March 17, 2003 

Dear Webmaster@moravians. org, I hope and pray that www.moravians.org can indeed succeed in its stated purpose, to "prayerfully study and engage in dialogue to address the division over matters of doctrine and faith." This can only be a good thing, for the real problem here is a lack of dialog: we have not been listening to one another. Achieving true dialog in this situation will be a great and difficult thing, requiring prayer and humility on all parts. 

Statements have been made in letters, in the paper- and in the commentary on this site - regarding the Synod's actions toward the "Pre-resolution 54" proposal. Many of these comments, whether intentionally or not, seriously impugn the motives of faithful leaders who have spent their lives in the service of Christ, and whose faith should not be in question by any who know them. 

The concerns of those who opposed the proposed resolution were not adequately discussed on the floor of Synod, and when they were voiced it is clear that they were not heard. To characterize those voices as being "against the Bible" or "calling Christ a liar" is simply wrong, and in my opinion a serious breach of the manner and behavior we are called to by the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living. 

Many concerns arose about the document, and while I cannot speak for all, I can speak for myself and the conversations I participated in. Many had deep concerns that the document did not reflect the total spirit of the Ground of the Unity. One person spoke of a concern that the proposal was intended to "weaponize" the Ground of the Unity in a manner clearly not intended by the 1957 and previous synods. While there may have been other concerns, no one at any time in any discussion with me voiced a support for the idea that "Christ is just one way among many. " The concerns I heard voiced were about the spirit and application of the document, and these often by faithful Moravians of very orthodox theology.

 The context of Synod is also important. Many Moravians have been deeply concerned about the demonization and victimization of Arabs and Moslems in the post-9/11 era. The manner in which we deal with other denominations and other faiths has always been one of great dignity and respect. But I have personally had members of Moravian congregations recently tell me that all Moslems are evil terrorists who will burn in Hell. Along a similar vein, indefensible statements were made on the floor of Synod about the Episcopal Church, opposing any dialog with them because they "worship the Goddess Sophia." 

My Episcopalian friends either burst out laughing or recoiled in horror when hearing about these remarks. The great ecumenist Zinzendorf would have had a conniption, a sight I'm sure I would not wish to see. 

The insistence that anyone who does not confess Christ in a certain way will automatically "burn in hell" is both unscriptural and clearly un-Moravian. What about the righteous Gentiles that Paul alludes to in Romans 2: 14-15? Spangenberg postulates that God will deal with those who have not heard the Gospel "in the same manner in which He sought after mankind before they had the Holy Scripture." (Idea Fidei Fratrum, pp 63-64). Since I would argue that most people in our supposedly "Christian" nation have not really heard the Gospel, but only a terrible garbled misrepresentation, this has interesting ramifications.

 Zinzendorf him self was very insistent about the action of the Holy Spirit in all places and among all peoples. He was also insistent that we would treat other denominations and cultures -and other faiths -with the deepest respect. It was in fact this respectfulness that often helped the early Moravian missionaries win hearts where others had failed. This was particularly true with the indigenous Americans.

 Moravians have always believed that God is not bounded by any human thought or limitations. As Brother Dan Crews is fond of paraphrasing it, "God can apply the grace and love of Jesus however and wherever he pleases." This belief in fact has been an integral (but often forgotten) part of Synod resolutions leading up to the Ground of the Unity. The 1818 Synod recognized that "both Scripture and experience show that different people are led by God to salvation in Christ in different ways." Some of those concerned about the tone of "Pre-resolution 54" were also concerned about the intent to codify a specific interpretation of the statement "salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone, and that there is no Salvation apart from him" rather than simply making the statement itself.   This may have been a projection on their part on the intent of the proposers, but it is not in the characterization of Br. Luke Bell's letter "calling Christ a liar." In fact, it is in keeping with the statement of the 1879 synod which refused to formulate a Moravian Creed:

      The Church esteems it neither necessary nor profitable to construct a creed      formulated with regard to all individual points of doctrine, thus binding conscience, and quenching the Spirit, nor does it consider the welfare of the Church to be determined by the obligatory acceptance of such a creed on the part of its ministers, but to depend on the vivification and invigoration of the spirit of the Church by the grace of the Lord.

It is worthy of note that this is the same synod that passed the eight truths that are sometimes incorrectly referred to as "The Eight Essentials."  

Some Moravians came to Synod hoping to pass language similar to that of the Presbyterian document, "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ," which expresses these concerns in a powerful, balanced and Christ-centered way: 

Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him. No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living, for 'by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God' [Eph. 2:8]. No one is saved apart from God's gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of 'God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' [I Tim. 2:4]. Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who express explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine. 

Presbyterian Church (USA)
 214th General Assembly 

In relating the "Crisis of 1909" on this web site, Mr. Lee Sprinkle has left out some pertinent -and instructive -details. The June 26, 1908 issue of Herrnhut reports that the delegates made an effort to "seek to understand, not oppose one another." I think this has not happened in our day. The British delegate who was quoted as saying "If they had spoken as plainly in public as they did in private, a great deal of trouble would have been spared" said that because after discussion, he had found that the "other side" in fact believed just as he did. After full discussion had occurred, he concluded that there was in fact "no 'heresy' to conceal." If a full and honest discussion occurs here, most will find that to be the case today. 

As the pastors have gathered and discussed the issues, we have all agreed that what binds us together is Christ himself. Sadly, a few pastors have distanced themselves, turning their backs on the discussion, and thus have not experienced that sense of conviction of the centrality of Christ to our pastoral community.

 In fact, to me this whole "crisis of 2002" seems to me to be very akin to the baffling marriage counseling sessions practically every pastor has experienced. One spouse says "The sky is blue," and the other goes ballistic. Each spouse hears something the other hasn't actually said -and may or may not have meant. The only way to wade through these difficult sessions is to carefully and with great patience ask at every exchange, "Is this what you meant?" As soon as one side is certain that they know absolutely that the other side meant something horrible, the discussion is over. And so is the marriage.

 We must take careful, tiny steps here. Statements that project a position on the "other side" that isn't truly theirs are disastrous. Many of these are also logical fallacies (pardon while my philosophy degree surfaces); both the "Fallacy of the False Dilemma" and the "Straw Man" argument have been strongly in evidence in discussions and letters to the editor. We sound more like Rush Limbaugh and James Carville than we do Moravians.

 This is where we must really listen to one another! When we are so certain of ourselves that we no longer need to listen to the other side, then we may find ourselves being the ones to burn Comenius' books unread.

 It is a terrible misfortune that we were not able to discuss these matters in depth at Synod; perhaps the woundedness of feeling would have been lessened and some resolution of heart, not just of paper, might have been attained. It seemed to me as an observer that Synod spent an unforgivable amount of time on lesser issues and procedural piffle while attempting to ignore the elephant in the living room. When the issue finally was addressed on the floor, however obliquely, there really wasn't enough time left to deal with the true main issue adequately. I would have dispensed with a great deal of the business and spent the entire time in discussion of the issue everyone knew was lurking.

 The issues, tensions, and misunderstandings here arise out of fear , not out of faith. In fact, I have come away from some discussions lately thinking that many people seem to fear the Devil much more than they trust God. But Moravians have always reveled in grace, celebrating the love of God, trusting God implicitly, casting themselves in trust into the limitless sea of grace and love of the Savior. We've never been much on hellfire- and-brimstone; our preaching has been rather the opposite of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I would leave you with this thought: 

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

 -I John 4: 18, NIV 

We must not let fear drive us and divide us, for that fear is from the adversary and not from our Chief Elder. We must trust in Him, and in that trust know that He will guide our discussions. In those discussions, we must exhibit the respect and love to one another that we have claimed in our Moravian Covenant for Christian Living. And we must "depend on the vivification and invigoration of the spirit of the Church by the grace of the Lord." 

In Christ's Service, 

The Rev. John P. Jackman 
Lewisville, NC 

RESOURCES: 

The entire text of the Presbyterian document "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" can be found online at: http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/cmd/cfl/christdoc.htm 

The "Fallacy of the False Dilemma" occurs when a speaker reduces a complex issue to two choices and ignores any other possibilities. 

"If you don't want a pickle with your sandwich, you must be a union supporter boycotting Mt Olive Pickles."

 "If you don't support the space program, you must believe the earth is flat." 

The "Straw Man" argument is the most common fallacy in public debate. The speaker attacks a position that his opponent doesn't really hold; and of course it is one that is much easier to defeat than the nuanced position actually held by the opponent. This fallacy often operates by attacking an extreme or exaggerated version of the position held by the opponent. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such "Straw Man" arguments are part of the process of [demonization], and some logicians have suggested that this version of "Straw Man" (where the speaker attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent) should be recognized as a sub fallacy, the [ Straw Demon ].