Moravian Forum

Saturday, September 15th, 2007 by  christie melby-gibbons

[To read Doug Norwood’s initial letter, go to:
Norwood_letter     I am glad to see that you remain a Moravian Christian while the denomination seeks, in love, to understand the depth and height of God’s grace for those of a homosexual orientation, as particularly found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.       You referred to yourself in your letter to readers as “a crusader indeed for what is true and Biblical.” I, too, am a crusader, except mine is not a crusade that promotes rejection, hatred, and ultimately violence toward those who are different than myself. Mine is a crusade of love, modeled after Jesus Christ the love crusader, who accepted, and yes, even celebrated, the very ones that the religious institution of his time rejected as “unclean”. The crusaders of what was “true and Biblical” (the Law) killed that crusader of love, thinking that Jesus had strayed from the true faith.       And if we are to be prooftexters, citing verses such as: Leviticus 20:13, etc. to justify the church’s rejection of those of a homosexual orientation, then ought we not to adhere to the passage in Leviticus that says “unruly youth should be stoned at the city gates”? And what are we to make of verses like Leviticus 20:9: “All who curse father or mother shall be put to death…” Well, I’d have surely been a goner in my teen years.      Or Leviticus 24:16: “One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer.” Bummer…I was just beginning to be really accepted by the congregation that I am serving as pastoral intern, and I know I’ve done a bit of blaspheming in my day. (”And they’ll know we are Christians by our stones, by our stones”?)      The most frightening part of literal prooftexting of Scripture is that if we do that with the first half of a verse, we will often do that with the second half of the verse. For instance, you are backing up your stance against the Moravian denomination’s celebration, and certainly ordination, of gay and lesbian people by calling such a lifestyle “an abomination.” That phrase does, in fact, pop up in Leviticus 20:13, which says: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Yet, interestingly, you stop there. The second half of the verse says: “they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” What then, are Christian leaders to exercise capital punishment on these abominable individuals…a sort of sexuality-ethnic cleansing?     What’s more, we read in Leviticus 24:17 that “Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death.” So, it seems that eventually prooftexting would result in the death of everyone, so I think it best that we steer clear of prooftexting altogether.      Lastly, you are so good to remind us that our early Moravian forebearer Jan Hus held that ”the truth of the Bible always surmounted the pronouncements of a church.” That is true, and perhaps Hus might have pointed out to the church today these words that are attributed to Jesus: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5: 49 & 40). Or “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31). Our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are coming to the Moravian church because in it they (hope to) find life, and in it they seek to be loved as they love others. What is it that is keeping us Moravian followers of Christ from celebrating gays and lesbians and extending Christ’s freeing love to them? I’d like to think there are still a lot of us who believe in the scandalous love of Christ. 

Saturday, September 15th, 2007 by  christie melby-gibbons

[To read Doug Norwood’s initial letter, go to:
Norwood_letter     I am glad to see that you remain a Moravian Christian while the denomination seeks, in love, to understand the depth and height of God’s grace for those of a homosexual orientation, as particularly found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.       You referred to yourself in your letter to readers as “a crusader indeed for what is true and Biblical.” I, too, am a crusader, except mine is not a crusade that promotes rejection, hatred, and ultimately violence toward those who are different than myself. Mine is a crusade of love, modeled after Jesus Christ the love crusader, who accepted, and yes, even celebrated, the very ones that the religious institution of his time rejected as “unclean”. The crusaders of what was “true and Biblical” (the Law) killed that crusader of love, thinking that Jesus had strayed from the true faith.       And if we are to be prooftexters, citing verses such as: Leviticus 20:13, etc. to justify the church’s rejection of those of a homosexual orientation, then ought we not to adhere to the passage in Leviticus that says “unruly youth should be stoned at the city gates”? And what are we to make of verses like Leviticus 20:9: “All who curse father or mother shall be put to death…” Well, I’d have surely been a goner in my teen years.      Or Leviticus 24:16: “One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer.” Bummer…I was just beginning to be really accepted by the congregation that I am serving as pastoral intern, and I know I’ve done a bit of blaspheming in my day. (”And they’ll know we are Christians by our stones, by our stones”?)      The most frightening part of literal prooftexting of Scripture is that if we do that with the first half of a verse, we will often do that with the second half of the verse. For instance, you are backing up your stance against the Moravian denomination’s celebration, and certainly ordination, of gay and lesbian people by calling such a lifestyle “an abomination.” That phrase does, in fact, pop up in Leviticus 20:13, which says: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Yet, interestingly, you stop there. The second half of the verse says: “they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” What then, are Christian leaders to exercise capital punishment on these abominable individuals…a sort of sexuality-ethnic cleansing?     What’s more, we read in Leviticus 24:17 that “Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death.” So, it seems that eventually prooftexting would result in the death of everyone, so I think it best that we steer clear of prooftexting altogether.      Lastly, you are so good to remind us that our early Moravian forebearer Jan Hus held that ”the truth of the Bible always surmounted the pronouncements of a church.” That is true, and perhaps Hus might have pointed out to the church today these words that are attributed to Jesus: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5: 49 & 40). Or “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31). Our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are coming to the Moravian church because in it they (hope to) find life, and in it they seek to be loved as they love others. What is it that is keeping us Moravian followers of Christ from celebrating gays and lesbians and extending Christ’s freeing love to them? I’d like to think there are still a lot of us who believe in the scandalous love of Christ. 

Hey,

I would like to respond to the following:

pacifism

From: John
Date: 02 May 2007
Time: 17:56:21 -0400
Remote Name: 198.150.40.60

Comments

Whatever became of the Moravian tradition and conviction of pacifism? I know it was right practice for the Unitas Fratrum faction during the Hussite Wars of the 15th century. It was still in vogue during the 18th century. Maybe I’m wrong. Anybody know about this?

—————————

Moravians have always had a thing for pacifism. Not all, though, have always gone along with this. “Chapter Thirty of the Statutes of the Twentieth Year of the Reign of George the Second,” which received British Royal assent May 26, 1749, and came into effect about a month later, is just one example. In the debates surrounding the Statute proclaiming Moravians conscientious objectors, there was the acknowledgement that not all Moravians were true conscientious objectors – some were okay with fighting for a “just” cause.

The following information is from the “Western Canadian Moravian Historical Magazine,” No. 9, May 2004, which is published by the Canadian Moravian Historical Society, and its first article, “Conscription,” dealing with Canadian Moravian pacifism during the First World War. Note: Conscription is the equivalent of the draft.

In Canada, conscription became law under the name, The Military Service Act, August 29, 1917. Only Doukhobors and Mennonites were given exception, based on conscientious objections. Both Bishop J.T. Hamilton, who visited Alberta in the summer of 1917, and Bishop Clement Holyer, the serving Bishop in Canada, felt Moravians should have also been included as conscientious objectors. In their minds, “Chapter Thirty of the Statutes of the Twentieth Year of the Reign of George the Second,” variously referred to as 22 George II, Chap. 30 (Imperial), the Act of 1749; Act of 1749; and the Act; and is one of the Statutes of the Twentieth Year of the Reign of George the Second, being Chapter Thirty in consecutive order, had not been rescinded and was still valid in Canada. To them it CLEARLY stated our Canadian Moravians were “bona fide” conscientious objectors, allowed the privilege of exemption, even if not being in the strictest sense a conscientious objector.

Apparently Bishop Hoyler believed that Canadian Moravians were truly conscientious objectors. He pointedly noted these German-speaking Moravians didn’t dislike fighting simply because the fighting was to be done against Germans, but because they opposed war “per se”; their deep Christian belief being that war as such was not compatible with pure Christianity.

He went on to note: Many Canadian Moravians were immigrants from Poland and Volhynia, and truly were conscientious objectors. Some had escaped from military service in Russia, and their children and other relatives retained these beliefs. Even though many were ethnically of German ancestry, their sympathies were with England rather than Germany, whose Kaiser and militarism were just as distasteful to them as Russia’s Czar and what he stood for.

By 1918, with Moravian young men being called up to serve in combatant positions, the Canadian District, based upon legal advice, started “habeas corpus” proceedings against the Military. Papers were issued, “Fenske vs. Colonel P.A. Morre and Major J.M. Carson.” (David Fenske had refused to enlist, and was in a military jail. By starting “habeas corpus” proceedings, the Canadian District was challenging the Military’s right to justly hold David Fenske.) The proceedings were to go before the Judge on Thursday, June 13, 1918. On June 12, 1918, however, the Canadian Government backed out of the case and permitted all Moravians who wished to be declared a conscientious objector, to do so.

Note: While the Canadian Government allowed Moravians to declare themselves as conscientious objectors, there was never any legal decision rendered. That is, the Canadian Government, for reasons not explained, just caved in and granted Moravians what they wished - conscientious objector status.

Post-script: During the Second World War, because Canada was no longer legally considered a Colony of Britain, Moravians no longer could argue for conscientious objector status based upon the Act. For those who were of age and were conscientious objectors, some were able to declare that they were the eldest son and needed to help on the farm, while younger brothers went into hiding. Others served valiantly in Canada’s Arm Forces, such as Ken Fenske, a navigator in the Battle of Britain, and son of David Fenske. He was killed when the plane he was in was shot at, two or three flights from finishing his tour of duty.

Doug