenical situation of the 17th century. As a pacifist church, it also found itself diminished by an

Andrew Heil is a member of the Church of God and is in the second year of the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

31

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Philip Pfeiffer emotion. In this regard, the same principle of orthopraxy (right living) over orthodoxy (right belief) is also at work in this essential of Moravian theology. Furthermore, this essential of the faith has to do with following the will of God, his purposes for this world and having a hand in making it a better place for all his creation. For instance, in the Ancient Unity and the Renewed Moravian Church this purpose, with a singular focus and devotion, was the spreading of the Gospel message to the entire world. For the latter, this included an unprecedented effort in mission work all over the world that demanded the commitment of one’s entire life and great personal sacrifice put into action to this end.

Moravian theology to me, based on my continued studies in the Theology of the Heart, is simply the essential work of God in creation, redemption and sanctification through the work of the Father, Son and the one who brings blessing (Holy Spirit) and the human response to God’s work in faith, love and hope. This is a simple statement, but it represents the heart of Moravian theology over the last 550 years that continues today.

The response in faith is clearly seen in the Heart Theology of Zinzendorf and modeled in the lives of the early members of the Renewed Moravian Church. It is a faith and lifestyle that is based on orthopraxy (right living) rather than orthodoxy (right belief), producing the virtues of humility, gentleness, unity, friendliness, patience and doing good to others. This faith, evident in the lives of the members of the Ancient Unity and the Renewed Moravian Church, through the daily life lived out both individually and collectively in the context of the closed-communities they were a part of, is a Christocentric faith that melds the sacred and the secular of one’s life into a 24 hour a day/7 days a week visible and real love for the Savior and for others that flows from the heart.

It is a response to the Gospel message that is shown in the reality of one’s daily life modeling the Gospel message to the world.

The response to hope, which was the most powerful and meaningful essential to me personally in my studies, is the essential that allows a believer to look toward the future with confidence and expectation rather than with fear and anxiety. It is also the essential that speaks to hope in this life and the next, knowing who you are and where you’re going due to Christ’s work of salvation and redemption in your heart. What really speaks to me regarding this essential is the recurring theme that as a Christian, living out the Gospel in this world, we ought not to be filled with fear and anxiety, no matter how dark or bleak things may look. Rather, if our heart is right with God, we ought to respond daily with expectation and an embracing of life with confidence as we look to live out the Gospel message in this world.

We must choose hope. We must bring hope to this world in both our words and our actions.

The response in love to God’s work is based, according to Moravian theology, on Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. It has to do with a real, tangible love for your neighbor and even for your enemy that is based on action and not 32

Moravian Theology Today

We can see this recurring theme of living out these three essentials through the work of God in our inner life in all the main documents of the Moravian Church through the ages (Ratio Disciplinae of the Unity, Brotherly Agreement of the Renewed Moravian Church, the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living of the modern Moravian Church). Sometimes in the past more forcefully, more thoroughly, more passionately.

Sometimes in the present more subtly, more subdued, more succinct. But these essentials are the basis of Moravian theology and are also evident in the words of The Ground of the Unity and the Essential Features of the Unity, two contemporary documents of the church, as follows:

 Confesses its sins and accepts forgiveness for them,  Seeks and maintains fellowship with its Lord and Redeemer by means of the Sacraments,  Places its whole life under His rule and daily leading,  Ministers to its neighbor and seeks fellowship with all who confess Christ,  Proclaims to the world the tidings concerning the Saviour,  Awaits wholeheartedly the coming of its Lord as King.

Why is Moravian theology important today? Because Christ’s church still resides on the earth today, as it has since the first century, and these are the biblical and essential principles established by the early church for the universal church in Christ Jesus through the ages, based on his teachings to us and the world, and the work of the church in this world today is the same as it has always been—to lead us all to greater faith, love and hope through the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit/the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, in our hearts. I pray this will hold true in the Moravian Church today, as in ages past, so that we might continue to be equipped as a church to accomplish great things for God and to proclaim his Gospel message according to his will in the world today.

“With the whole of Christendom we share faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe and confess that God has revealed Himself once and for all in His Son Jesus Christ; that our Lord has redeemed us with the whole of humanity

by His death and His resurrection; and that there is no salvation apart from Him. We believe that He is present with us in the Word and the Sacrament’ that He directs and unites us through His Spirit and thus forms us into a Church. We hear Him summoning us to follow Him, and pray Him to use us in His service. He joins us together mutually, so that knowing ourselves to be members of His body we become willing to serve each other.”

Essential Features of the Unity A living church is the clearest witness for its Lord to the world. A church is and remains a living one when it:

Philip Pfeiffer is a Moravian and is in his second year of the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

 Is attentive to God’s Word, 33

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Amanda Singleton In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.

that have been retained (like the emphasis on community). Side by side, these unchanged doctrines and revamped doctrines reveal the real strength of the Moravian Church: rooted in history, yet contemporary; cutting-edge, yet traditional; unifying, yet distinctive.

The Moravian Church in America champions this brief statement as a motto of sorts (the website for the Southern Province displays it proudly on its homepage). The statement has been used and abused in countless Christian denominations and groups by persons seeking resolution of disputes, a smoothing over of hurt feelings, a false middle ground from which to attack, or just a cool slogan to put on a T-shirt. Despite its potential for misuse, I do believe that Moravians believe it wholeheartedly when they affirm this simple statement.

While it is a beautiful statement to make about the universal Church as a whole, I wonder how well this motto works as a credo for Moravians. Can the Moravian Church achieve such unity while retaining its uniqueness?

What distinctiveness does it have to give up?

Zinzendorf ’s theology was radical and bloody; this theology did not live for long after his death. Does this mean that Moravian theology has been lost—that it is no longer relevant in our day?

Few church doctrines do last for 250 years without some sort of modification. This is especially true for controversial doctrines and teachings, such as Zinzendorf ’s blood mysticism and wounds theology. The Ground of the Unity makes no mention of the side wound of Jesus, the “narrow door, the portal to paradise, the means of entry into the body of Christ”1 and the focal point of much devotion during Zinzendorf ’s day. Nor does the blood of Christ—the source of life and the means by which the Spirit is poured out on all creation2—appear in this document. Such a focus on the blood and wounds of Christ was deemed too controversial, too shockingly literal, by many other Protestant groups in the eighteenth century. Thus, references to the blood and wounds were removed from hymns and litanies; the Litany of the Wounds, beloved in Zinzendorf ’s day, fell out of use as well.

On the contrary, Moravian theology remains relevant today precisely because of the Zinzendorfian theology that remains a part of Moravian confessional life. In The Ground of the Unity, the current Moravian confession of faith, we can see evidence of doctrines that have been tamed since Zinzendorf (such as Zinzendorf ’s wounds theology) and doctrines

However, the cross image remains in The Ground of the Unity: “We are called to testify that God in Jesus Christ…pardons sinners beneath the Cross and brings them together.”

The cross—a more sanitized offense—is an acceptable focus where the wounds are not.

The literal gory wounds of Christ become a more metaphorical image of suffering on the 34

Moravian Theology Today

America, it is noteworthy that The Ground of the Unity includes no statement about the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture in its section on “God’s Word and Doctrine.”

Zinzendorf admits and accepts errors in the Bible, finding in them “unassailable proof for [the Bible’s] divinity.”3 While the writers of The Ground of the Unity did not necessarily make this last leap with Zinzendorf, they also left the interpretation question open.

cross, an image that is more appropriately scandalous. The intended emphasis remains in part: Christ the Savior’s death has saving power.

Yet the wounded Savior of Zinzendorf stirs the emotions more than an image of the cross. The blood and wounds of the Savior are grotesque, to be sure. In changing the focal point from that of blood and wounds to that of a cross, though, the Moravians lost rich imagery and vitality.

For the sake of unity in the Church universal, this doctrine shifted from controversial to more traditional. The blood and wounds are not a unifying doctrine; the cross is.

Their statement on Scripture affirms the Bible as authoritative without making any claims regarding infallibility or inerrancy. In doing so (or not doing so), the Moravians again extend the bounds of unity to a wide range of persons and groups within the church.

Several doctrines have remained more or less the same from Zinzendorf to the present day. Of these, I will discuss two: the place of Scripture and their focus on unity. Zinzendorf placed great value on Scripture, as does The Ground of the Unity, which states that “Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life.” And, like Zinzendorf, The Ground of the Unity affirms the “continual search for sound doctrine.” The Gospel is mysterious—Jesus is mysterious—and cannot be narrowed down to one simple declaration.

The Moravian Church, then, is open to a fuller understanding of doctrines which they have held for ages.

The Moravian Church would not be a Unity without its unending concern for community and unity within the Church. Throughout The Ground of the Unity, a pervasive theme is unity—unity with Christ, unity among Christians, and unity as a Christian community, the Church. In fact, Jesus’ death was to bring about unity: “We believe in and confess the Unity of the Church given in the one Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. He died that He might unite the scattered children of God. As the living Lord and Shepherd, He is leading his flock toward such unity.”

The dynamic nature of proclamation and understanding of the text remains grounded in experience and ongoing revelation, for the Moravian Church now as it was during the ministry of Zinzendorf. Given the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, especially in

“[We] welcome every step that brings us nearer the goal of unity in Him.” Everything the Moravian Church does, then, is done toward this goal, including the ecumenical efforts of Moravians. Earlier in this confession of faith are listed ten different creeds from various 35

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Christian traditions, all of which have been used by Moravians at different times and in different locations around the globe. This serves as a further example of the diversity of people brought together—people who all consider themselves to be Moravians. Clearly, the aim of the Moravian Church, as stated in The Ground of the Unity, is to bring together the Church, unified under its head, Christ. Unity is so ingrained in who they are that the term appears everywhere—in their alternate name (Unitas Fratrum, or “Unity of the Brethren”), in their confession of faith (The Ground of the Unity), and in their motto (“In essentials, unity…”), just to name a few uses.

It is easy to critique the Moravian Church’s changes of doctrine over time when one has the benefit of hindsight. However, time has shown these changes to be based in a desire to build up a unified universal church. Such a church will certainly not lack in diversity, ideally; instead, it will welcome all who claim Christ as Savior and Redeemer of this broken world. The vision is a powerful one, and one that demands that the Moravian Church live out its motto: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.” May the Church universal learn from their example and live this motto as well, thereby bringing about the very unity for which Zinzendorf wished and labored.

In their unquenchable desire for unity, the Moravians who wrote The Ground of the Unity have simply taken up Zinzendorf ’s mantle.

Zinzendorf ’s original vision was to create the Brüdergemeine, or “Community of the Brethren,” which would be an “international, interdenominational religious fellowship”4 of Christians. Indeed, it was. In the eighteenth century, the Brüdergemeine was a diverse community, consisting of Lutherans, Reformed, and Moravians. Ethnically speaking, most were from Germany, but a sizable number were Czech, Bohemian, and Moravian. Today, the Moravian Church (as the Brüdergemeine is now known), remains diverse but united, thanks to the mission efforts initiated by Zinzendorf.5 Through evangelism and partnership with other Christian denominations, the Moravian Church is making Zinzendorf ’s vision of unity a reality. To this end, they have altered very little of Zinzendorf doctrine on the matter.

Endnotes 1

Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 107.

2

Ibid, 101.

3

Zinzendorf, quoted in Atwood, 72.

4

Atwood, 3.

5

Ibid, 4.

Amanda Singleton is a Baptist and a 2009 graduate in the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

36

Moravian Theology Today

Linda Osborne was required to be in legal conformity with the Augsburg Confession. “In a Synod at Marienborn in 1740, also known as the Doctrinal Synod, the Moravians did give a formal expression to their basic beliefs.

They said however: Every church and every dispensation has insights of its own. If one puts them in they become a confession of faith, like the one we presented to the King of Sweden in 1735. We, however, make no symbol of them as did the Lutherans in 1577, which may not later be altered. We want to retain freedom, so that our Saviour may enlighten our doctrine from time to time.” (8)

I was intrigued by the question, what is Moravian theology and if we indeed do have a theology where can I find it? So I went on a mission, and what I found was truly enlightening. Lots of books have been written about Christian theology and Christian doctrine by numerous authors. Good books with good theology in them, but none of them said “Moravian Theology.” So I began to read, Confessing Our Unity in Christ, by C. Daniel Crews, a Moravian archivist. This was a book about the historical and theological background to The Ground of the Unity.

Zinzendorf wanted to keep the Moravian Church a “little church within the church” (6) and for a while the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran state church was the confession that the Moravian Church used. The Augsburg Confession was acceptable to the Moravians and they felt no need to formulate a confession of their own. “Having nearly come to disaster at the very beginning because of factious quarrels over doctrinal differences, and have been delivered from this only by the unifying experience of the Savior’s grace and love on August 13, 1727, the Moravians, were naturally wary of attempting to forge binding theological systems” (6). So no formal confession of faith was ever formulated, but Zinzendorf ’s solid core theology of “Christ and Him crucified” (7) still remains today and is reflected throughout our hymns and liturgies.

The Moravian Church does have written theologies, liturgies, hymns, and doctrines, but they are not written in stone. They are ever changing as the Savior enlightens us. It is as if we have a confession of faith and written theologies, but they may be edited at any time.

We have an unwritten policy that when writing or rewriting such important documents, we must “save room for the Savior.” I completely applaud this concept. Who knew?

In looking at the Easter Morning liturgy in the blue hymnal of 1995, Moravian Book of Worship and the red hymnal of 1969, Hymnal and Liturgies of the Moravian Church, there were differences. First of all, the pronouns changed from “I” in the red hymnal to “we” in the blue hymnal. “Jesus descended to the dead” in the blue but the red states that Jesus “went also by the Spirit and preached unto the spirits in prison.” Did some theology change

Zinzendorf ’s theology did not allow for a total systematic theology and the church 37

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

The Ground of the Unity has and always will be scripturally based but The Ground of the Unity does not claim to be the immutable expression of all of theology for all time and that dedicated Christians may differ in their interpretation of special scriptural passages.

These scriptures do “unequivocally, and unashamedly point to Jesus Christ, our Savior and only Redeemer for all, and they insist that true faith must manifest itself in lives of loving service and humble yet joyful hope”(28).

here? Also, the blue hymnal states, “on the third day he rose again” but the red hymnal adds, and “with Him many bodies of the saints who slept.” This change is very interesting. I personally like to believe I go to be with Jesus immediately upon death. The revision opens up some room for thought and your own theology.

When I was doing my CPE at Baptist Hospital, the grieving family felt such comfort thinking that the next time their loved one opened his or her eyes; they would see the face of God. Did the liturgy change to allow room for the Savior here? Not too much has changed, but the meaning is still the same. Some wording has been changed to perhaps allow for a better understanding for today’s world.

Moravians do have a theology and it does offer space for the Savior to lead and guide us as we walk this journey of life. But one thing for sure still stands hard and fast. Christ is the Chief Elder of the Moravian Church and “Christ and Him crucified remain our confession of faith.”

Within the Liturgy of Thanksgiving in the red hymnal there appears a sentence, “The Spirit and the Bride say, Come.” Little bit of Zinzendorf here, but the blue hymnal says nothing about the bride. How sad? These are some of the revisions in wording, but the statement that I am trying to make is this— yes, we have a theology in the Moravian Church and it is not written in stone, for now and evermore. It evolves slowly as the Church and the world itself evolves. The Ground of the Unity is printed in the Unity Book of Order and is our church’s official statement on doctrine. The Moravian doctrinal statement “has sought to give expression in its own time to God’s eternal truth revealed for our salvation.

The form, wording, and emphases may have varied, though we trust that the central core has remained firm” (27).

Linda Osborne is a Moravian and a recent graduate of the M.Div. program at Wake Forest University School of Divinity. She will be doing a chaplaincy residency at Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem.

38

Moravian Theology Today

Cindy Good of the Moravian Church. His little spin on the beliefs of the Moravians eliminated many of the more radical and passionate beliefs and practices once espoused by Count Zinzendorf.

So, Moravian theology took on a more Lutheran slat without losing its Pietist heart.

One may say that the theological views which are particular to the Moravian Church were formed by an awareness that Christianity at its heart is relational and devotional, not conceptual; that the fostering of relationship with God and Christian life are central, without which concepts have no “coinage.” Conceptual, liturgical, and institutional expressions, while sharing the foundational experience of faith and life, are always shaped by historical and cultural concepts. Wilhelm Bettermann

Finally in the 19th century, the members of the church altered the theology and practices of the church in order to appear more mainstream and conservative. Some of the differences of ideas that made the Moravians a more devoted people faded in the effort to attract new members who might have been hesitant to join a church that required a daily devotional commitment.

Then again Zinzendorf, Spangenberg, and Bettermann (and probably many others) said that the theology of the Moravian Church was “shaped by historical and cultural concepts?”

Thus the change in the early 19th century was a change necessitated by the current culture, just as Zinzendorf had predicted.

The quote above was written in 1934.

From the vantage point of an almost completed semester of studying Moravian theology, Bettermann’s quote neatly sums up what I perceive to be the enthusiastic theology of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, toned down by August Gottlieb Spangenberg, and watered down by the social pressures of the 19th century. The Moravian Church of 2008 is, yet isn’t, this same church as defined by Zinzendorf and summarized by Bettermann.

In 2008 many Moravians still have difficulty defining Moravian theology. The document that comes closest to being a statement of belief, or a creed, if you will, is the Easter Morning liturgy. If you read it, not as it is usually prayed but as a doctrinal statement, it reads like a creed. There are at least twelve, give or take, “we believe” statements. It covers all aspects of the faith system from the belief in a Creator God to live after the resurrection and it still retains much of Zinzendorf ’s theology, somewhat moderated by Spangenberg.

We discussed in class about the difficulty of actually defining the doctrines of the Moravian Church because of Zinzendorf ’s opinion that the theology of the Unitas Fratrum is a Heart Theology based on a Christian’s relationship with Christ and other Christians. He firmly believed that you could not restrict this intuitive faith to set of doctrinal statements.

Spangenberg, on the other hand, being the very organized and systematic fellow that he was, attempted to define the Heart Theology 39

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

The liturgy begins with an ancient Easter greeting: “The Lord is Risen! The Lord if Risen indeed!” A Google search produced a book, The Great Forty Days, written in 1876 by Elizabeth Warren, who asserts that this greeting, pulled from the Gospel of Luke, is “universally the Easter salutation in the Greek Church, which, notwithstanding all its error, has kept fast hold of the doctrine of the Resurrection.” Any other definite statement about the origin and use of this greeting was not forthcoming in my cursory Internet search.

every Christian became a very real and physical Christian experience. He wanted them to live daily with worshiping Christ and loving their brother and sister Christians. Worshipping with, eating with, working with and resting with the other members of the Gemeine was a very real and physical experience.

The next statement of belief holds in tension the Lutheran belief of original sin tempered and Zinzendorf ’s belief that this original sin was atoned for and is no longer an eternally condemning state of being. The Easter liturgy states that we are “lost and condemned human creature[s]” but we have been delivered from this state by “his holy, precious blood and with his innocent suffering and dying.” And then there’s a telling word—happiness. Zinzendorf truly lived and believed that if a Christian lived a minute-by-minute life of worship in Christ, that person would live a life of joy even in times of trouble.

Scanning through the liturgy for elements of Zinzendorf ’s theology we find the phrase “embrace your feet in faith” in the first hymn verse. This reminds me of the Valentine painting of the women at the feet of the crucified Jesus.

The focal point of Zinzendorf ’s Heart Theology was on the incarnation of Christ, which would allow us to literally embrace the body of Christ.

The first statement of our belief includes Zinzendorf ’s belief in Jesus Christ as Creator.

This position is repeated in the next statement of belief as well: “We believe in the only Son of God, by whom all things in heaven and on earth were created.” This paragraph also reflects the Zinzendorfian focus on the incarnation of Christ: “he himself became a human being” and “being found in human form, was in every respect tempted as we are.”

Much of Zinzendorf ’s theology and practice depended on the church members feeling a real connection to Christ just as he felt a real connection to Christ. Since they were to see Christ in every aspect of their lives, the Christ in

Next we have an echo of Zinzendorf ’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit as Mother. In this paragraph we assert that the Holy Spirit comforts us “as a mother comforts her children” and also helps us and “intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.” This images reminds us of our mothers who hugged us when we were sad, who taught us how to tie our shoes and who stepped in to fight off the bullies.

Our mothers also teach us to talk especially the words for our parents “Abba, Father.”

The next statement is clearly the Zinzendorfian affirmation that we find Christ in the scriptures. The liturgy states that the 40

Moravian Theology Today

tone. We are happy and excited that Christ has defeated sin and death and that he has risen as proof that he is the Son of God. In the text, Community of the Cross, Craig Atwood describes that early liturgy as “taken from Luther’s Small Catechism, but [with] a distinctly Zinzendorfian cast.” Included was a section in which the worshipper desired “to die and be with Christ rather than live separated from him in this life.” It was also noted that they sang hymns of wounds and blood rather than the resurrection hymns we now sing.

“Holy Spirit calls us through the gospel” granting us insight into God’s will for our lives.

Scattered throughout the liturgy is a hint of ecumenism with the phrases “who made us worthy to share in the inheritance of the saints,” and “as the Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and dedicates to God the whole church on earth.”

Zinzendorf ’s conviction that all Christians are brothers and sisters regardless of religious practices and doctrines is very fulfilling to today’s modern, multicultural, tolerant, PC society. Sadly there are only these few phrases.

(Happily, there are more in the updated liturgies in the 1995 Moravian Book of Worship.)

The Easter Morning liturgy is an accurate reflection of what many Moravians believe to be their statement of faith yet it still does not speak to a few fine points such as the transformation of the sacraments vs. the symbolism of the sacraments and the very real presence of the Holy Spirit in the communion service. The Moravian Church has also refused to make statements about certain political issues confronting Moravians both in the United States and abroad. Perhaps that is intended as Zinzendorf intended. If a theology is somewhat vague, then each person is allowed to have his own opinion depending on the intimacy of their relationship with Christ, as long as those opinions don’t counter the essential element of any Christian faith: Christ was crucified for our redemption.

Most of the rest of the Easter Morning liturgy follows some standard Christian doctrines and statements of faith. We recite the Lord’s Prayer together. The belief statement following the Lord’s Prayer is a narrative combination of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, rehashing the formulaic statement of our belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the experience of his death and resurrection.

There are several unattributed scripture passages, a recounting of the Last Supper with Jesus’ words about the bread and wine. There is no indication of the Moravians’ opinion about whether the sacraments are transformed as the Augsburg Confession states (and Zinzendorf believed) or whether they are symbolic as The Ground of the Unity implies.

An obvious difference between this 20th century Easter Morning liturgy and the liturgy proclaimed by the 18th century Moravians is that this liturgy is joyful and triumphant in

Cindy Good is DCE at First Moravian Church in Greensboro, NC, and a first year student at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

41

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

Letters to the Editor I am writing in response to Andrew Lumpkin’s article in the most recent issue of The Hinge entitled “Religion and Violence.” In trying to write historically about religion and violence, Mr. Lumpkin uncritically repeats an historical canard that has itself been the cause of great violence done in the name of religion. The first of his historical examples is that of Jesus. He says the following on pg. 2: “Throughout the Gospels, the embittered Jewish elite conspired to destroy Jesus and his emerging movement. With inside help, the chief priests, elders, and scribes captured Jesus and charged him with blasphemy and treason. Their plan succeeded…and Jesus was tried and crucified.” This claim is decidedly not, as Mr. Lumpkin claims, “plain and simple.” When will we as a church stop repeating a calumny that critical scholarship has set aside? Romans killed Jesus, and for a Roman crime. Even the idea that a “Jewish elite” (in an apparent attempt to separate the “elite” from “Judaism” and all other Jews) was the cause of Jesus’ death completely overstates the historical evidence. Jesus was not crucified for either blasphemy or treason. For a variety of reasons, the gospel writers felt it necessary to shift the responsibility for Jesus’ death from Romans to Jews (and at the same time to absolve Rome of guilt), and with devastating consequences in the history of Christianity. But we have a responsibility to bring more than a surface and uncritical reading to the gospel narratives. As a scholar of ancient Judaism, I hear claims like this one made time and again, by students, by pastors and by churchgoers. Whether it is in publications like The Hinge, in the pulpit, in the Sunday school, or in the classroom, theological violence perpetrated by Christian anti-Judaism— especially when it is derived from naive readings of the gospels—cannot be overlooked. We have both an historical and a theological obligation to bring the conclusions of modern scholarship to bear on historical issues related to the biblical text, and in our universities, churches, and seminaries we need to be clear about how we ought to go about answering them. On the basis of such uncritical readings of the gospels, we Christians have for too long both wittingly and unwittingly demonized Jews and Judaism as the “other.” To continue to do so is not worthy of us either as Christians or as Moravians.

Benjamin G. Wright, Professor and Chair Dept. of Religion Studies Lehigh University

42

Moravian Theology Today

Letters to the Editor (continued) I thank you for presenting another excellent issue of The Hinge. There are many provocative ideas expressed which deserve comment. My observations, however, concern the article by Br. Angetile Musomba (“The Jubilee: 550 Years of the Moravian Church and 275 Years of Moravian Mission”).

Br. Musomba raises a number of significant issues from the Tanzanian perspective as he expresses his “personal view.” I wish to focus on his comments regarding homosexuality which he presents in 5 long paragraphs. He is to be commended for raising this issue. It is one that the Unity has avoided or struggled with too long. It is good to have his clear statement of opinions about this issue. And his opinions are clear!

His objections are centered on a biblical argument: “We have biblical reasons for not accepting homosexuals,” and a cultural argument: “According to African religious, cultural, and moral values, we can not accept homosexuality as part of the normal living standard.”

I find both arguments unconvincing.

Though he does not cite any specific biblical references in support of his view, I suspect that most readers know what they are. To cite only those texts rests upon a fundamentalist proof-texting interpretation of the Bible. It also raises questions such as: are Christians to follow the Levitical law code because it is in the Bible or are we to accept slavery because Jesus did not specifically condemn it? Are we to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in continuing to unfold anew the richness of scripture for every generation?

To seek support for a theological position in one’s cultural values is a very risky approach.

It may lead to the assumption that one’s cultural values provide a comfortable home for the Gospel.

I cannot believe that any Christian anywhere would want to make that claim about any culture in our contemporary world.

The discussion about homosexuality is very important but I would like to see a more nuanced theological discussion about our (Moravian) understanding of how the Spirit leads the church (even when it does not want to change) in the world.

David A. Schattschneider Bethlehem, PA

43

The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 16:2 2009

A Final Word One of the sad realities of life is that there are times when we have to say good-bye, and this is one of them. I became editor of The Hinge in the spring of 2001, shortly after George Bush was inaugurated, and it seems fitting that I lay down my office after eight years, too. For the next two years, at least, I will be focusing on my duties at Wake Forest University School of Divinity where I teach Moravian Studies and theology.

During the past eight years, I have been blessed to serve with an excellent editorial board that has helped expand the scope of The Hinge. It is now truly an international journal for Moravians to discuss contemporary theological issues. Thanks to the Center for Moravian Studies at Moravian Theological Seminary, all pastors in the Northern and Southern Provinces receive The Hinge free of charge. It is also distributed in Europe, and we hope to expand our presence in all areas of the Unity.

Our new relationship with ITD is going well.

The Hinge has addressed a number of sensitive issues over the years, including homosexuality, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, salvation through Christ alone, religious violence, war and peace, and worship. Unlike other church and academic publications, The Hinge has sought multiple perspectives on these issues and has attempted to promote discussion in the context of Christian love. Readers can expect The Hinge to continue in this mission.

There will be one change from the past. Rather than a solo editor, there will be an editorial team in the future. Ginny Tobiassen, Janel Rice, and Christian Rice have agreed to serve as editors. Jane Burcaw, who has done such a masterful job of managing production and distribution of The Hinge will continue in that role. All of the people who have been involved in this work over the past two decades have been volunteers who offer this gift to the Moravian Church out of love for the church.

I want to express my gratitude to everyone who has written articles, responses, book reviews, and letters. — Craig D. Atwood, editor P.S. My book Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (Penn State, 2009) is now available on-line at Amazon.com and other retailers.

44

Editorial Board Jane Burcaw, Christy Clore, Otto Dreydoppel, Sarah Groves, Margaret Leinbach, Russell May, Jeff Mortimore, Hans-Beat Motel, Joe Nicholas, Graham Rights, Volker Schultz, Neil Thomlinson Editor: Craig D. Atwood, Wake Forest University Home Moravian Church Send letters to the editor, articles, book reviews, and other contributions to the editor at: atwoodcd@wfu.edu.

The cost for subscribing to the Hinge is $30. Send checks payable to:

The Hinge

c/o Jane Burcaw Moravian Theological Seminary 1200 Main Street Bethlehem, PA 18018 Contact Jane Burcaw (jburcaw@moravian.edu) to change your subscription information or to request additional copies of The Hinge. The single issue rate is $7.00.

The Hinge is provided free of charge to Moravian clergy thanks to the generosity of the Center for Moravian Studies at Moravian Theological Seminary.