Moravian Forum

Full Communion - A False Witness

August 25th, 2009
This post by Lee

Full Communion - a False Witness
By Lee

Moravians may feel that Full Communion Agreements with other denominations are harmless projects legitimizing retired ministers and Bishops pensions and travel. After all what harm could come from sponsoring participants in the Various Council of Churches around the country? Can there really be anything wrong with having representation in prestigious organizations like the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches or the various State Councils of Churches? A Brain Child of the ecumenical movement – Full Communion Agreements might be incorrectly viewed only as a feather in the cap for our council representatives.

Moravians that think our associations with the Lutherans (ELCA) and the proposed association with the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) can only bring us in closer unity with the Spirit of Christ must consider the message this association brings as the reasons for division in these churches becomes clear to more people.

Media reports of the schisms in both the Episcopal and Lutheran Church frequently include recognition that the Moravian Church is either in Full Communion or seeking it.

Brothers and sisters please consider what these reports do to our mission efforts as we try to appeal to new members or try to hang on to existing members.

People do vote with their feet and their pocketbooks.

Read this article from Rt. Rev. James Heiser, Diocesan Bishop August 24, 2009

ELDoNA responds to the Actions of the ELCA 2009 Churchwide Assembly

[The following is forwarded from the ELDoNA News email list. ELDoNA is a small diocese of Lutheran congregations that have left other synods in recent years. To subscribe to that list, send any message to ELDoNANews-on@lists.ELDoNA.org. The following may be freely forwarded to all interested parties.]

A Response to the Actions of the ELCA 2009 Churchwide Assembly
by the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America

During the Reformation of Christ’s Church in the 1500s, those who came to be known as Lutherans sought to establish all they did and taught in two ways, so as to prove that their contentions were good and right. First and foremost, all that was set in place or rejected must be in conformity with God’s holy Word. Second, the history of Christ’s Church was consulted to demonstrate that what was being said or done was not some novel twisting of that Word (2 Peter 1:20). The actions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at its Churchwide Assembly this past week in Minneapolis completely set this fundamental principle of the Reformation on its head: it has acted contrary to God’s Word and contrary to how that Word has been understood by the whole Church throughout the ages.

Both with regard to its social statement on homosexuality and to its declaration of fellowship with the United Methodist Church, the ELCA has rejected God’s clear Word and embraced sin and false doctrine as if it were pleasing to God—or even necessary to His ‘justice’ (as defined by men apart from His Word). Instead of loving homosexuals enough to call them to repent of their sin and to offer God’s grace in Christ for forgiveness—as well as provide the help of the Church to the individual homosexual in struggling against his or her sin (as one would do with other sins, such as alcoholism or drug addiction)—the ELCA has taken the easy way out by lying to those caught in this sin, making it seem as if God’s Word no longer speaks clearly. Just as this leaves the Bible open to being discarded whenever its truth offends a practitioner of whatever sin, it has the additional ill effect of making all of the Bible untrustworthy, including those sections that speak to its unique and overarching message: the forgiveness of every sin through the perfect life and atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, this pattern has been well set within the ELCA from its inception. The ELCA’s rejection of the absolute authority of Holy Scripture (inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility) has been shown again and again—by its rejection of the Bible’s limiting the pastoral office to men, by its refusal to keep pure the chief article of the Church (that man is saved solely by the grace of God through faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ alone) as was shown by its signing the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (wherein they gave up all standing as a Reformation church body by compromising that chief article of the faith with the false teaching of the Roman Church), and by its entering into ‘full communion’ agreements with church bodies that completely contradict the scriptural doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that is upheld by the Lutheran Confessions (namely, that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus, given for Christians who are united in the true faith to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins). The approval of full communion with the United Methodist Church—like the previous approvals of fellowship with the Reformed Church in America, Presbyterian Church U.S.A, the Moravian Brethren, the Episcopal Church U.S.A, and the United Church of Christ—is but another instance of the desire for external unity at any cost overriding the pure teaching of God’s Word.

It is the prayer of all in our diocese that those in the ELCA who confessed their consciences bound to the Word of God and unable to continue in a church body that has so dramatically thrown aside that Word will have had their voices heard by those who were in favor of these rejections of God’s Word. May the Holy Spirit use their confession to bring their church body to true repentance for these and other previous sinful actions. Indeed, we pray that God the Holy and Blessed Trinity, in His mercy, would either lead the ELCA to re-embrace the foundation of Christianity in every way, or bring those who still confess the truth to a new home where they may be served in accord with God’s will, and that those who have been hardened in their errors through these sinful actions would yet hear both the Law and the Gospel of the Lord so that they are not eternally lost through the impenitence that has been encouraged in them. At the same time, we pray that those Lutheran bodies that have effectively ‘winked at’ the corporate sins of the ELCA by continuing to participate with them in various joint endeavors (including an aberrant Ministry of Gospel and Sacrament to those in the Armed Forces) would finally repent of their enabling of the progress of such false doctrine and practice.

With the unanimous consent of the diocese,

The Rt. Rev. James D. Heiser, Bishop

Rt. Rev. James Heiser
Diocesan Bishop
The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
c/o Salem Lutheran Church
718 HCR 3424 E
Malone, TX 76660
(254) 533-2330
http://eldona.org

Tags: Moravian Episcopal Communion
Posted in Moravian Episcopal Communion Agreement | No Comments »

Moravians look to the Episcopal Church for Pointers on Being a Heathy Church

August 23rd, 2009
This post by Lee

As all eyes continue to follow the break up of the Episcopal Church Rev Neil Routh tells a Group of Moravians gaithered at an informational Town Meeting in King that we can learn what it takes to be a Healthy Church from the Episcopal Church. The following article by Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida discusses the distinction between “high cost” and “low cost” religions and why denominations begin out of a need for spirituality as a “high cost” sect and move towards “low cost” inclusiveness.

Why Inclusiveness is exactly wrong

August 23rd, 2009 Posted in Homosexuality, TEC |

By Gary L’Hommedieu, Virtueonline

In a recent opinion piece in The Washington Post The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal Church’s iconoclast emeritus, weighed in approvingly on the actions of the recent General Convention in moving the gay agenda into the end zone of History. Assuming an air of authority he declared “the battle over homosexuality” to be “over.” (John Shelby Spong, “Battle Over Homosexuality in Episcopal Church is Over“, Washington Post, August 6, 2009; )

“I do not want to be part of a church united in homophobia or one that pretends it can preserve unity by excluding any group of human beings,” scolded the retired Bishop of Newark.

Bishop Spong couches his remarks in reference to the secular gospel of which he is a self-proclaimed champion, the gospel of inclusiveness. Under the usual anointing, he pronounces TEC to be on “the right side of history”, compared with the Archbishop of Canterbury who, regrettably, is relegated to history’s “backside” for giving place to the majority of the Anglican Communion who do not share the anointing of the American Province and its leadership.

Spong is right about one thing; the battle is over in the Episcopal Church. Conservatives are reeling, scouring the horizon for “other issues” to moralize about in order to persuade the public that they are not homophobic after all. They have yielded the moral high ground to the revisionists by giving credence to the faux pathology of homophobia.

One of the comments we conservatives make is that we really are the inclusive ones, that we alone truly “welcome” sinners through our willingness to lovingly speak the truth about their need to change. Gays and straights alike see this for what it is–a transparent display of self-promotion. What has astonished me is the need conservatives have for affirmation by those who have already rejected us. We can’t bear the thought that anyone might get the wrong idea about our good intentions.

For now, the battle is over. No one is debating any more. It takes a common language to hold a debate and an openness to be persuaded. Neither side has that sort of mind–not on this issue. And no one will hear our self-serving remarks as we bid for our self-respect. We can only win that back by not worrying about it.

It’s time for an ideological shift by the orthodox, both those remaining in TEC and those who have departed. For those who have ears to hear, it’s time to reject the inclusiveness dogma. The reason is not to persuade the revisionists–and certainly not to win their approval–but to turn ourselves from the tendency to sell ourselves at a bargain price, which is the core motivation of Christian revisionism.

As a basis for evangelism and as a guiding principle of faith, the message of inclusiveness is associated with groups in rapid decline. As a word “inclusiveness”, whatever it does mean, does not mean aggressively recruiting those who feel excluded. Even if a few do straggle in, the main thrust of the inclusiveness gospel is the validation of the institution that proclaims it.

The message of inclusiveness rings hollow for a number of reasons. Least among them is the fact that it represents a distortion of New Testament teaching and is thus a heresy–as if heretical institutions cannot thrive. The mainline churches are not declining because of heresy–not directly.

Conservatives who bewail TEC’s heresy and apostasy are too late. The faith of the creeds has been decorative at best for generations of Episcopalians, even at the highest levels of leadership. The American Episcopal Church has tolerated, even embraced, a latent unitarianism for most of its history. The present “inclusive” church, with Gene Robinson as its most recent poster child, is only the latest example.

The Episcopal Church, along with the other mainline churches, did not begin its decline after World War II when liberal policy wonks began foisting their social experiments on traditional faith communities; nor during the Vietnam era when the protest generation began coming of age. The decline began at the time of the American Revolution with the rise of the nonconformist “camp” religions, when a spirituality based on religious need began to distinguish itself from a spirituality often based on social polish.

In their book “Acts of Faith” Rodney Stark and Roger Finke identify a . Those religions that make demands on their membership, whether in terms of commitment or belief, are the ones that “cost”. People join these faiths out a sense of need, and they’re willing to pay a considerable price.

Stark and Finke develop a parallel concept of “tension” in relation to high and low cost religious institutions. “Tension refers to the degree of distinctiveness, separation, and antagonism in the relationship between a religious group and the ‘outside’ world” (page 281).

According to these writers “churches” are those institutions existing “in relatively lower tension with their surroundings” and are thus “low cost”, compared to “sects” which are characterized by “relatively higher tension” and thus higher “cost”.

The “church-sect” typology has a long history among students of religion, one which enjoys a surprising resiliency today. When H. Richard Niebuhr wrote “The Social Sources of Denominationalism” in 1929, he predicted that the rise from small “sect” to established “church” would be a one way progression, running parallel to other forms of progress in the exploding industrial economy. The sects began as meetings of the lower socio-economic classes who, in place of wealth and respectability, found religious faith and community life as incentives.

After the Revolution the former Old World missions–the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists–were transformed overnight into the Establishment. Outsiders clamored to get in because being an Episcopalian (for example) was a sign of class. Meanwhile the upstart sects, composed of displaced immigrants seeking a place in the new economy, became the focus of dramatic growth in the New World–in the 19th century, the Baptists and Methodists; later, in the early 20th, the fundamentalists and Pentecostals. Already the older churches demonstrated a gradual decline relative to the overall population, a decline which accelerated in the post-WWII era up to the present. Among the distinguishing characteristics of the newer religions is that they put demands on their members. Discipleship had a cost and often carried a stigma. The sectarian movements often defined themselves as “true believers” over against the established churches who had sold their spiritual birthright for a pottage of worldly prestige and splendor. From the standpoint of the mainline elites, to belong to one of the sectarian bodies carried the stigma of social immobility–like living on the wrong side of the ecclesiastical tracks. This last point explains the instinctive abhorrence Episcopalians feel at being identified as “fundamentalists”. It is a source of shame. The horror Episcopalians feel at being so labeled is not a reaction to criticism. For a modern Episcopalian to be called a fundamentalist means the same thing that being spat on meant to a Jew three thousand years ago.

In spite of explosive controversies surrounding women’s and gay liberation, TEC’s proclamation of inclusiveness is anything but a prophetic challenge to authority. It is at best a calculated effort at running a parallel course to the secular culture, with minimal risk at predicting the drift of that society. In other words, TEC’s agenda is a strategy for systematically eliminating social stigma.

Note that Bishop Spong exults in the final elimination of tension in the life of the Episcopal Church. Here his terminology is revealing. He refers to his fear of being “irrelevant” and “embarrassed”–two code words for shame. He legitimizes his fear in grandiose terms as “being on the wrong side of history”, indicating his own delusion regarding the social meaning of TEC’s lockstep conformity to the dominant culture. The rhetoric of inclusiveness, in short, is a formula for false consciousness. It is a jealously guarded illusion.

Inclusiveness is an explicit strategy for cost-free religion, which in turn is a formula for religious decline, as in Spong’s former Diocese of Newark. As Bishop Spong put it himself, TEC’s doctrine of inclusiveness is about “relevance”–a thinly disguised bid for validation and an attempt to avoid embarrassment and shame.

Inclusiveness is the ideology of a toppled majority. It is a form of appeasement. It is the “prophetic” voice of those who have lost the will to defend any boundaries, physical or psychological, hence they can “include” everyone. It is really impossible to join a group that has no boundaries. “Join” doesn’t refer to anything. The invitation is imaginary.

Conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians have been called “sectarian” by revisionist critics, and this is ironically true. Much to the chagrin of Professor Niebuhr and the prognosticators of Progress, the sect-to-church evolution can and does reverse itself. The newer, smaller Anglican bodies, including conservative Episcopalians, have in effect voluntarily moved to the other side of the ecclesiastical tracks, with all the social “tension” that implies.

In spite of our proud pedigree we have become “fundamentalists”. Don’t bother trying to rehabilitate that term with historic reference to “the fundamentals of the faith”. People who toss that word around aren’t interested in what it means. They just want to spit.

We are not “inclusive”. We have boundaries, like any healthy body. It means something to join our group, and it costs a lot. But we have something to offer, besides our illusions.

—The Rev. Canon J. Gary L’Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.

Tags: Episcopal Communion Lambeth Conference, Episcopal Moravian Communion, Moravian Episcopal Communion, Moravian Episcopal Full Communion, Moravian Episcopal Full Communion Agreement
Posted in Moravian Episcopal Communion Agreement | No Comments »

SEPARATION

August 20th, 2009
This post by administrator

SEPARATION
written by Tommy Smith

“Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing;” (2 Cor. 6:17) God called out the nation Israel to be a separated people unto Himself. “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.”(Deut. 14:2) God has likewise called out Christians to be a separate people unto Himself.

Separation in scripture is twofold:

A. From whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and

B. Unto God Himself

The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. Separation from evil implies:

A. Separation from this present world system. (1 John 2:15-16); and,

B. Separation from false teachers, who are described as being “vessels to dishonor”

(2 Tim 2:20-21; 2 John 9-11)

Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or in the church, but from complicity with and conformity to it. (John 17:15; Gal. 6:1)

The reward for such separation is unhindered communication and worship (Heb 13:13-15), and fruitful service. (2Tim 2:21)

Conformity involves the loss of these things. Here, as in everything else, Jesus is the example. He was “holy, harmless and undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb 7:26), and yet He was in contact with them for their salvation. The Pharisees accused Him of associating with sinners (Luke 7:39), even though the reason Jesus came into the world was to “seek and save that which was lost”. (Luke 19:10)

Many churches today have been so “carried about with every wind of doctrine”

(Eph 4:14), that one cannot see any difference between the church and the world. They will receive their just recompense as spoken of by the prophet Hosea, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:17)

Submitted by Tommy Smith

Tags: Episcopal Communion Lambeth Conference, Episcopal Moravian Communion, Moravian Episcopal Communion, Moravian Episcopal Communion Agreement, Moravian Episcopal Full Communion, Moravian Episcopal Full Communion Agreement, National Council of Churches Moravians
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Moravian Statement on Health Care and Ecumenism

August 10th, 2009
This post by David T.

The goal of the ecumenical movement is to “unite” ALL religions in world (including Islam). There is evidence for that by reading Revelation, and we can easily see of how far along we are toward that end by reading the literature and articles published by the WCC/NCC, the various state Councils of Churches, and other ecumenical and “progressive organizations”. The recent ” Statement from Religious Leaders On Health Care Reform” endorced by Moravian leaders Wayne Burkett and David Wickman (see: www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090707141055145/print) is a good example portraying “scripture” from the Qur’an as equal to the protestant Bible. It is interesting to note that Islam is promoted as “a religion of peace” and attention is drawn to Islam surpassing other religions in terms of growth, the Roman Catholicism is the “false religion” (the “whore” described in Revelation) which will be THE One World Religion.

David T.

You can also read the following article at:
www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20German%20looks%20at%20Islam%20-%20Tanay.pdf

A German’s point of view on Islam
by Dr. Emanuel Tanay, Psychiatrist

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis ‘he said,’ but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories. ’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the ‘peaceful majority’, the ‘silent majority’, is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Emanuel Tanay, M. D.
Wayne State University
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Moravian Church on Health Care Reform

August 6th, 2009
This post by Lee

Moravian Church on Heath Care Overhaul

In June the National Council of Churches released a statement entitled Religious leaders declare health care reform ‘has become an urgent priority’ . Moravian PEC presidents Wayne Burkett of the Southern Province and David Wickman of the Northern Province Joined 31 others including Episcopal Bishop The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori in signing the declaration.

The NCC states: “Signers of the declaration, which was drafted with the assistance of the National Council of Churches Health Task Force, will seek a meeting with President Obama next month to press the point and assure him of their support for reform.

A MATTER OF HEALTH…A MATTER OF WHOLENESS

Today health care reform has become an urgent priority, with many Americans fearful about the health care they now hold and more than 45 million lacking coverage altogether. Rising unemployment, underemployment and a decline in employment benefits have deprived many more of health care. The health of our neighbors and the wholeness of the nation now require that all segments of our society join in finding a solution to this national challenge.“…Learn to do good, seek justice; rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:17“…Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Matthew 22:39“…Ye who believe! Stand up firmly for Allah, witness to justice…be just, that is next to piety.” Qur’an 5:8

Our diverse communities of faith -Jewish, Christian and Muslim- are each shaped and guided by our respective sacred texts which compel us to speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable members of our society. Today that means making comprehensive and compassionate health care reform an urgent priority so that all of our neighbors, especially the people living in poverty, children, and the aged, can be assured of the fullness of life that is central to the holy vision of a beloved and peaceable community.

No longer can we afford to squander the hopes and dreams of the American people through a much-too-costly system that contributes to economic despair. Families and individuals must be able to rely on affordable care in times of illness or accident and preventative care to safeguard health and well-being. Those who are ill need the assurance that coverage will not be canceled by illness or employment circumstance. They should also be afforded the dignity of selecting their own caregivers.

Today we pray, each in our own custom, for discernment, boldness, clarity and leadership in each segment of our society so that we may find the resolve to achieve health reform worthy of this land. As we together pursue this vision our direction is certain-it is toward the common good. The prospect of high-quality, affordable health care for everyone is a measure of our wholeness as a nation.

We pray that our best minds and kindest hearts might be joined in this effort so that all men, women and children will have the health care they need to live the lives for which they were created. We stand ready to give our support and energies to its achievement.

Archbishop Vicken Aykazian
Armenian Apostolic Church
President of the National Council of Churches

Bishop Wayne Burkette
Moravian Church in America, Southern Province

Rev. Dr. Miriam Burnett
Medical Director
African Methodist Episcopal Church Health Commission

Rev. Jerry D. Campbell, Ph.D.
President
Claremont School of Theology

Sister Simone Campbell, SSS
Executive Director
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Margurite Carter
National Board President
Church Women United

Dr. Iva E. Carruthers
General Secretary
Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, Inc.

The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane
Episcopal Bishop of Washington
District of Columbia

Bishop Ronald M. Cunningham
Ecumenical Officer
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

Dr. William H. Curtis
President
Hampton University Minister’s Conference

Amy Echeverria
Director
Columbian Center for Advocacy & Outreach

Matthew Ellis
Executive Director
National Episcopal Health Ministries
National Episcopal AIDS Coalition

Bishop Christopher Epting
Deputy for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations
The Episcopal Church

Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell
Ecumenical Officer
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Rabbi Steve Gutow
President
Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Dr. Richard L. Hamm
Former General Minister & President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the US & Canada

Rev. Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Dr. Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches

Dr. Ken Brooker Langston
Director, Disciples Justice Action Network
Coordinator, Disciples Center for Public Witness

Elaine Lee
Vice President at Large
Health Ministries Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Rabbi Michael Lerner
Rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in San Francisco
Chair of the Interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives

Rev. Dr. Eileen W. Lindner
Connectional Presbyter
Presbytery of the Palisades (NJ)

Rev. Michael E. Livingston
Executive Director, International Council Community Churches
Immediate Past President, National Council of Churches

Marie Lucey, OSF
Associate Director for Social Mission
Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Felton Edwin May United Methodist Bishop (Retired)
Executive Director
Multi-Ethnic Center for Ministry

Dr. David McAllister-Wilson
President
Wesley Theological Seminary

Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley
General Secretary
American Baptist Churches

Stanley J. Noffsinger
General Secretary
Church of the Brethren

Harriett Jane Olson
Deputy General Secretary, Women’s Division
General Board of Global Ministries
The United Methodist Church

Rev. Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk
Presbyterian Church USA

Rev. Dr. Tyrone Pitts
General Secretary
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Bishop Sharon Zimmerman Rader
Ecumenical Officer
United Methodist Church

Nancy Ratzan
President
National Council of Jewish Women

Rabbi David Saperstein
Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel,
The Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
Episcopal Church

Dr. Robert Seymour
Minister Emeritus
Binkley Memorial Baptist Church

Ronald J. Sider
President
Evangelicals for Social Action

Rev. Dr. T. DeWitt Smith
President
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed
National Director
Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances
Islamic Society of North America

Russell M. Testa
Executive Director
Franciscan Action Network

Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

Daniel Vestal
Executive Coordinator
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

Bishop George Walker, Jr.
Senior Bishop
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

Dr. Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada

Dr. Robert Welsh
President, Council on Christian Unity
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada

The Rev. David L. Wickmann
President
Moravian Church-Northern Province

Jim Winkler
General Secretary
General Board of Church and Society
United Methodist Church

Bishop Gabino Zavala
Bishop President
Pax Christi,

I have to wonder if these spiritual leaders have been given details of the health care plan that have not yet come to light. For many including myself and hopefully our national lawmakers, we are looking for specifics assurances that this plan will not move us to a 3^rd world health system as plans of this kind have done without exception.

Last year I went to my family doctor with some chest pains. He immediately got me an appointment with a Cardiologist. In less than an hour I was in his office. I was not having pain at that time but explained exactly what the symptoms were. He said “usually we would schedule you for a stress test to determine the next step of treatment. But your story is too good. I am convinced you need to be in the hospital ASAP. The next day I was having a stint placed in a coronary artery that was 90% blocked.

The system worked and by law it has to work for everyone. Adding more layers of authority and pre approvals may give more people government jobs placing them on the government health system while putting the rest of us in a unproven socialized experiment.

My Cardiologist has since retired and has this to say about the proposed health care plan.

I am a retired cardiologist and I have practiced for many years in government, academic and private venues. The most inefficient, impersonal and lowest quality care I observed was in government institutions.

People vote with their feet and come here from all over the world for care, especially Canadians dissatisfied with long waiting lines or unavailability of needed procedures under their government-run system.

Polls have shown most Americans are reasonably satisfied with their own care. By law, no one is denied care, and according to Karl Rove (”Obama’s Great Health Scare,” Wall Street Journal, July 29), only about 2 percent of American citizens actually want and need health insurance but cannot afford it.

From what I have learned about the 1,000-plus page health-care bill, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare and a giant step toward total government control of medicine. It is obvious that we will ultimately lose our current private-insurance plans.

According to a 2005 Heritage Foundation report, Medicare has an estimated $2.7 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 10 years. Imagine the astronomical cost to the taxpayers of extending such a program to everyone.

I shudder to think that my family and I, and all Americans, may lose our freedom to choose our own doctors and hospitals and may be forced to endure substandard health care under the direction of blundering politicians and bureaucrats, while at the same time we are impoverished by the crushing taxes that will be required to pay for it”

DR. AL RUFTY

Winston-Salem Journal Aug 6 2009

Tags: National Council of Churches Moravians, Socialized Health Care
Posted in News and Events | 5 Comments »

Moravian Episcopal Full Communion Study Group Meets with Archivist Daniel Crews

January 18th, 2009
This post by Lee

This is a reminder that Daniel Crews will Speak at 6:00 Tuesday night January 20th at Olivet Moravian Church. He will be addressing the group who has been studying the Full Communion Proposal with the Episcopal Church.

Crews is the author of many publications during his career as archivist in Winston Salem. What might be one of the most pertinent to our discussions is “Confessing Our Unity in Christ” a historical and theological Background to “The Ground of the Unity” This 38 page booklet was prepaired by request of the president of the PEC for presentation to the Moravian Clergy Association in 1994 but has been updated in recent re printings in January 2000 to reflect Synod changes to the Ground.

It is expected that Daniel Crews will discuss the confessional statements and evolution of Doctrinal statements of the Old Unity between 1468 and 1573 through today.

A doctrinal statement that was developed and over a number of years evolved into the “eight essential” was affirmed Synod after Synod for more than 150 years before it’s replacement by the “Ground of the Unity” in 1957.

It is the “Ground of the Unity” that has done so much to define Modern Moravians as Genetically Disposed to Ecumenism. It is the “Ground of the Unity” that is often referenced in the agreement and informs the dialogue team from both the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church that we are compatible.

Daniel may help us understand the environment and culture that brought about this most significant event in Moravian Synod History.

Everyone is invited Olivet Members and guests, bring a friend.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Who is TEC?

December 21st, 2008
This post by Lee

As some Moravian Churches begin the process of studying the Episcopal Moravian Agreement for Full Communion one of the first questions after “why do we need to do this?” is “who are the Episcopals that we are seeking this partnership with?”

Anyone who has seen the news or read a newspaper will realize this is not an easy answer. I am not going to pretend it has been an easy answer for Moravians to define ourselves either.

Those on the Dialogue team looked for those answers in the traditions and documents of the Episcopal Church and the Moravian Church and drew their conclusions based on those.

TEC under the Anglican Church still points to the Book of Common Prayer and Lambeth to define themselves in the Communion agreement but seems to prefer a different identity in its practice and witness.

Those defending the agreement may say that not all Episcopal believe and act like those turning away from their Orthodox heritage. That is correct. But when redefining comes from the top and years of dialogue by the orthodox believers had no effect it is likely that our relationship will be more influenced by Presiding Bishop Schori and her well placed sympathetic Bishops.

The following article by Jordan Hylden gives an inside view of the emerging Episcopal Church and can raise some valid questions of how appropriate it is for the Episcopal Church to be evaluated as a communion partner based on an Anglican connection that is so severely strained that many believe TEC is walking away from their own Anglican Communion and agreements.

Anglican, or Episcopalian?

By Jordan Hylden

Thursday, December 18, 2008, 9:50 AM

“Are you Anglican, or Episcopalian?” As an Episcopalian interloper studying at a Methodist seminary, I get the question a lot from my puzzled friends. Each time I’m asked, part of me wants to launch into a mini-primer on Anglican ecclesiology—to wit, that Episcopalians are Anglicans, since the Episcopal church is just the American province of the global Anglican communion. Which means that, technically, the question shouldn’t even make sense—it’s sort of like asking, “Are you American, or Texan?” But, of course, I know just what the question means—it does make sense, because it reflects the sad divisions that have roiled the church over the past five years. Quite simply and sensibly, my Methodist friends want to know whether I’m a member of the liberal Episcopal church, or one of the conservative Anglican groups that broke off. And as saddening as it is to admit, I’ve come to think that their common-sense perception is more accurate than my attempts at ecclesiological theory. Their question can only be asked, and answered, because of the reality on the ground in the United States: Episcopalians are one thing, and Anglicans are another.

Popular understanding is usually much wiser than theoretical wishful-thinking, and nowhere more so than here. The divisions in the church have led the American public to attach the meanings to the words Episcopalian and Anglican that they actually bear in their usage—namely, that to be an Episcopalian means to be a member of an pro-gay, autonomous American denomination, more liturgical than most churches but firmly within the theological orbit of liberal Protestantism. To be an Anglican, by contrast, means to be part of a conservative evangelical church with bishops, connected somehow with Africa and opposed to homosexuality. The definitions have by now become quite distinct and firmly fixed in the national lexicon—ask almost any church-going American what the words mean, and you will get an answer something like the above.

Some Episcopalians and Anglicans (myself included) strongly dislike these characterizations—to be genuinely Episcopalian, they believe, means to be in fellowship with the Anglican communion, and to be authentically Anglican is to be part of a global communion of catholic Christians united by creedal orthodoxy and a commitment to read Scripture, pray, and worship together in the historic Anglican tradition. But although this sounds wonderful in theory, it is simply not what has happened, by and large, in the American context. Because of what’s taken place over the past five years, Episcopalian is now understood to be a term set in opposition to Anglican, and Anglican refers not to a global catholic communion but rather to an American-African evangelical phenomenon. Whether we think the words ought to bear these meanings is not the point—my point is that this is what the words actually do mean, in newspapers and conversations and pulpits across the country.

Take, for instance, the widely publicized formation just this month of a new conservative Anglican province—the so-called Anglican Church in North America, with Robert Duncan as its new archbishop and primate. By taking the name Anglican for themselves, the clear implication is that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church are not in fact authentically Anglican, since they need to be completely replaced. In this, they are only following the practice of previous breakaway groups, such as the Nigerian-based CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) and the Rwandan-based AMiA (Anglican Mission in America). The commonplace notion that Anglican means “not Episcopalian” is no coincidence; this is precisely the conclusion that the average church-going American would reasonably draw from following the news.

Moreover, the vision of Anglicanism here in play clearly gives very little weight to catholic order and global communion. The new Anglican church was created, as it were, by fiat— Duncan’s forthcoming elevation as archbishop, and the new group’s status as an Anglican province, are thus far only self-declared realities. And although Duncan’s group and his supporters have asked for approval from the global Anglican instruments of communion, they have also made it clear that they do not consider such approval to be necessary. Duncan and his allies enjoy the support of five evangelical Anglican primates, mostly African and all associated with the confessional GAFCON movement. This is, forthrightly, all the approval that the new church supposes itself to need; apart from this, Duncan’s group considers itself authorized to go it on its own. If ordinary Americans are expected to suppose that Anglican means something other than a conservative evangelical movement with liturgy and bishops, it cannot be from reading the daily headlines.

Episcopalians, for their part, genuinely do see themselves first and foremost as an autonomous, liberal American denomination. Their election of Gene Robinson as the church’s first openly gay bishop, of course, along with their practice (in many dioceses) of liturgically blessing same-sex unions, has led to a great deal of turmoil. But despite being asked many times by the Anglican instruments of communion to reverse course for the sake of Anglican unity, Episcopalians show little sign of doing so. By and large, Episcopalians like Bishop Robinson; as one friend of mine remarked, the thing about Robinson isn’t that he’s theologically unique as an Episcopalian, it’s that he’s so typical. Most Episcopalians are very content with their church’s position on homosexuality, as well as with the church’s general doctrinal haziness; such things are not about to change anytime soon. Even though holding to such positions may well mean walking apart from other Anglicans, the majority of the church views this as an unfortunate but acceptable necessity. In short, it seems clear that for most Episcopalians, the core of their identity lies elsewhere than their status as Anglicans.

All in all, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the commonplace definitions of Anglican and Episcopalian in the American public lexicon have their roots not simply in confusion or misunderstanding, but in what has actually happened on the ground. Many may view these realities as unfortunate, but that does not change the fact that they have indeed become realities. If these words are to change in their popular meaning, they will have to change also in fact. And to do so will mean fighting an uphill battle against the forces that have given them their current definitions.

So far, so gloomy. I’m home from seminary at the moment, visiting family and friends in North Dakota. When I get asked—as I undoubtedly will—whether I’m Anglican or Episcopalian, what will I say in reply? As of right now, believe it or not, I still think that my answer can and should be, “Both.”

The answer depends not on the probability of being understood; given what I have just laid out, I have little reason to think that. My reason has much more to do with necessity and hope. As I made clear to my diocesan standing committee last summer, I understand myself to be an Episcopalian precisely because I am an Anglican; if I did not believe in the vision of a genuinely catholic and reformed global fellowship of Christians that the Anglican communion, at its best, holds out, I would have little interest in joining up with a denomination that, frankly, is more committed to their openness toward diverse beliefs and practices than to orthodox Christian doctrine. If I cannot say that I believe myself to be an Anglican first and Episcopalian second, then my place in the church makes little sense.

And that, in turn, is dependent upon being able to hope that Anglicanism actually means something beyond the local and the ad hoc; that there actually is, in fact and not only in theory, a global fellowship of Anglican Christians committed to the creedal faith and to common prayer, worship, and reading of Scripture. In short, despite the general futility of my hand-waving attempts at explaining Anglican ecclesiology, I have to stick to my guns—even though I think that the terms Anglican and Episcopalian have almost entirely left the barn, I can’t accede to what the words have come to mean in their near-universal American usage.

Is there still reason to hope that the words will somehow change their meanings? As for Episcopalian, I don’t see how it could. Next summer’s General Convention will be important to watch; many expect that it will further underscore the church’s autonomy and commitment to theological liberalism. Even so, the valiant Communion Partners, the group within the Episcopal church committed to both catholic order and doctrinal orthodoxy, remains forward-looking and vocal. If the status quo remains unchanged, their long-term future in the Episcopal church is dubious, but they intend nevertheless to remain committed to both Anglicanism and the Episcopal church so long as it is possible.

What about the definition of Anglican? In the October issue of First Things, I expressed the hope that last summer’s Lambeth Conference, and particularly the leadership of Archbishop Rowan Williams, gave strong evidence that the center of the Anglican communion intended to hold together; that the Episcopal left and the GAFCON right would not, in fact, carry the day and so lead the communion ever-further down the road to fragmentation and incoherence. Since that time, most of the action has been on the GAFCON and Bishop Duncan side; and the more influence they have, the less chance there is of an eventual coming-together of things.

But the ball is now in center court, as it were—this February’s meeting of the Anglican primates will be crucial, as will the meeting of the Covenant Design Group in April and the Anglican Consultative Council’s meeting in May. If Anglicanism is truly to mean something beyond the local, these meetings will carry forward the Lambeth vision of a genuinely covenanted “global” and “catholic church,” with its ministry, faith, and sacraments “united and interdependent throughout the world,” as Rowan Williams has put it.

There are, of course, no guarantees. The forces of dissolution and division right now are strong, and it is always much easier to pull apart than it is to hold together. The question “Anglican or Episcopalian?” may always be with us; but at the least, we may still be able to hope that the question “What kind of Anglican are you?” will not become just as common.

Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.

Posted in Moravian Episcopal Communion Agreement, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Prayer Makes History But Has it Been Lost, Filed Away, Forgotten by Moravians: Count Zinzendorf

November 3rd, 2008
This post by Lee

Prayer Makes History But Has it Been Lost, Filed Away, Forgotten by Moravians: Count Zinzendorf

3 Nov 2008

Some one recently sent me a link to a sermon by pastor Denny Kenaston and made available at CharityMinistries.org.

The topic of pastor Kenaston’s message was “The radical example of Moravian Missions”. After listening to the message, heard here, I became interested in the phrase that was shouted from the deck of the departing ship caring early missionaries off to far ports. Many of these missionaries would not return and they and their families knew this. The passionate rally cry lifted by by those early missionaries was “May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of his sufferings”

This phrase has found use by many whose ministry share the same passionate concern of early Moravians for lost souls.

An internet search will return many hits on this phrase but it may be difficult to find on any official Moravian web site. Please let me know if you find mention of it there.

I found the following You tube video on the subject below. Below that is an article by David Smithers for consideration in light of the claim by promoters of the Ecumenical Movement that drives them towards Full Communion with other churches like the Lutheran and now the Episcopal Church that we have always been an ecumenical Church seeking full communion.

Can the desire of Count Zinzendor for restoration of the Apostolic Community be so broadly apllied.

by David Smithers
Throughout the history of the Church, it has always been the most ardent lovers of Jesus who have felt the greatest need for more of His presence. Surely it is with this class of saints that Count Zinzendorf belongs. For Zinzendorf, loving fellowship with Christ was the essential manifestation of the Christian life. Throughout the Count’s life, “His blessed presence” was his all consuming theme. He had chosen from an early age as his life-motto the now famous confession; “I have one passion;it is Jesus, Jesus only.”

A Man of Prayer

Flowing out of Zinzendorf’s passionate love for Christ came a life disciplined in prayer. “Count Zinzendorf had early learned the secret of prevailing prayer. So active had he been in establishing circles for prayer that on leaving the college at Halle, at 16 years of age , he handed the famous professor Franke a list of seven praying societies.” Also preceding the great Moravian revival of 1727, it was Count Zinzendorf who was used to encourage prayer for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit. John Greenfield describes for us the constant prayer that followed the revival of 1727. “Was there ever in the whole of church history such an astonishing prayer meeting as that which beginning in 1727, went on one hundred years? It was known as the ‘Hourly Intercession.’ And it meant that by relays of brothers and sisters, prayer without ceasing was made to God for all the work and wants of His church.’ The best antidote for a powerless Church is the influence of a praying man. The influence of Count Zinzendorf’s prayer-life did not stop with one small community. It ultimately went on to influence the whole world.

Souls for the Lamb

As Zinzendorf’s passion for Jesus grew, so did his passion for the lost. He became determined to evangelize the world with a handful of saints, equipped only with a burning love for Jesus and the power of prayer. The Moravian Brotherhood readily received and perpetuated the passion of their leader. A seal was designed to express their newfound missionary zeal. The seal was composed of a lamb on a crimson ground, with the cross of resurrection and a banner of triumph with the motto; “Our Lamb has conquered, let us follow Him.” The Moravians recognized themselves in debt to the world as the trustees of the gospel. They were taught to embrace a lifestyle of self-denial, sacrifice and prompt obedience. They followed the call of the Lamb to go anywhere and with an emphasis upon the worst and hardest places as having the first claim. No soldiers of the cross have ever been bolder as pioneers, more patient or persistent in difficulties, more heroic in suffering, or more entirely devoted to Christ and the souls of men than the Moravian Brother-hood.

The Moravians beautifully explain their motivation for missions in the following 1791 evangelical report. “The simple motive of the brethren for sending missionaries to distant nations was and is an ardent desire to promote the salvation of their fellow men, by making known to them the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ. It grieved them to hear of so many thousands and millions of the human race sitting in darkness and groaning beneath the yoke of sin and the tyranny of Satan; and remembering the glorious promises given in the Word of God, that the heathen also should be the reward of the sufferings and death of Jesus; and considering His commandment to His followers, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, they were filled with confident hopes that if they went forth in obedience unto, and believing in His word, their labor would not be in vain in the Lord. They were not dismayed in reflecting on the smallness of their means and abilities, and that they hardly knew their way to the heathen whose salvation they so ardently longed for, nor by the prospect of enduring hardships of every kind and even perhaps the loss of their lives in the attempt. Yet their love to their Savior and their fellow sinners for whom He shed His blood, far outweighed all these considerations. They went forth in the strength of their God and He has wrought wonders in their behalf.”

The Moravians had learned that the secret of loving the souls of men was found in loving the Savior of men. On October 8,1732, a Dutch ship left the Copenhagen harbor bound for the Danish West Indies. On board were the two first Moravian missionaries; John Leonard Dober, a potter, and David Nitschman, a carpenter. Both were skilled speakers and ready to sell themselves into slavery to reach the slaves of the West Indies. As the ship slipped away, they lifted up a cry that would one day become the rallying call for all Moravian missionaries, “May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering.” The Moravian’s passion for souls was surpassed only by their passion for the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

They Had All Things In Common

Another vision of Count Zinzendorf’s was that of the restoration of Apostolic community. He labored to establish a community of saints that loved and supported one another through prayer, encouragement and accountability. To a great extent Zinzendorf’s vision became a reality in the small village of Herrnhut. A deep sense of community was maintained through small groups based on common needs and interests, original and unifying hymns and continual prayer meetings. In 1738 John Wesley visited “this happy place” and was so impressed that he commented in his journal “I would gladly have spent my life here . . . Oh, when shall this Christianity cover the earth as water covers the sea?”

He Had No Other Happiness But To Be Near Him

By no means was Count Zinzendorf’s life flawless, but one cannot help but be moved by his consuming passion and pre-occupation with the person of Jesus Christ. A glimpse of his burning love for Jesus can be caught in the following letter. “Our method of proclaiming salvation is this: to point out to every heart the loving Lamb, who died for us, and although He was the Son of God, offered Himself for our sins … by the preaching of His blood, and of His love unto death, even the death of the cross, never, either in discourse or in argument, to digress even for a quarter of an hour from the loving Lamb: to name no virtue except in Him, and from Him and on His account,-to preach no commandment except faith in Him; no other justification but that He atoned for us; no other sanctification but the privilege to sin no more; no other happiness but to be near Him, to think of Him and do His pleasure; no other self denial but to be deprived of Him and His blessings; no other calamity but to displease Him; no other life but in Him.’

The source of Count Zinzendorf’s success was bound up in his total allegiance and love for JESUS CHRIST! Likewise the source of the modern Church’s failure lies in her half-hearted devotion and open disregard for the Lover of their souls. As the Bride of Christ, we are in need of some old-fashioned, gut wrenching, REAL repentance. Today, Jesus, the heartbroken Bridegroom, still cries out to us; “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, . . . (Rev. 2:4-5)

by David Smithers

Tags: Add new tag
Posted in News and Events | 1 Comment »

Can the Moravian Church Rescue the Sinking Episcopal Church?

October 28th, 2008
This post by Lee

Episcopal Moravian Agreement is complete see details here

Episcopal legal bills result in deficit

October 23, 2008

by Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

The Episcopal Church has spent nearly $2 million on legal expenses this year, more than four times its budgeted amount, and will run a deficit of $2.5 million in 2009, according to the church’s news service.

The denomination’s Executive Council, meeting in Helena, Mont., this week (Oct. 20-24), budgeted $450,000 for legal expenses in 2008 but spent $1.97 million, according to Episcopal News Service. The well-heeled denomination is engaged in a number of costly legal battles with conservatives who’ve left the Episcopal Church but seek to retain parish property.

Also, the stock market decline has decreased the value of the Episcopal Church’s endowment funds by 30 percent, said church treasurer Kurt Barnes.

The church anticipates $54.6 million in revenue for 2009 and about $57 million in expenses, according to ENS. The church ran surpluses of $1.2 million in 2007 and $2 million in 2008, the news service reported.

Tags: Will Protestant Communion Agreements rescue the Episcopal Church
Posted in Moravian Episcopal Communion Agreement | No Comments »

Traditional Christian Language like “Mission”-”Witness”-”Conversion” Not Fruitfull

October 23rd, 2008
This post by Lee

Common Ground for fruitful interfaith dialogue requires “sensitivity and careful use of traditional Christian language like mission, witness and conversion.” That really should not be hard for Christian Churches that have been members of the WCC who have been conditioned by them not only to be sensitive about those concepts among each other but in their own denomination. Often avoiding such teachings and dicussions all together.

Ecumenical Consultation Demarcates Common Ground for Dialogue with Islam

Jointly issued by the WCC and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches

Contact: World Council of Churches, +41-22-791-6153, +41-79-507-6363, media@wcc-coe.org

MEDIA ADVISORY, Oct. 22 /Standard Newswire/ — Christian communities should improve their knowledge of Islam, be good neighbours to Muslims and bear witness to their faith in an appropriate manner, according to an international group of church leaders and experts on Christian-Muslim dialogue.

These were some of the recommendations put forward at an 18 to 20 October consultation aimed at developing an ecumenical Christian theological understanding of dialogue with Islam. Convened by the World Council of Churches (WCC), it gathered some fifty church leaders and experts on Christian-Muslim dialogue in Chavannes-de-Bogis, outside Geneva, Switzerland.

However, participants agreed, Christianity teaches to love the neighbour regardless of race, gender or religion. Even more, Christian self-understanding is challenged and deepened through relationships with Muslims, while Christians themselves are renewed by entering into dialogue with them.

For this dialogue to be fruitful it needs to be sensitive, including a careful use of traditional Christian language like mission, witness and conversion. And both church leaders and communities need to be educated in the knowledge of Islam as Muslims live and present it.

Read the rest of the article at http://www.earnedmedia.org/wcc1022.htm

Posted in Quest for Unity | No Comments »