Recent Issues in our Moravian denomination have lead many to question on what foundation our Church stands. Many faithful lay members who thought they understood their churches doctrines and faith are finding the language and actions of our leaders confusing and conflicting.

Media accounts ( See Journal Article) of one minister teachings of salvation apart from Christ was shocking and can only be viewed by Christians of all faiths as heresy by definition. The media has portrayed this event as an example of the wonderful heritage of openness to dialogue on new ideas that the Moravian Church has demonstrated through out its History that allows the church to remain relevant in today's society.

The President of the PEC (See Bob Sawyer’s letter ) accounts how addressing disagreements can renew and keep our church vital in a changing world.

Keep in mind that these comments are all specifically addressing a ministers teaching that salvation can occur apart from Christ. The reader is clearly left with the impression that serious consideration should be given to changing not only Moravian essential beliefs but the fundamental beliefs of all Christian religions who have revered the authority of the "message" of Scripture.

As the debate continues among the church leaders and church community I began to notice that the issues were not clearly defined. Those who subscribe to Scriptural authority a Historical tradition of the Moravian Church, find the issue clearly focused on the Churches position on the authority of Scripture and the message it relates on Salvation through Christ alone.

On the other hand, those who support the position of “dynamic doctrine” may or may not acknowledge the authority of Scripture  and its message of Salvation but quickly  pass over it to get to the issues as they define them. They focus the debate on "dynamic doctrine"  or non essential or ministerial issues that Moravians have historically said it did not feel were important enough to take a dogmatic position on , in fact the denomination may have survived only because they did avoid getting involved with the destructive debate on doctrine that took place during the Reformation. Supporters of the“ dynamic doctrine” position are seen as assuming that there are no essential truths that should escape review in light of possible revision. Those in this camp often speak of preserving relationships as being of the utmost importance.

As documents and letters were assembled for this site it became clear that a focused dialogue was not happening. Distortion of the issues continues between the questions and the answers. As concerned Moravians raise questions about our churches public professions concerning the  authority of or faith, they are not questioning that we should open our fellowship to all people with the same love that Christ demonstrated. We  acknowledge that we are all sinners but we see that the work of the Church is to reveal the message of Scripture for our salvation as well as to provide instruction and direction that will guide our behavior as we strive to live our lives as Christ would have us to. For many the issue that has surfaced since the 2002 Synod is whether Scripture is relevant in defining essential elements ( or truths ) of our faith in today's world.

Leaders of our church write and lecture that Scripture should not be an "essential" to our faith. Other leaders write and speak publicly that we should abolish "essential truths" as they may be troublesome for those who believe differently.  Actions at Synod demonstrate to many that Scripture was troublesome when it's message stood in the way of  a prime objective of preserving relationships. 

As church leaders respond to the public questions they have given little attention to the question of the authority of scripture and essential truths. Most discussions and letters that continue to post to this site from church leaders focus on an assumed position that there are those who would not want our church to love and serve everyone. 

Both sides of the isle must begin to listen to the other. Those who raise questions about actions at synod and statements by leaders in the media should be able to get answers that clearly address their concerns.  Answers that continue to address a question that is not asked will never be satisfying or lead to a resolution.

It is equally important that those who express concerns about recent issues do not allow their comments to be targeted toward individuals. They should realize that we are not to judge people. We are responsible for discriminating between good and evil as defined in "Scripture". We should contain our comments with in the boundaries of where we should look for authority for our faith and what  our responsibilities are, as a church, to offer love, guidance and instruction to all individuals.

Rev. John Jackman speaks eloquently about this technique of debate in his letter "On True Discussion". Defenders of Synod actions attack a position that opponents really don't hold. ( Read about the "Straw Man" arguments).

I felt that the if boundaries of this debate could be agreed on that much greater economy of thought and talk could be achieved.

I was intrigued by the idea that Historically, Moravians might have considered adopting a position on salvation other than  through Christ, to attempt to be more relevant to the world . One would also have to infer that Scripture would not be held as the authority for our faith.

I must admit I was surprised at how quickly my research at the archives brought answers, but they were not the answers I was given to expect.

I must admit that this research had already been done, credit for this work goes to C. Daniel Crews, Archivist of the Moravian Church, Southern Province, for his excellent research and publication “ Confessing Our Unity in Christ “ which is available at the Book Store or at the Archives. I strongly recommend that you get a copy of your own. Mr. Crews prepared this publication at the request of the President of the PEC of the Southern Province for presentation to the Moravian Clergy Association in January 1994. I also want to thank him for spending a morning helping me with my research.

The Old Unity of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries existed in a time when the reformation and persecution prompted the Moravians to more or less live in seclusion. Not desiring to add to the horror it saw in the Reformation Churches who were splitting over what it felt were minor theological distinctions. The Old Unity avoided issuing formal statements of its faith except as were requested by outside challenges. These statements were mostly in the form of letters and were mostly structured to meet the specific circumstance of the challenge. The Old Unity held to their earliest principles, shared among one another and taking the Scripture for their norm rather than depending on constructions of human theology.

The Confession of 1535 was a bold step for the Unity as possible persecution still loomed. But it did mark our churches emergence to a more public position. What did the Unity feel was so important that they should publicly profess it? The Holy Scripture is their Guide Salvation in Christ

Another important contribution was the Unitys doctrinal stance. It shows that they firmly felt there were essential elements of their belief.

The three elements of the doctrinal stance are Essentials, Ministratives, Incidentals

The Essentials were the objective works of God for our salvation through Christ The Ministratives were those things that helped one to the “essentials” The incidentals were such things as church order.

There was clearly no hint that the Old Unity would consider revising the role of Christ in salvation as they held that most important.

The Renewed Unity on the estate of Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf in Saxony in 1722 found no need for printed confessions of faith as they technically adhered to the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran church. The Moravians faith then was nearly identical with the theology of Zinzendorf. The solid core of his theology was emphatically “Christ and him crucified”

No wiggle room here.

Synod of 1782, facing growing pressure from the rationalism of the so-called Enlightenment, choose to add a section to the four points offered in the 1775 General Synod. This additional section on the divinity of Christ stressed that Jesus was more than simply an eminent messenger from God. The Brethren determined to adhere more faithfully in their teaching to the language of Scripture. Now the first Chapter before the “chief axiom” and the “four points”, states “ The Holy Scripture is the ground of our doctrine and the only rule of our faith and life.

Members of the Church were urged to acquaint themselves with Scriptures so as to guard themselves against the “erroneous teaching” which was prevalent at their time.

The Church seems pretty firm here.

The 1848 General Synod continues to affirm that “The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament is and remains the only rule of our faith and life ( practice ). We revere it as God’s word, which He spoke to humanity in former times through the profits, and in these last days through the Son and His apostles, to instruct people in the way of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We are convinced that all truths which are necessary for a person who desires to be saved to know and believe are fully contained therein.”

The 1848 General Synod also addressed human doctrinal statements that are those statements that men contrive to explain the message of scripture. The Synod warns that dogmatic statements are by nature imperfect and that they should stand constant testing in light of the word and the spirit.

The Unity knew that there would be attempts, some successful, that would inject flawed doctrinal statements that would interfere with the purpose of doctrine to deliver the “message” clearly and accurately from Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

I feel that some clergy and leaders do not understand that this Synod’s refusing to assert “immutability of dogmatic expression” was an attempt to preserve the authority of Scripture from flawed human doctrinal statements rather than inviting revision of the message of salvation in Scripture.

This not only continues the clear statement of faith but also provides warning that there will be those who will try to change the Message through flawed doctrinal statements.

I was amazed at the 1848 Synod’s insight to have offered this warning on flawed doctrine just before the 1909 Crisis.

The 1909 Crisis occurred at a time of theological ferment known as the “New Theology” which has been often referred to as nineteenth century liberalism.

As happens, the Ideas of “New Theology” were being discussed at the German Province’s theological seminary. It wasn’t long before many in the church felt that the effects of the teaching of “New Theology” was detrimental to sacred truths of the faith. There were demands that professors be replaced or that the school be closed.

The Lay people, particularly, feared that the “New Theology” meant that the Savior and Scripture were no longer of value. Some stated that they were missing the core of the Gospel in sermons of the younger ministers, that some ministers understood Scripture differently from “plain layfolk,” and that they therefore had lost confidence in them to care for their souls, and they feared that great ill was coming to the church.

The issue was brought up at the 1897 Synod. Bishop Hamilton accounted that “The power of Prayer became manifest at the Synod. The Synod did not degenerate into a contest between two irreconcilable hostile parties. Searching inquires ( in today language “dialogue”) took place in a fraternal way with the result that general confidence in the seminary was restored. It became more and more evident that the solution of the difficulty lay in giving new emphasis to the Christo-centric position of the theology of the of the Brethren’s Unity and to the doctrine of the atonement. The president of the seminary made a complete statement on these points in the name of his colleagues, and by a vote of forty-three to four Synod gave its support to him.”

No surprise, the issue was not really resolved, and the “New Theology” continued to be discussed in seminary and the debate arose again in the1908 Synod with a vengeance.

Letters and articles were written asking leaders of the Moravian Church how they could tolerate such teachings. Some Moravians wrote publicly to expressing their own views which was frowned on by church leaders suggesting that opinions should be directed through regular channels within the church. The issue was now a public one and contributions were threatened to be withheld if the Moravians had truly “departed from the proper ground of the belief”.

The 1908 Synod again failed to specifically address the issues to the satisfaction of the church community.

The issue continued into the General Synod of 1909 where this item was held to the end of the meeting. One of the delegates wrote, “ If those who professed the “New Theology” would speak in public the way they spoke in private, a great deal of trouble could be avoided.

The outcome of the 1909 Synod was again to uphold doctrines of Synod 1899. The delegates were so anxious to affirm allegiance to traditional beliefs that they resolved to avoid all changes in the doctrinal section.

The newspaper Herrnhut summarized: What the lay people want and expect is a clear confession of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, of his cross, and his bodily resurrection; in short, of the full and entire contents of the Holy Scriptures and the faith of our fathers as it has found expression in our hymnal from the time of Zinzendorf even to now. Finally, it was stressed that the church is not there for the theologians, but rather that the theologians are there for the church.

The last sentence speaks to us from 100 years and deserves another look. The church should not exist as a laboratory for clergy to experiment with the “ New Theology” rather clergy should serve the church by upholding the sound doctrine of the church. To do otherwise is clearly heresy.

The feeling of many delegates was expressed by Bishop Rondthaler in his parting remarks in the British missions magazine: “ We are thankful that our evangelical Christian doctrine has been maintained in purity, and we can now all go home with courage for the future of our respective provinces.”

Again the Moravian Church stands strong on its doctrine making a strong affirmation on the fact that the foundation of the doctrine is Jesus Christ, the only Savior

The General Synod of 1957 gave birth to “The Ground of the Unity”

“The Holy Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are and abide the only source and rule of the faith, doctrine, and life of the Unitas Fratrum.

The Unitas Fratrum realizes that the mystery of Jesus Christ to which the Bible bears witness cannot be fully comprehended in any human statement. Yet the Holy Spirit makes God’s purpose of salvation sufficiently plain in the Old an New Testaments. The Unitas Fratrum recognizes the Word of the cross to be the center of the Holy Scriptures and of the evangelical preaching. Its main commission and its reason for existence is to witness unfailingly to these glad tidings. We pray our Lord for strength never to desist from doing so.”

Not only does Synod of 1957 reaffirm authority of scripture and salvation through Christ , it also asks for Gods strength to continue doing so.

Even with minor changes that have occurred in the wording of the Ground of the Unity in 1981 and again in 1995 the document continues to proclaim that the Word of the Cross is the center of Holy Scripture, the 1995 Synod added that “we look to two Millennia of ecumenical Christian tradition and the wisdom of our Moravian forebears in the faith to guide us as we pray for fuller understanding and even clearer proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This accounting of the history of the Moravian Church points clearly to a common belief in the authority of Scripture and salvation through Christ alone. It is shown that it was believed that the message of salvation is clearly stated and is to this message that all doctrines should point. It relates a warning that human contrived doctrines are flawed and may at times not point clearly to the message of scripture. We are instructed to be ever vigilant that doctrine should always stand in review lest they lead us away from scriptural truth. The account also shows how troubling and distracting challenges to these essential elements of our faith can be. It is true that in each case the Moravian Church came through those challenges more firmly convicted to its traditional beliefs. This seems like a terrific price to pay to try and preserve some relationships while an untold numbers leave the denomination in disbelief that church order is allowed to be so disrupted even if temporarily.

Another significant revelation that this study by C Daniel Crews held for me is that our Church had already navigated the choppy waters of liberal influences 100 years ago. Although it caused great confusion and damage to the health of the denomination for over 10 years, the Moravian church emerged more firmly founded on it’s historical theology. What the 1909 Synod did was not only to affirm traditional beliefs but refused to make any changes in doctrine. The “New Theology” or liberal movement was absolutely rejected.

For a more complete look at this study I strongly recommend you visit The Moravian Archive or book store for a copy of “ Confessing Our Unity in Christ “ prepared by C. Daniel Crews, Archivist of the Moravian Church, Southern Province.

Lee Sprinkle
Member, Olivet Moravian Church
leesprinkle@Hotmail.com