Hinge 23:3_How Many Moravians Does It Take to Change a Doctrine?

THE

HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG

FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH

How Many Moravians Does It Take to Change a Doctrine?

by The Rev. Dr. Frank Crouch

With responses by: The Rev. Dr. Lynnette Delbridge The Rev. Judy Ganz Justin Rabbach The Rev. Dr. Neil Routh The Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson

Vol. 23, No. 3: Summer 2018

THE

HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG

FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH

Volume 23, Number 3: Summer 2018 The Hinge is a forum for theological discussion in the Moravian Church. Views and opinions expressed in the articles published in The Hinge are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or the official positions of the Moravian Church and its agencies. You are welcome to submit letters and articles for consideration and publication.

One of the early offices of the Moravian Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was that of the Hinge: The office of the Hinge requires that the brother who holds it look after everything and bring troublesome factors within the congregation into mutual accord without their first having to be taken up publicly in the congregational council. —September 1742, The Bethlehem Diary, vol. 1, tr. by Kenneth Hamilton, p. 80.

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

1 Notes from the editor We are pleased to present the 2017 Moses Lectures in Moravian Studies given by the Rev. Dr. Frank Crouch, Dean of Moravian Theological Seminary and Vice President of Moravian College. Before coming to MTS as Assistant Professor of New Testament, Frank was a pastor in the Southern Province. Frank has served the church well as a teacher and administrator, but the Moses Lectures provided an opportunity to demonstrate his skill as a scholar. Rather than providing exegesis and commentary on the New Testament itself, Frank spent months examining how Moravians interpreted the New Testament in the past.

Since the beginning of the Unitas Fratrum in the 15th century, Moravians have taught people to read and study the Bible, translated the Bible into dozens of languages, and sincerely tried to live according to biblical teachings. The Bible has always been central to the life of the Moravian Church, but like all Christians, Moravians often read the Bible through the lens of their own culture. In the 18th and 19th centuries Moravians used the Bible to justify the cruel practice of chattel slavery in their settlements and plantations in the Caribbean and North America. Moravians were no different than most Christians in reading Paul’s letters literally and uncritically to justify human enslavement. But Moravians were different from other churches in their mission to enslaved people and by calling their converts “brother” and “sister.” It remains baffling to many people today how anyone can proclaim that another person is your brother or sister and yet keep them enslaved, but that is how Moravians in the past read the Bible. This is the tragic and profoundly disturbing history that Frank addresses.

Frank challenges the practice of quoting biblical texts to support systems of oppression, which he calls “world-sorting dichotomies,” such as “slave” and “free”. He argues that the message and mission of Jesus breaks down the walls of division that humans establish to oppress some people

[Continued]

THE

HINGE

Notes from the Editor [Continued from previous page] while elevating others. If the Bible truly shapes our life and our mission, as we Moravians claim, we will not resort to the cynical practice of quoting scripture to justify injustice, exclusion, and oppression. When the Bible is used to deny the full humanity and the human rights of others, then we have left the path of Christ.

We are also blessed in this issue of The Hinge with responses by scholars and pastors in the Moravian Church who both challenge Frank’s argument and extend it. Our respondents help move this discussion beyond a European (white) context into the global Moravian world. They also pick up Frank’s challenge to move beyond history to our contemporary setting where Moravians are vigorously debating the status of sexual minorities in our church. One of the “world-sorting dichotomies” that Frank mentions is the distinction between “straight” and “gay” where “straight” is taken to mean moral or normal and “gay” (or “queer”) means immoral and aberrant.

How does a church that has always been shaped by scripture and which seeks to follow the Jesus Christ revealed in scripture address this highly emotional issue?

On a further note, I received several very thoughtful letters and emails in response to the previous issue of The Hinge, which I decided not to publish since this issue is overly long. I want to thank all of you who wrote to me.

—Craig Atwood, Editor

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

2

3 “How Many Moravians Does It Take to Change a Doctrine?

The Rev. Dr. Frank L. Crouch is dean of the Moravian Theological Seminary in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

This article is an expansion of two lectures given at Moravian Theological Seminary in October 2017. Because of time constraints, some arguments or evidence were condensed during the lectures. The article contains expanded supporting material and analysis, particularly in citations of primary texts and in discussion of Zinzendorf, Nitschmann, and Spangenberg.

The lectures used Keynote for presentation, so pictures and graphics have been replaced by narrative or prose descriptions. I’m a Bible scholar, not a historian. So, while preparing these lectures, I would consult with Craig Atwood, Riddick Weber, Paul Peucker, and Daniel Crews—all of whom are veritable fountains of knowledge about Moravian history and resources.

I also had key conversations with Deborah Appler, Tim Luckritz Marquis, and Audrey West, who are veritable fountains of knowledge about things biblical. I especially thank them for their help, and I assure you that any blunders I make are my fault, not theirs.

First Lecture In preparing for the Moses Lectures over the past eighteen months, I’ve taken an interdisciplinary, historical and biblical journey through Moravian approaches to scripture over the last five and a half centuries. Sometimes, Moravians have been spectacularly ahead of their time, with a record of insight, countercultural practices, martyrdom, exile, inclusion, and mission that left many who encountered them staring in amazement or anger, saying, “What are you doing? And who gave you permission?” Other times, though, Moravians have been co-opted by their surrounding culture, and they backed away from new understandings and practices—sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not at all for good reasons. They said to their neighbors, “You’re right. What were we thinking? Don’t worry, we’ll stop.

We’ll fit right in.”

THE

HINGE

Moravian Doctrines of Scripture After reading through centuries of Moravian statements on scripture, it is my observation that essentially they all express some variation on the Confession of 1535’s statement that the understandings of “truth through which people are instructed and formed through faith for salvation and righteousness are to be sought and derived from [Scripture].”1 That conviction stands as the core Moravian doctrine of scripture. It serves as a very typical Moravian doctrine, because if you look at Moravian doctrines of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, church, or scripture, almost every statement could end with the words, “Go and do likewise,” not, “go and believe likewise.”

Moravian doctrines try to move as quickly as possible from belief to practice. The Moravians described themselves in 1616 in Ratio Disciplinæ: “the original founders of our Unity … had in view not solely, although chiefly, to restore purity of doctrine and simplicity of Christian life, … considering how they might best effect this.”2 The old Unity focused on three things at the same time: seeking doctrinal purity, living a simple life, and figuring out how they might best bring their doctrine to life in their own lives. Otherwise, what is the point of worrying about doctrine?

Looping back to 1535, we can see how the 1616 statement matches the intention of the 1535 doctrine of scripture: people are “formed through faith for salvation and righteousness.” Faith is not just something to believe but something to embody. Moravians at their best don’t judge doctrine by how it works out logically or systematically, but by how it works out in its impact on human lives: how it demonstrates or doesn’t demonstrate love for our neighbors.

Further, the Confession of 1535 states that “we should know the difference between works instituted by humans and works which are commanded by God … Therefore our people zealously make every effort that the word of the Gospel, unmixed with human tradition, is taught and preached in the church.”3 They tried to keep their interpretations of scripture from being distorted by the ways of this world, which would cause

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

4

So, in these lectures we will first look at the general area of Moravian doctrines about the Bible. Then we will look at how 18th and 19th century Moravians used the Bible in response to slavery in the Caribbean and the U.S. Finally, we will look at how their use of the Bible back then casts light (or darkness) on how we might use or misuse the Bible today. I have been a Moravian for all of the 6.2 decades of my life so far, and that’s why, when I talk in these lectures about Moravians, sometimes I use “they,” and sometimes I use “we.” I have not psychoanalyzed why I use one or the other at different times. That’s why I’m fortunate we have a counseling program at the Seminary. But, the use of those different pronouns will happen.

their actions to go wrong. Both in my experience as a Moravian and in my reading I have seen many times the Moravians got the distinction between Gospel and human tradition right. It is my observation that the times that the Moravian Church got things most egregiously and terribly wrong were times when they thought that the Bible makes it easy to tell the difference between things of this world and things of God. We will be unpacking that observation for the rest of these lectures.

So, as we explore how Moravians have tried to use scripture to sort out the good and right things to do, we will focus on two tensions that (1) show up in scripture itself, (2) in both the history and present life of the larger Christian church, and (3) specifically in the history and present life of the Moravian portion of the Church. Those two tensions are between Ancient Ways and New Ways and between Things of this World and Things of God.

One caveat: by focusing discussion on just two sets of variables, we will reduce consideration of the many community dynamics that arise while working out these tensions. This can make the working out seem as if it could or should be tidy and neat. As we know, however, all kinds of community elements come into play—tradition, culture, gender, age, sexual identity, economic disparities, race, ethnicity, politics, life experiences, current events, sin, grace, revelation, and resistance. These all play a role in the often turbulent development of the doctrines and practices of the Moravian Church. So, with that caveat in mind, we turn to the tensions between ancient and new ways and things of the world and of God.

Ancient Ways and New Ways The first tension involves answering the following question: Should we do what we’ve always done, or do something new? When we try to use scripture to figure out what to do in answer to that question, we find some guidance from the prophet Jeremiah: “Thus says the LORD: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls” ( Jer. 6:16).4 This often serves as good advice.

Look to the ways that have stood the test of time. Some communities of faith take that approach as their main governing principle. If you drive to the Southern Province’s Laurel Ridge Camp, Conference, and Retreat Center in Laurel Springs, North Carolina, heading north on Highway 18, you see plenty of signs for churches. One of them says, “Old Path Holiness Church.”

Lots of churches fit into the category of “Old Path” churches.

But that same prophet Jeremiah also says: “The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel … It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors” ( Jer. 31:31–32). Jeremiah reminds us of another possibility worth keeping THE

HINGE

5

It’s possible for Old Path churches and New Path churches to coexist and even work together side-by-side. But sometimes individuals, communities of faith, denominations, or the larger Church must choose between “old ways” and “new ways.” We read in the New Testament that some of the earliest decision points among early Christians included: “Now that I’m a Christian (man), do I need to be circumcised or not?” Or, “Now that I’m a Christian (person), do I need to follow the dietary laws from Torah?” What am I supposed to do?

The Ancient Ways/New Ways quandary found in Jeremiah appears also in the Gospel of John in Jesus’ final discourse with his disciples. First, he says, “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” ( Jn. 14:25–26). Taken by itself, this passage presents the Holy Spirit as the one who reminds everyone of what has already been said. It does not require anything new because the Holy Spirit is a teacher and reminder. This falls easily in line with an Old Path church. Jesus has already told us everything we need to know. So, just do that. But just two chapters later in John, Jesus says, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” ( Jn. 16:12–13). This passage presents the Holy Spirit not just as teacher and reminder, but also as innovator and source of change. The Holy Spirit not only comes to comfort the afflicted, but also, as the saying goes, to afflict the comfortable, particularly when they face a real choice over ancient ways and new ways.

Things of this World and Things of God Often, when tension exists between Ancient Ways and New Ways, Old Path and New Path, it spills over into a second area of tension: things of this world and things of God. In the collision and intersections between those tensions, Moravians have had their greatest moments and their most significant failures. We can illustrate how these two tensions get intertwined by taking a quick look at John 9. For the sake of this discussion, we will only consider these basic points of the story: Jesus meets a man who had been born blind.

He heals that man. Controversy arises because he healed him on the Sabbath. Some Pharisees in the crowd see that as proof that Jesus could not be from God, because he broke the Sabbath. Other Pharisees in the crowd see that as proof that Jesus has to be from God, because he healed a man

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

6

in mind: change happens. Our past experiences and received wisdom will not always tell us the best ways to go. But some communities of faith take that approach as their main governing principle. If you look for churches on the internet, you can find some called “New Path Church.”5

born blind. As the debate continues Jesus said: “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.” ( John 9:39) Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not blind, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” ( John 9:39–41). His opponents were sure that Ancient Ways should carry the day. They had scripture to back them up. “He’s breaking one of the Ten Commandments!” (Ex. 20:8-11; Dt. 5:12-15).

Jesus’ opponents in this case were blinded by scripture. Or, more accurately, by a doctrine of scripture that led them to focus on the wrong things—words in a sacred text—while ignoring the most important things—a demonstration of the ways of God that went against their expectations.6 We paraphrase their argument thus: “This verse in the Ten Commandments says to keep the Sabbath. That means, unless a life is actually in danger, there should be no healing on the Sabbath. Therefore we know that you are wrong and we are right.” They seem oblivious to the fact that their understanding of that commandment had developed over time into a set of interpretive practices. They were so certain of the truth of their understanding that they equated their interpretation and practice with scripture itself.

Jesus’ opponents assumed that the safest way to evaluate all behavior lies in understanding Ancient Ways to be Things of God. They assumed that an old way means a safe way to act—particularly if the Bible speaks positively about it. They lacked the capacity or willingness to let a new experience provoke new reflection on their interpretation and practice. They held the ancient line, and unlike other Pharisees in their midst, they could not allow themselves to question why they objected to this man having one extra day of sight. The fact that Jesus’ action contradicted their established doctrine and practice gave them all the reason they needed to reject the idea that this might be a new thing of God.

These assumptions also drove the “circumcision party” in the time of the apostle Paul. They tried to preserve the separation between Jew and Gentile even in the church. Among some early Christians, it drove the “keep the dietary laws” people who wanted to preserve the separation between clean and unclean. Appropriately, arguments that favor ancient ways do not get easily dislodged. Old paths often stand as a safe refuge in times of disruption and shaking of the foundations. However, Jesus’ argument in John 9 says that we might cling to ancient ways at our own peril. “Because you say, ‘We see. We get it. We know that the Bible supports us,’ your sin remains.” Jesus brushes aside the fact that they had always seen or done things that way. He gives them no pass, even though his action was so new that no one had ever seen such a thing before. And when they miss the point and resist seeing this unprecedented thing as coming from God, he tells them, “Your sin remains.”

THE

HINGE

7

“We Should Know the Difference”

When we look at the history of humanity, we see how for millennia humans have ordered societies in terms of friends and enemies; in terms of who’s in and who’s out; in terms of who should be protected and who left exposed. And we have also given people authority to decide who is a friend or enemy, who is “in” and who is “out,” and whether “you” will feel safe or at risk on any given day. If we find ourselves on the upside of any of those pairs of possibilities, we might easily assume that God favors us more than them. We may feel that “they” who find themselves on the downside suffer because they or their family did something wrong - that they are simply getting what they deserve down to the third or fourth or fortieth or four hundredth generation.

But in the 1440s a follower of John Hus named Peter Chelčický reflected on European society, which claimed to be a Christian culture. He pondered the fact that people at that time believed that the social structure represented the natural order of society, the order of society ordained by God. There were three “natural” classes of people—the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners. When Chelčický reflected on that order, he said, “That’s a load of crap!” Of course, he said it more eloquently: To attempt, therefore, to use the teachings of Scripture to order the Body of Christ in this way is to order the world under the cover of Christ’s faith, to disguise the course of secular affairs as the service of Christian Law … But I say that to act thus is to cultivate the world under the cover of the faith, to call the world the faith, and, ultimately, so to confuse the faith by mixing the world into it as thereby to make it impossible to recognize what is the world and what is the faith.”7

Although almost everyone accepted this order of the three estates as grounded in scripture and cosmically justified, Chelčický’s viewed it as a distortion of the essential message of the gospel. It was a perversion of what it means to live with faith, hope, and love.

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

8

As noted earlier, Moravian doctrine contains a consistent thread about distinguishing between long standing traditions and new teachings from God: “We should know the difference between works instituted by humans and works which are commanded by God” and “make every effort [to keep] the word of the Gospel unmixed with human tradition” (Confession of 1535, above). If the prophet Isaiah accurately asserted that God’s ways are not our ways and God’s thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9), maybe, at times, we best proceed by assuming that the more ancient a practice, the more reason to suspect its validity.

About 200 years later, a better-known member of the Ancient Unity, Jan Amos Comenius, said it another way. His ideas on education, religion, society, and institutions were revolutionary enough to have authorities burn his books, try to stamp out his life’s work, burn down his house, and drive him into exile. After all of that, he wrote a book called Panorthosia (Universal Reform). In it, he asked how might people reform all the institutions, all the structures, and the practices of religion, politics, government, education, military, and everything. In one metaphor he captures the tensions and intermingling of ancient ways, new ways, things of the world, and things of God. “Existing things are not the fountains but the rivers.”8 Rivers, as impressive and powerful as they might be, trace themselves back to a source, to a fountain. As rivers flow away from the source and are joined by other tributaries, streams, or lakes, they pick up debris and sediments along the way; some pure, some good, some harmful. Eventually, the farther down the line it flows, the more likely that the river’s water will become something different from the fountain. Comenius believed that this described the state of churches, schools, and governments. Like rivers, ancient ways have a tendency to pick up a lot of debris over time. Because long standing traditions and practices are inextricably connected to and shaped by human beings, they exist always, at best, as partial, flawed, imperfect renderings seen through a mirror dimly. In other words, just because something is old, it does not mean that it still reflects the original source or ideal.

18th Century Moravian Response to Slavery So, all that being said, we turn to 18th-century Moravian responses to the ancient practice of slavery. They felt fine about owning slaves, believing that scripture supported them. Not only did they use scripture to “justify” the practice, the church’s leaders proceeded with ease and certainty, bolstered by the fact that slavery stood as an ancient practice. In addition, they found simple “justification” by pointing to Bible verses in both Old and New Testaments in which slavery was assumed and upheld. Moravians proceeded with clear consciences to act as if slavery was an institution created by God. It wasn’t wrong to own human beings, they thought: slavery was just being wrongly implemented by cruel slave traders or unfair masters. It was possible to be a good slave master, and the Moravians thought they could show others how to be “good” masters to slaves. These presuppositions drove their interpretation and use of scripture.

Just a decade after the founding of the Moravian settlement in Herrnhut, the Moravians sent Leonard Dober and David Nitschmann to start a mission on St. Thomas, in the West Indies in 1732. They left Herrnhut to preach the gospel to enslaved people, which meant the “Africans,” or, using their terminology to describe them, the “Negroes.” In 1738, the Moravian

THE

HINGE

9

missionaries in St Thomas bought a plantation along with its slaves. They kept the slaves as slaves.9

Today, one can find some of the gravestones over the graves of slaves about ¾ mile away from here, in God’s Acre at the corner of New and Market Streets. Here are three of them: [The Moses Lectures presentation showed three photographs of three graves.] ❖❖

❖❖ ❖❖

One says, “ANDREW. A NEGRO born at Ibo in Africa, departed March the 13th 1779.”

Another, “ABRAHAM. An African departed 1749.”

A third, “CORNELIA. NEW YORK 1728-1757. MULATTO SLAVE (THE HORSFIELDS). 1755 RECEIVED INTO THE CHURCH.”

We will return to them later.

In 1753, some Moravians left Bethlehem to start a settlement, a mission in North Carolina, at Bethabara. The Church wanted a settlement where they wouldn’t bother anybody and nobody would bother them, where no one diverted them from the purity of what they were setting out to do. As Bishop Spangenberg said: “We don’t want extraordinary Privileges, if only we can live together as Brethren, without interfering with others and without being disturbed by them; and if only we can keep our Children from being hurt by wicked Examples, and our young people from following the foolish and sinful ways of the World.”11

Now, the blinded-by-their-own-certainty part of the 18th century Moravians came into play. They already owned slaves in the Caribbean and in Bethlehem. So, when they need more laborers in North Carolina, they decided to own them there, too. They didn’t need others to teach their children the foolish and sinful ways of the World. And, despite what Spangenberg says, whether they realized it or not, owning people as slaves emphatically interferes with their lives. They had already become, in this important way, the World. I am not saying that the 18th century Moravians were worse than the other people, communities, and churches around them. In some ways they were better. And, I’m not saying they were worse than we are today, nor that we are better than they were then. We all live, to one degree or another, as products of our times, products of our world. What I am

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

10

In 1741, the Moravians started a settlement in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Within the first year, they needed to hire outside laborers to sustain their economy and ability to survive. They hired local, white laborers, but found them unsatisfactory because the workers had a bad attitude. So in 1742, the Moravians decided to bring some slaves up from St. Thomas as unskilled labor. They paid them a wage, and the Bethlehem community owned them as slaves.10

saying, though, is that when we look back at our history as church we do not want to draw on this part of our tradition. It is essential for us to look at why they thought God approved of their role as slave owners so that we don’t repeat their mistakes in interpreting the Bible today.

By 1763, the Moravian settlement in North Carolina had become a prosperous venture, but they faced a growing shortage in laborers. They debated the ethics and morality of owning slaves and some people argued against owning slaves. Here’s what they said: Outsiders introduce bad influences.

Self-sufficiency constituted a virtue in and of itself. As Spangenberg stated, we don’t want to bother anybody, and we want others to leave us alone. We want to maintain our purity of life.

Slaves might bring errors and bad influences into our midst.

Slaves would threaten our safety.

Slaves escape and act out of desperation, so they could harm us.

Or, they might be rebellious and who knows what they might do to us. Moravians could see that people would inevitably want to escape the state of slavery, but they felt the slave who rebelled or tried to get away was immoral, not the master who owned them and controlled their lives.

Slaves take away jobs and lower wages.

I won’t even ask if this argument sounds familiar in our own time.

Owning slaves is morally bad, because having slaves do our work will make us lazy.

Slavery would be morally corrupting by lowering the work ethic of white people.12 One does not find in Moravian sources the simplest reason we would offer today for opposing slavery: Slavery is wrong. One might suspect that some Moravians of that day had doubts about it as a church practice—particularly those who were themselves slaves. But the historical record of white, slave-owning Moravians, such as the Salem Diary, records little doubt about the acceptability of slavery as an institution. The Moravian historian, C.G.A. Oldendorp, wrote a 3,000 page manuscript on the history of Caribbean missions in the 1770s. The manuscript contains serious criticisms of the slave trade and slavery; however, a Moravian-appointed editor toned down criticisms or deleted them altogether in the published version. So, for over two centuries Oldendorp’s objections remained largely hidden from view.13 Almost all reports on 18th century missions, missionary diaries, and the writings of Zinzendorf and Spangenberg show little, if any, moral, theological objection to slavery.

THE

HINGE

11

One can find a complicated, good news/bad news scenario in this history. The 18th century Moravians created societies that significantly and counter-culturally cut across the lines of race, ethnicity, nationality, social status, and gender.16 For over three decades the slaves owned by Moravians ate the same food as Moravians and sat at the same table with everyone else. They did the same work as the Brothers and Sisters on the same days, and lived in the same housing. They worshiped with the Moravians at the same time in the same place, received the sacraments together, participated in foot washings, and received the same pastoral and medical care.

This practice differed significantly from most slave owners at that time. In 1760, in a letter to missionaries, Spangenberg said, “there is no difference between [slaves] and other brothers and sisters.”17 He should have more accurately said, “There is almost no difference between slaves and other brothers and sisters.” Or, better yet, “There is one gigantic difference.” Some members of the community were legally owned by the community or by individuals who held onto the official paperwork, that said, “You are not legally, physically free. You are a slave. And we are not.”

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

12

Back to North Carolina.14 After deliberating and consulting the Lot, the Moravian elders hired slaves from non-Moravian neighbors in 1763, beginning with a female slave to work in the tavern. They did not own her; they paid her owner to let her work for them. The tavern produced steady income but attracted a rough trade. Moravian leaders wanted to bring in non-Moravian women to serve tables, so that no Moravian women would have to deal with the drunk, rowdy patrons. The Wachovia administrator wrote, “The people of this land are rude, and if the Sisters were placed where strangers came to trade they would be exposed to insolence by day and night.”15 While respecting Moravian women’s sensibilities, they clearly did not acknowledge the negative impact the rowdy patrons would have on other women. They first brought enslaved women into the community as workers in the tavern consigned to deal with the unruly customers.

Gradually they brought in additional female and male slaves for the fields or other domestic work. In 1769, after consulting the Lot, they began to purchase slaves themselves. Keep in mind they interpreted a positive Lot as Christ’s affirmation of their decision to purchase human beings as laborers.

Second Lecture World-Sorting Dichotomies We Moravians have always claimed that we should hold scripture as the source of our formation in faith and practice. We have taught that we should guard against confusing things of this world with things of God. In the first lecture we looked at how Jesus’ opponents failed to consider both of those admonitions in their response to the healing of the man born blind. Their own certainty about the Sabbath blinded them to a new thing from God (new to them) unfolding in front of their eyes.

Speaking personally, as my research on Moravian use of scripture increasingly focused on Moravians and slavery, it was not easy to watch as our 18th and 19th century forebears walked down the same road as Jesus’ opponents in John. They made different mistakes, but made them for similar reasons. Before getting into the details of what they said and did, let’s look again at the worldview, the presuppositions they held that led to their error—the error of being too certain that they were right. How could they engage in such a series of significant interpretive mistakes that flowed out of that error as they, all the while, believed that what they said and did flowed out of the ways of God?

That is ultimately the point of these lectures—assessing a doctrine on the basis of how its resulting practices succeed or fail in demonstrating love for God and, especially, love for our neighbors. First, we’ll return to how particular worldviews expand or contract our faith and practice—as illustrated in scripture and in the life of early Christians—for better and for worse. Then we’ll look at length at what Moravians said and did with the Bible and slavery that might prove to be a cautionary tale for how we assess our own faith and practice today.

Whenever we divide the world into binaries we are living as people “of the world.” Over time societies, religions, cultures, whole civilizations focus on certain pairs (or binaries). For lack of a better term, let’s call these pairs “world-sorting dichotomies.” We use them to categorize what we regard as superior and inferior individuals and groups. People exist as either A or B, this or that, 1 or 0. Families, societies, religions, cultures, civilizations assume, teach, reinforce, and act as if one member of the pair inherently deserves better treatment than the other. The superiority stands as something seen as cosmically fixed in place, baked in, the default setting of the universe.

Galatians 3:28 mentions three world-sorting dichotomies of the first century: Jew/Gentile, Free/Slave,18 Male/Female. Two additional, related

THE

HINGE

13

Coming to terms with world-sorting dichotomies constituted some of the earliest fights in the early churches. Intense conflicts arose because the positive or negative value attributed to each member of those pairs could be traced back to passages in scripture. Conflicts were traced back to Torah passages that called circumcision the everlasting mark of the covenant (Genesis 17:1-14) or asserted that eating only clean foods or animals connected the holiness of the people with the holiness of God (Leviticus 11).

Yet, despite their longstanding status as scripturally-based dichotomies whose relevance could never diminish, the world-sorting dichotomies of Jew/Gentile, circumcision/uncircumcision, and clean/unclean were the first to go in the early Christian church. Among first century Christians, the status of those scriptural texts faded in light of other passages that took on new relevance. New understandings eclipsed those ancient, worldsorting texts and their ancient ways. New experiences led people of faith to listen to different texts saying it was time to stop calling unclean what God had now called clean (Acts 10, Mark 7:14-23).

Some texts and dichotomies faded more quickly than others. Eighteen hundred years later Moravians still said that the world-sorting dichotomy of free and slave was divinely ordained. No evidence to the contrary persuaded them otherwise, at least not in the historical record preserved by the Moravian leaders.

Political Obstacles and Zinzendorf’s Message to Authorities and Slave Owners When Zinzendorf visited St. Thomas in 1739 to check on the status of the mission there, he made sure that island officials, slave owners, and the slaves themselves understood that Moravians had not traveled to the Caribbean to upset the social order. They intended only to save souls, but they would also remind slaves of their responsibility as Christians to be obedient to their masters. We need to note here, that Zinzendorf and the Moravians were in

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

14

pairs played a role within the Jew/Gentile dichotomy—circumcised/uncircumcised and clean/unclean. Together, those additional dichotomies defined key elements of what it meant to be Jew or Gentile. They connected with (1) statements in Torah about the men of Israel being circumcised, distinguishing them from inferior, uncircumcised Gentiles, and (2) dietary laws separating those who ate only foods designated as clean from Gentiles who unrighteously gobbled down whatever was set before them. In each case, in the context described in Paul’s letters, many early Christians assumed, taught, reinforced, and acted as if the left side of each pair were superior to the right.

a complicated political situation. Their mission to the slaves in the Danish West Indies meant that they were entering a foreign territory. They were not citizens of Denmark or St. Thomas. They weren’t members of the state church. Plantation owners were more than a little bit suspicious of someone coming to preach and potentially educate their slaves. So, what to do?

Zinzendorf wrote a document attempting to solve that problem: “A Simple Declaration of the Evangelical Moravian Church, concerning their heretofore Present and Future Labor among the Savages, Negroes, Slaves and other Heathens.”19 The document does not spell out the Moravian approach to missions from a biblical perspective. It is written from a political perspective to the leaders, the courts, and the powers that be (plantation owners).

The Declaration links the Moravians of that day who wanted to start this new mission to “the Old Moravians” (the Ancient Unity) centuries before. Zinzendorf asserted that those Old Moravians were once highly esteemed, but in recent years, some people had been spreading false and libelous rumors about current Moravians (pp. 2-3). Despite those libels, he says, Moravians are simple people with a simple aim: “We live at present in some English, Danish, and Dutch Colonies in Africa, Asia and America, where we have partly begun to actually preach the Gospel to the Savages and Negroes, and partly are preparing for it, as we have done for some Years past according to our Custom” (p. 4). And we’re humbly petitioning those “above-mentioned High Powers” for permission to continue our current missions and to start new ones (p. 5).

He continues, assuring his audience:

a) That our Missionaries shall not contend there with any Religion, nor bring their people over to us; b) much less to draw to our Party such Heathens as have been already persuaded and inclined to the Christian Religion by Men of one or another Persuasion; c) nor to obstruct the Labours of any Religious People whatsoever (pp. 5-6).

It would be too simplistic to say that his words demonstrate primarily that Zinzendorf ’s ecumenical spirit was alive and well and respectful of other approaches to the Christian faith. Even if that were true, which his track record indicates it was, at that time, European state churches settled into the colonies with full expectation that their status, connections, and political influence would follow them from their home country. If Zinzendorf did not

THE

HINGE

15

Just the fact that the Moravian missionaries attended to the slaves as worthwhile humans was a threat to the essential dichotomy at the root of the island’s political/economic enterprise. Moravians saw themselves (and presented themselves) as simple laborers gathering up fragments that had been lost, innocently and unobtrusively engaging in a task that could be kept within the confines of the existing social order. All they planned to do was teach slaves to read, win souls for the Lamb, and bring a message of freedom that they themselves only barely understood, with social implications that they underestimated and disavowed.

Even with his theological imagination, community innovations, and claims of connection to the Ancient Unity, Zinzendorf wrote his Declaration with only the slightest knowledge of the Ancient Unity’s radical theology and disruptive social practices.20 Fortunately for him, his audience knew even less than he did. And, being a Count, he likely was as susceptible as they were to the delusion that God tends to side with established power. He confidently affirmed that they would not challenge the slaves’ plight or oppression. He presupposed that challenges by the slaves themselves that might arise from their newfound ability to read or their own insights could be discouraged, controlled, and suppressed.21

The Declaration turned to those points. After noting that their missionary initiatives did not intend or threaten to disrupt existing religious institutions, he continued: d) Nor to interrupt the Connection between the Magistrates and the Heathens, under pretense of the Gospel, for where this is unavoidable in the Nature of the Case, as in Georgia, then we will rather leave the Country.22

e) Not to meddle with any Political or Commercial Affairs, or anything else, except what our Hands can do for our bare Maintenance, with the Foreknowledge and Approbation of the Magistrates. f ) Not to desire any Insight into the Rights of those Sovereigns, who Reign over us, neither into their Transactions with the Indians and other powers, nor to act from any other principle than this, that we for our Persons will be subject with all our Hearts unto them that have Power over us, and at the same Time to

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

16

acknowledge the “no compete” status of both church and state, both forces would obstruct the missionaries at every turn. Further, the Moravians were entering an openly slave-based economy, aiming to connect with its subjugated labor force. Zinzendorf ’s rhetorical task resembled telling a manufacturing plant owner, “Hey, I’m going down to the assembly line to train your workers. Don’t mind the wrenches and hammers I have in this bag.”

promote the good Harmony of our Sovereign with New Converts, certainly, and with the other Heathens as much as lies in our Power. g) Not to interfere with any Thing that might increase the odious Notions the Heathens, Savages, and Negroes have of the Christian Religion. h) Not to preach any Thing among them save Christ and him crucified and to keep them as much as possible in that happy Ignorance that the Christian Religion is divided into Parties; but when the Heathen notwithstanding observe something of it, then to be impartial in that Case, speak the best of all Parties and rather lessen than increase the Differences. i) To treat our Opposers very friendly and discreetly, and by all Ways and Manners to talk the Heathens out of that Trouble and Vexation they many Times feel on Account of those Oppressions our People meet with.23 k) But in the main Point, viz. The Conversion of the Heathens to the bleeding Reconciler of the whole World, whom all Christians must Acknowledge, not to give way a Hairs [sic] breadth but therein to wait for the Protection and Assistance … from our Saviour … (pp. 6-7).

In those assurances, he wanted to signal clearly: We recognize that the slave trade and use of slaves on plantations to harvest crops and make money for their owners constitutes a lucrative economic reality for the owners and colonial powers. We will not challenge that. Whatever laws you have, we’ll follow them. If you don’t want us preaching to native peoples (“Indians”), we won’t. He continues, “and at the same Time [we will] promote the good Harmony of our Sovereign with New Converts, certainly, and with the other Heathens as much as lies in our Power” (pp. 6-7).

This assures that the Moravians are not going to give converts or non-converted Heathens any sense that, if they convert to Christianity, they should expect to be treated better in their work or treated differently by the law of the land. As Zinzendorf states it, even if slave owners, overseers, and officials all profess to belong to the same body of Christ, they had no obligation to incorporate the slaves’ equality in Christ into the island’s religious, social, economic, and political structures. Zinzendorf makes this Declaration with all its concessions because he believes that slavery is theologically, biblically justified.

THE

HINGE

17

Zinzendorf’s Message to the Slaves

He continues, “You must know that Christ himself puts each one of his children to work, for the Lord has made everything Himself—kings, masters, servants, and slaves. And … everyone must gladly endure the state into which God has placed him” (p. 363). As will be seen later, Zinzendorf shared a worldview with Spangenberg (and most Christian leaders at the time) in which God oversees the course of human history and sets in place the structures of human societies. By that view, people live in slavery or subjugation because God placed them there. Regardless of one’s state, however, God calls all to be joyful. Neither slave nor master should question God’s wisdom, nor should they seek to alter their circumstances or change the status quo of their society. The gospel will free souls, even if bodies remain in bondage. 25

Zinzendorf supports his claims by rehearsing the long discredited interpretation of the “curse of Ham” to explain the subjugation of black persons, “God has punished the first Negroes with slavery” (p. 363). The problems with the “curse of Ham” interpretation were noted long before the time of Zinzendorf. The supposed biblical basis for black slavery in the story of Noah mentions neither skin color nor race, the curse falls not on Ham but on his son Canaan, and the curse purportedly explains Israel’s conquest of and rule over the Canaanites (Genesis 9:20-27). It does not argue for the inferiority or subjugation of persons based on the color of their skin.

It took several eisegetical leaps of logic for the “curse of Ham” to come to its conclusions, but Zinzendorf ’s statement reflected a widely accepted European and American view of his day—that, unfortunately, still lingers in some groups even now. His statement also offhandedly testifies to the fact that—unlike many forms of ancient and modern slavery—the Euro-American slave trade of that era was thoroughly racial. “Negro” and “slave” were virtual synonyms in that context. Moravians have long since rejected this argument, but it held sway for much of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Zinzendorf continues, “The blessed state of your souls does not make your bodies accordingly free” (p. 363). His statement here unreflectively

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

18

Just before Zinzendorf ended his visit to St. Thomas, he spoke to the gathered, evangelized slaves, telling them, “A heathen must have no other reason for conversion than to believe that Jesus … has died in order to pay for the sins of men and now lives again to enable them to live with Him” (p. 362).24 In other words, his audience should not imagine that their conversion will give them any reason to argue for release from work—neither for worship nor for education. And if they pretend to be converted just to be released from slavery (converts in some settings were manumitted), they must know that the Moravians will offer no support to them in that effort.

repeats New Testament household codes’ hierarchies of master and servant/ slave (Col. 3, 1Pet. 2, Eph. 6, 1Tim. 6). His statement also uncritically accepts the first century’s world-sorting “free/slave” dichotomy and imports it into the 18th century. His acceptance of the slaves’ physical bondage was, in his theology, justified by the assertion of spiritual freedom that overcomes external constraints or oppressive circumstances. This empowering insight, developed by Stoics and early Christians to deal with difficulty and suffering,26 sounds very different when delivered by a wealthy ruler who seemed oblivious to the fact that, legally, he had no prospect of ever suffering in that way himself. He bluntly asserted his authority by combining his description of the acceptability of their oppressed status with admonitions to be obedient: “you must promise that … you remain faithful to your master’s and mistresses … and that you perform all your work with as much love and diligence as if you were working for yourselves” (p. 363). That same message—to accept their salvation in Christ with joy and their status as slaves without murmuring—was repeatedly offered to Euro-American slaves as both panacea and threat by masters, overseers, preachers, and princes. Zinzendorf delivered as he had promised.

Near the end of his address, Zinzendorf noted: “As for myself, I was born free, but my Savior has taught me days and nights to work joyfully for others” (p. 263). Now, as insightful and groundbreaking as Zinzendorf was in other areas, he did not notice or, perhaps, remember that most in his audience were themselves also born free. They had been kidnapped, sold, captured in war, or otherwise against their will chained and shipped 5,000 miles across the ocean. They became part of what is called the Middle Passage, from Africa to slavery in the European colonies. Crimes against humanity had already been perpetrated upon them by humans, not God.

Nitschmann and Dober on the Same Page Zinzendorf was not the only Moravian of that time to be blinded by his own certainty of biblical support for slavery. It also affected the missionaries. Moravians today know well how Leonard Dober and David Nitschmann were willing to sell themselves into slavery in order to bring the gospel and hope to the enslaved peoples of the Caribbean. Stories of their impressive willingness to take that step have more recently included the fact that they soon learned it was not possible to sell themselves into slavery because, by law, white Europeans could not be slaves. Slavery was reserved for Negroes, for people of African descent.

We noted earlier that Moravians bought a plantation in St. Thomas and kept the slaves as slaves. A 2013 Harvard dissertation written by Katharine Reid Gerbner, Christian Slavery: Protestant Missions and Slave Conversion in the Atlantic World, 1660-1760, spends significant time on the THE

HINGE

19

To their surprise, Nitschmann replied: “Such an idea would just make them hypocrites! The Apostle said: whoever was called to be a servant should not seek to be rid of his place, but rather remain a menial labourer and serve his master according to his desires. That way, the Masters will also be convinced and they will rejoice when lots of their negroes convert.” Nitschmann revealed … his recognition that blacks could take advantage of religious opportunity to improve their own standing. Thus, [he] had come to the conclusion that Christianity needed to be divorced from emancipation in order to prevent both opportunistic conversions and planter wrath.”28

Moravians resisted the manumission of slaves after conversion. If that happened, they worried, how could anyone know if slaves had really converted or if they only acted converted just to get out of slavery? This gives an even harder, double edge to their belief that slavery had the stamp of divine approval. First, European Moravians, who legally could not become slaves, argued in favor of slavery as an institution ordained by God. Second, they also decided—on behalf of the slaves, without their input—to refuse the Danish court’s offer to provide converted slaves with legal release from bondage. Nitschmann seems not to have considered his unequal social and legal status, nor the fact that the enslaved people themselves—whether “really” converted or not—could have legitimately desired manumission for no other reason beyond their physical freedom.

In some ways, this approach was nothing new for 18th century Moravians, who constantly puzzled over how to discern true conversion before admitting anyone into membership—free or slave. In this case, however, regarding manumission, they over-focused on assuring true conversion and ignored the different legal status unique to slaves. Anyone and everyone else (except indentured servants still under contract—which was its own social issue) could have left the community. It also ignored the fact that their missionary efforts began with two men willing to sell themselves into slavery to preach to oppressed slaves in the Caribbean. That admirable intention morphed into actual ownership of slaves in St. Thomas. Then for economic reasons owning slaves became their solution for Pennsylvania and North Carolina’s communities’ financial challenges, all for “good,” “biblical” reasons.

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

20

Moravian missions on St. Thomas and Jamaica. Working with Dober’s and Nitschmann’s diaries, she notes that after Nitschmann returned to Europe from the islands, he met with Princess Sophia Hedwig in Copenhagen. A member of the Danish court, also present at the meeting with Princess Sophia, offered to manumit Moravian slaves who became baptized Christians.27 Gerbner describes the conversation, reporting on Nitschmann’s diary:

It did not occur to them that the impact of slavery and the systematized machinery of misery it inflicted on the lives of other human beings called into the question the soundness of their doctrine of scripture. Those Moravian communities were stunningly ahead of their time in important ways, at least for a few decades. But, they closed their eyes and covered their ears when it came to slavery. Over time, they personally witnessed the dehumanizing realities of the Middle Passage, heard stories from missionaries, heard stories from African slaves themselves, and, importantly, heard pieces of those stories during worship, during the reading of slaves’ memoirs (Lebensläufe) at funerals. Decades later—in some areas, over a century later—those experiences had no apparent, cumulative effect on slave-owning Moravians’ faith, theology, or practice.

Spangenberg’s “Biblical” Defense of Slavery In the late 1770s, Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenberg was commissioned by the Moravian Church to write a Moravian theology. Within that work, Idea Fidei Fratrum, in 350 words or less, he offers a “biblical” defense of slavery, presented here with my own interspersed commentary.

He who, from circumstances, is obliged to work for others, not being his own master, is to observe what follows …29

“He who, from circumstances.” Speaking personally here—reading these Moravian statements about slavery has been a wrenching experience, but the first four words of this defense of slavery were particularly jolting. Returning to consideration of the graves of Moravian slaves buried in God’s Acre in Bethlehem, particularly the grave of a slave named Andrew (Spangenberg knew Andrew.): If Spangenberg were to be standing in that graveyard three quarters of a mile away and someone were to ask, “Bishop Spangenberg, if Andrew was born in Ibo in Africa, how did he get here to Bethlehem?” would Spangenberg really just say, “How did he get here? Oh. Circumstances.”

In 1988, the scholar Daniel Thorp translated and published Andrew’s memoir, which details some of his circumstances.30 Condensed and summarized, Andrew’s circumstances follow:

Andrew was, as his gravestone says, born free in Ibo, Africa, (currently Nigeria). His name was Ofodobendo Wooma. At age 8, his father died, and his brother—being poor—put him up as security for a two-year loan of two goats owed to another man. But the man—because he could— sold him as a domestic slave. Andrew’s memoir says, “For a short time I was often bought and sold again, and came from one nation to another, the language of which I did not understand” (p. 447).

THE

HINGE

21

In 1741 he was bought in Antigua and, at age twelve and alone, was taken to New York to serve as a domestic slave. This added almost 1,800 miles to the nearly 5,000 miles he’d already been transported. His master changed Ofodobendo Wooma’s name to “York.” He was later bought by a Moravian in New York, who eventually gave him, at age 16, to Bishop Spangenberg in 1746. He arrived to serve the Moravian community in Bethlehem as a domestic slave—probably in the fields. That same year he also made a confession of faith and was baptized and renamed, again, from York to Andrew (pp. 448-50).

He speaks of the next thirty years of his life in positive terms and with a sense of satisfaction with the community and with his relationship with the Savior. But it’s noticeable that in the four and a half page translation of his memoir, almost four pages speak of the first 16 years of his life and a little over half a page speaks of the next 30 years of his life with the Moravians. Though he was part of the community for those 30 years, they never gave up the paper they had on him. So that he knew—and any other slave knew—that though his life with the Moravians was significantly better than it might have been with other masters, he could still be sold.

Bethlehem Moravians did sell and threaten to sell, some of their slaves, without giving those slaves a vote in the matter.31

With Ofodobendo Wooma, also known as Andrew, in mind, we return to Spangenberg’s “defense”: He who, from circumstances, is obliged to work for others, not being his own master, is to observe what follows:

“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.” (Colossians 3:22.)

“Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to be good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18.)

Likewise, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: not with eye service, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men.” (Ephesians 6:5.)

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

22

He remembers that after one sale, “I was immediately locked inside [a] house. I was frightened and trembled with fear because I found myself in a place where the heads of at least 50 dead men hung. It was the house of a cannibal” (p. 447). But since the asking price for him was too high, he ended up being sold to a slave trader, who boarded him on a ship bound for Antigua and slavery.

Finally, “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are (or under the pretense of their being) brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.”

(1 Timothy 6:1-2.)

Spangenberg’s premises consist of nothing more than cutting and pasting (or picking up a pen and copying) four New Testament verses. Without commentary, without consideration, or experience-based reconsideration of how these four verses align with the heart of the Law, the Prophets, or the Gospel, Spangenberg moves straight to four conclusions: By these passages we see,

(1) that the apostles did not abolish the diversity of stations in life. They let masters remain masters and servants, servants. But see 1 Corinthians 7:20.

(2) That they deduce the genuine service of servants from the love of God, and of Jesus Christ, and not from constraint.

(3) That they call the service of a poor slave (for of such the apostles properly speak) even though it be done for an heathen master, a service of God. (4) That the true comfort of poor slaves, who sigh under such a yoke, lies properly in this, that it is the will of God concerning us; He will have it so.

So, there lies the Moravian defense of slavery. It is very concise because Spangenberg assumes everyone already agrees with him—including enslaved Moravians.

In the section that follows this defense (#188), Spangenberg quotes New Testament passages and one Old Testament passage that instruct masters to treat their slaves fairly and justly. But nowhere does he question this structure of a household or of a society. And in #189, he returns to his main point: “But what a pity it is, that men should think so much on the external circumstances which pinch them; when our Saviour has said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God.” In one sense this is a good point. As the Stoics, the Old Testament wisdom writers, and early Christians proclaimed: “Don’t let external circumstances defeat you.” But for Spangenberg to say that as a free man to Ofodobendo Wooma who was also born free, and to call Ofodobendo’s Middle Passage into slavery from age 8 to age 12, isolated and alone, a “pinch”?

THE

HINGE

23

Moravians in the 18th century were products of their time and upbringing, as are we all. So, here’s another perspective on their time.

A Different Perspective from the Same Era In 2016, Emerson Powery and Rodney Sadler co-authored a book called The Genesis of Liberation: Biblical Interpretation in the Antebellum Narratives of the Enslaved. Their book addresses many questions about slaves and their responses to the religion of their masters, including this: “Why did enslaved Africans embrace the religion of their captors, who had used the Bible to justify the brutal trans-Atlantic slave trade?” 32

They conclude, “African Americans’ respect for the authority of the Christian Scriptures is a miracle in itself. Their introduction to the Bible frequently came by way of sermons from Colossians 3: 22– 25, Ephesians 6: 5– 8, and 1 Peter 2: 18– 20 directed at ensuring their obedience to their masters. The God they met in these sermons was firmly on the side of their tormentors, opposing their freedom.”33 But, once the enslaved and the formerly enslaved had the opportunity to read the Bible for themselves, apart from the world-sorting dichotomy supported by their masters: “The Bible was not just a religious book … but a grounding text for the development of a narrative that placed God on the side of the enslaved.”34 Further, many of those readers interpreted the Bible with the same direct literalism employed by Spangenberg without accepting the dominant cultural distortions that flowed out of a mindset that saw slavery as ordained by God.35

Spangenberg looked at the horrors of the slave trade and the fate of most slaves and said, “I don’t know why God would let this happen, but it must be God’s will that it is so.”36 The slaves looked at the horrors of slavery and said, “I don’t think that this has anything to do with God, but has everything to do with the power of evil that Christ came to put to an end.”

Enslaved Christians went beyond the few pro-slavery texts to examine the whole testimony of scripture. Many of the texts they uncovered did not use the word slave, but they connect to the heart of scripture. Powery notes many of the texts identified and used by slaves and former slaves:37 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

24

What does it take to tell a slave that he has a problem with his faith if he doesn’t understand the “truth” that God put him into that slave trade as a boy, and made him a slave, a stranger and an alien for the rest of his life? What does it take to tell him that he needs to understand that in a way that makes him happy to be there as a slave? Should he be happy to be with Spangenberg and the others who held the paper on him on behalf of the community and at the expense of his physical freedom for the remainder of his life?

chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. (1 Cor. 1:27-29) Give counsel, grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; hide the outcasts, do not betray the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab settle among you; be a refuge to them from the destroyer. (Isa. 16:3–4) Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them. (Deut 23:15–16). (The US Constitution contradicts this verse of scripture.)38 If you didn’t do these things for the least of my brothers and sisters, you didn’t do it for me. (Mt. 25:21-46) Powery and Sadler go on to say that the different social standing of white slave owners and black slave readers produced drastically different understandings of the “effect an interpretation would have directly on black bodies. For African American interpreters, the meaning of slavery, fused with the worth of dark-skinned Christian identity, demanded a critical, black hermeneutic.”39 At the same time, “most whites, even those advocating the eventual gradual end of American slavery, read the Bible with a basic assumption of the superiority of the white race.”40

World-sorting dichotomies die really hard. When we’re looking for a doctrine of scripture to guide us as we face the dichotomies of our own day, we will best serve God and neighbor if we take our cue from the approach of the slaves rather than the doctrine of the slave owners. I used to think that went without saying, but these days I am no longer sure.

How Not to Repeat the Mistakes of Our Forebears in the Faith Here’s an alternative proposal for revising and replacing Spangenberg’s doctrine of scripture.

First, do a word study. That’s still the starting point. Reflect on all the relevant verses. All of them. That’s the different and crucial step Spangenberg seems to have forgotten.41 Spangenberg used four verses to make his case. But here’s what he could have looked at in addition: Slave (in all of its forms—slave, slaves, slavery) ~ 268 verses stranger ~ 49 verses THE

HINGE

25

foreigner ~ 48 verses alien ~ 119 verses Total = ~ 484 verses The above search includes the terms “stranger,” “foreigner,” and “alien” because of occasional reminders in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy to “love the stranger” (Deut. 10:19) or to treat them the same as everyone else, “for you once were strangers in Egypt” (Deut 10:18; 16:11, 14; Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33-34, 23:22; Num. 15:14-16, etc.).42

Second, don’t think that a topical word search is enough. Every topical search takes place in the context of a few overarching themes that lie at the heart of the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, and the Gospel: lov/belov ~ 758 verses

righteousness/justice ~640 verses neighbor~ 153 verses Total = ~ 1,551 I’m sure there are other key themes, but we’ll stick with just those for now. Anyone who does a topical search with respect to any world-sorting dichotomy without pondering the results in light of the 1,551 verses that speak to those themes will almost certainly go wrong. The relevant texts for a biblical study of slavery add up to at least 2,000 verses to account for. These same texts also apply to any potentially human-made tradition regarding categories of people who are viewed as secondary and inferior to an opposing category of people viewed as primary and fine. But that’s still not enough.

A third set of texts exist that should also come into play—biblical texts that remind us of our human tendencies for error, sin, and ignorance.

Typically, these verses won’t show up in a topical word search. So far I have about thirty, dispersed throughout the Old and New Testaments, and I’m always collecting more. Here are a few, with others appended at the article’s end: Thus says the LORD. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways … ” (Isa 55:8–9) Our knowledge is imperfect, our prophecy is imperfect. (1 Cor 13:9-10) Look, you scoffers! Be amazed and perish, in your days I am doing … a work that you will never believe, even if someone tells

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

26

you. (Hab 1:5. Acts 13:41) If anyone thinks they know something, they don’t yet know as much as they should know. (1 Cor 8:2, CEB) The time is coming when those who kill you will think that they are doing a service to God. ( Jn 16:2) For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. (2 Tim 4:3–4) Every time I’ve ever heard someone use 2 Tim. 4:3-4 to attack an idea, it’s always been to attack a new idea. As if the only people who want to “accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires” are people who want to do something new or different. But, the older I get, the more I see people saying, “I don’t want to hear something new. I don’t want to hear that I might need to change. My ears are itching to hear what I’ve always heard.”

One more cautionary text:

When [ Jesus] was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because … he himself knew what was in everyone.” ( John 2:23–25)

For “he himself knew what was in everyone”—what many religious groups seem least capable of seeing embedded deeply in their souls—error, sin, ignorance, and willingness to do others harm, particularly doing it while believing we’re doing the things of God.

In the late 1660s, near the time of his death, Comenius wrote a book called Unum Necessarium (The One Necessary Thing). In it, he talked about using scripture as a basis for determining life and faith, and he advised: However, greater caution is here required than elsewhere, due to the greater, perpetual mixing of light and darkness (and truth and falsehood, wisdom and stupidity, faith and treachery, love and hatred, hope and despair, and last, salvation and condemnation). For just as in the earthly paradise there was not only a tree of life, but also a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in whose forbidden fruit death could be found and devoured, so likewise is this spiritual paradise …

All scripture is a book of action in which God pleads his case against rebellious creatures, and describes the justice and procedure THE

HINGE

27

Comenius speaks here of the sediments, the impurities, the toxic wastes in all of us that accumulate in existing things, in all human institutions, societies, traditions, worldviews, and practices, and that blind our eyes to new things of God happening right in front of us.

So why have I spent all this time focusing on Zinzendorf and Spangenberg’s biggest mistakes, and on the points where their doctrine of scripture led them blindly on this matter of slavery? And, by the way, what does any of that have to do with the title of these lectures: “How Many Moravians Does it Take to Change a Doctrine?” That title is not a hypothetical question. We’ve looked at how Spangenberg viewed the worldsorting dichotomy of free and slave, and out of the entirety of scripture how he could only see four verses that together led to him to say, “God approves the practice of human slavery.” And the Moravian Church followed him right down that path, down that ancient way, that old path that ended with black, enslaved bodies, some of them buried less than a mile away in the Moravian graveyard at the corner of Market and New Streets.

In the Moravian Church of our day, Moravians around the worldwide Unity are viewing another world-sorting dichotomy that for many seems to have its roots in scripture. Heterosexual persons/Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer persons: a dichotomy better known as Heterosexual persons/LGBTQ persons. So while Moravians are citing scripture to influence how people might vote on resolutions related to these persons’ lives and roles in or out of the church, just to be sure that we don’t restrict our vision too much, here is an approximate number of relevant biblical texts about human sexuality, marriage, and family: Man/men/husband/husbands (the same Greek and Hebrew words mean both) ~ 2340 verses

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

28

of his judgment in various ways at various times … So think none of these foreign to you, for you have all the seeds within you, not only of good, coming from the good creator, God, but also of evil from the source of evil, Satan, and so does everyone else. For just as every man is the epitome of the world, because he has within himself his own heaven and earth, water and fire, matter and spirit, light and darkness, motion and quiet, etc., likewise also the whole history of the whole human race, written divinely, has in each man individually its representations to this extent, that there is no man who does not have within himself his God and Satan, his paradise and hell, his tree of life and death, and his trials and battles, his victories and defeats, his Cain and Abel, in short, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and in different individuals one or the other seed prevails.43

Woman/women/wife/wives (the same Greek and Hebrew words mean both) ~ 1020 verses marry/marries/married/marriage ~197 verses male (in all grammatical forms) ~ 228 female ~ 67

family, families ~ 200 household ~ 104

divorce ~ 27 verses

concubine ~38 verses eunuch ~ 27 verses sex/sexual ~ 17

Sodom/sodomy ~ 49 Total = ~ 4,314

And then we add in the 1,551 verses that speak to love, righteousness, justice, and neighbor. And add in that set that reminds us of our propensity to error, sin, and ignorance. For this particular dichotomy, we have approximately 5,895 relevant verses to sift through, to assess what meaningful differences, if any, lie between the right and left hand sides of that dichotomy, based on the essential witness throughout all of scripture.

Many people, like Spangenberg, seem to see only five or six passages that say to them: “The Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—will never consider L or G or B or T or Q persons as fully part of God’s people.

There will always be a caveat.” However, it’s possible, maybe even likely, that the Holy Spirit is saying exactly the opposite of that. The Northern Province Synod of 2014 heard it, heard something new that many among us weren’t ready to hear before. They heard that one more world-sorting dichotomy with a presumed biblical basis needs to fall away. So that the truth will emerge from the heart of scripture that says “The Triune God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—of course considers you—single, dating, or married—as fully part of God’s people.”

If we go back to where we started over two hours ago, Moravian doctrines of scripture from 1535 to 2017 all say that scripture is the rule of life and faith. But many Moravians seem to forget—how many, nobody knows—that our approach to scripture includes consideration of the difference between works instituted by humans and works commanded by God. We can, unfortunately, learn from Spangenberg, Zinzendorf, and Nitschmann that sometimes a small set of scripture passages that have long been seen in a particular way will actually blind us to that crucial difference.

THE

HINGE

29

In our time, vast numbers of Moravians follow the same pattern of biblical interpretation with respect to human sexuality as 18th and 19th century Moravians did with slavery. It sounds harsh to say that, and I don’t mean that anyone who condemns LGBTQ persons would necessarily support slavery as well. It does, however, seem incumbent on those who accept and work within such a model of interpretation, to show how the same approach could produce in our time a different, less error-filled result regarding human sexuality and identity. Or to show how the John 9 argument that “we’ve always seen things this way” would work for those who say it today when it didn’t work for Jesus’ opponents who said it to him back then.

We can look at the world-sorting dichotomies of Jew/Gentile, Free/ Slave, Man/Woman, Clean/Unclean, Circumcised/Uncircumcised, Heterosexual persons/LGBTQ persons and know that at one time or another, all six pairs have been deemed to be unevenly matched. For centuries or for millennia, all six uneven matches were traced back to supposed roots in scripture, and, thus, to supposed roots in the ways of God. We can also know that for the first five of those pairs, some people of God along the way—how many we don’t know—came to a new understanding through the Spirit, and said to themselves and others, these pairings no longer have authority within the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, or in the life and practices of the people of God. Other scriptures assume the place of authority.

So as we figure out what to do, let us keep this guidance in mind from Isaiah, from scripture: “Give counsel, grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; hide the outcasts, do not betray the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab settle among you; be a refuge to them from the destroyer” (Isa. 16:3–4). Then—as followers of Christ—understand ourselves in the world as outcasts, fugitives, and refugees—rather than as persons of power, place, and privilege—and treat our neighbors as we would want them to treat us.

How many Moravians it will take to bring about that day within our own church, I don’t know. n

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

30

Failing to appreciate their own capacity for error, they undertook a course that, then and now, stains our history. These lectures have dwelled on their errors to allow this part of their story to serve as a cautionary tale for our own day.

Verses Related to Human Ignorance and Limited Knowledge and to God’s Freedom to Do New Things ❖❖ ❖❖

❖❖ ❖❖

❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖

❖❖

If anyone thinks they know something, they don’t yet know as much as they should know (1Cor 8:2, CEB).

[ Jesus] answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’” (Mt 15:3-9) I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify. (Mt 23:34)

Jesus said, “Beware of the yeast of Pharisees and Sadducees.” They said, “It is because we brought no bread” … Jesus said, “How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread?” (Mt 16:6-10) [ Jesus said,] “You have heard it said, but I say … (Mt 5:17-48)

What God has called clean, don’t you call unclean. (Acts 10:9-16; God to Peter, ignoring Lev 11)

If this plan … is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them … you may even be found fighting against God! (Gamaliel to religious leaders, Acts 5:38b–39)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4:1) Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good. (1Th 5:19-21)

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. (Mt 24: 23-5) Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? ( Jn 3:10–12)

THE

HINGE

31

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

32

❖❖ ❖❖

❖❖ ❖❖

❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖

No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved. (Mt 9:16-17)

And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” (Mt 13:52) Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons … and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.” (Mt 7:21–23) Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. (Rom 12:16)

When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” (Mt 9:11–13; Hos 6:6)

My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways …

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:8–9) Our knowledge is imperfect; our prophecy is imperfect. (1Cor 13:9-10)

“I came so that the blind might see, and so that those who see might become blind.” [They replied,] “You’re not saying we’re blind, are you?” ( Jesus’ assertion, religious leaders response, Jn 9:40-1) I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, [the Spirit] will guide you into all the truth. ( Jn 16:12–13)

Look, you scoffers! Be amazed and perish, in your days I am doing … a work that you will never believe, even if someone tells you.

(Hab 1:5. Acts 13:41)

The time is cming when those who kill you will think that they are doing a service to God. ( Jn 16:2)

HINGE

THE

❖❖

❖❖

❖❖

Do not trust in these deceptive words: “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place. ( Jer 7:4-7) For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. (2Tim 4:3–4)

THE

HINGE

33

Endnotes

2 Jan Amos Comenius. Ratio Disciplinæ Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum (Account of the Ecclesiastical Discipline and Order in the Unity of the Bohemian Brethren), ed. and trans, C. Daniel Crews, 2007. http://moravianarchives.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Ratio.pdf (accessed 12-27-16), 10.

3 Crews, Confession 1535, Article. 7, p. 15; Article. 10, p. 22.

4 Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations of scripture are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

5 http://newpathchurch.com/ (accessed July 25, 2017).

6 See also John 5:36-41: But I have a testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings.

7 Craig Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius, Penn State University Press, 2013, 144.

8 Jan Amos Comenius, Panorthosia or Universal Reform, ch. 19-26. Trans., A.M.O. Dobbie.

Sheffield, England, Sheffield University Press, 1993, 136.

9 C.G.A. Oldendorp, History of the Mission of the Evangelical Brethren on the Caribbean Islands of St Thomas, St Croix, and St John. Ed Johann Jakob Bossard (Barby Christian Friedrich Laur, 1770), trans. and ed. Arnold R Highfield and Vladimir Barac. Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1987, 337-41.

10 Jon F. Sensbach, A Separate Canaan: The Making of an Afro-Moravian World in North Carolina, 1763-1840, Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, Kindle Edition, 48-53.

11 Sensbach, Separate Canaan, 55.

12 The four arguments are drawn from Sensbach, Separate Canaan, 48-51.

13 The publication in two volumes of the original 3,000 page German manuscript in 2000 and 2002 has shown the extent of Oldendorp’s opposition to slavery. It has also revealed another facet of mid to late 18th century Moravian church leaders’ determination to restore the church’s reputation among Protestant churches.

They did not stop at repudiating the Zinzendorfinfluenced adoption of exotic church practices (ordination of women) or theology (Holy Spirit as mother). They also aligned themselves with “respectable” standards by expurgating most of Oldendorp’s history, twisting it into a treatise in which the problem was not slavery but cruel slave traders and slave owners. By the time the editor finished removing Oldendorp’s sharpest critiques of slavery, the book offered a one-sided history that affirmed the Moravians’ distinctive and significantly egalitarian treatment of slaves and extolled the missionaries’ bravery, proclamation of the gospel, and educational efforts on the slaves’ behalf. It glossed over the human impact of the Moravians’ theologically-based acceptance of slavery, their careful avoidance of challenging the authority of the colonizing governments or the economic interests of the plantation owners, and their refusal to manumit slaves once they converted. It also seems unaware of the irony of traveling to foreign lands intending to become slaves in order to preach to slaves, and ending up as people who owned slaves.See discussions in Anders Ahlbäck, “The Overly Candid Missionary Historian: C.G.A. Oldendorp’s Theological Ambivalence over Slavery in the Danish West Indies.” Ports of Globalisation, Places of Creolisation, Holger Weiss, ed. Brill, 2015, pp. 191-217 and in Katharine Reid Gerbner, Christian Slavery: Protestant Missions and Slave Conversion in the Atlantic World, 1660-1760. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2013. Accessed October 5, 2017, 150-51, particularly footnote 7, http://nrs. harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11095959.

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

34

1 Daniel Crews, trans. “Confession of Faith and Religion of the Barons and Nobles of the Kingdom of Bohemia 1535,” published by the Moravian Archives, Winston Salem, NC, 2007. http://moravianarchives.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Confession-1535.pdf (accessed 12-29-16), Article 1, 6.

For more extended accounts of post-Zinzendorf damage control, see Craig D. Atwood, “Apologizing for the Moravians: Spangenberg’s Idea Fidei Fratrum,” Journal of Moravian History, No. 8 (Spring 2010), pp. 53-88, and Paul Peucker, A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century.

Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015, ch. 8 “The Post-Zinzendorf Era,” 147-64 14 The rest of this paragraph draws from Sensbach’s A Separate Canaan, 59-62 and from Daniel Crews’ history of the Southern Province and its discussion of Moravian views on and ownership of slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries. See C. Daniel Crews and Richard W. Starbuck, With Courage for the Future: The Story of the Moravian Church, Southern Province, Winston-Salem, NC: Moravian Church in America, Southern Province, 2002, 65-6, 142-4, 223-29, 246-9, 273-77, 293-98.

15 Sensbach, Separate Canaan, 59. See also Crews and Starbuck, With Courage, 65-6.

16 See Katherine Faull Eze, “Self-Encounters: Two Eighteenth-Century African Memoirs from Moravian Bethlehem” in Crosscurrents: AfricanAmericans, Africa and Germany in the Modern World, eds. C. Aisha Blackshire-Belay, Leroy Hopkins, and David MacBride (New York: Camden House, 1998), 35-37, 41-42; Daniel Thorp, “Chattel With A Soul: The Autobiography of a Moravian Slave.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography, Vol. CXII, No. 3 ( July 1988), 432-51; Sensbach, Separate Canaan, 48-73; Seth Moglen, “Enslaved in the City on a Hill: The Archive of Moravian Slavery and the Practical Past,” History of the Present, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Fall 2016), 159-63 (http://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.5406/historypresent.6.2.0155, Accessed April 22, 2017).

17 Thorp, “Chattel with a Soul,” p. 445.

18 I changed Galatians 3:28’s order of “slave/ free” to “free/slave” to keep the “values” of each member of each pair consistent.

19 Nicholas Zinzendorf, “A Simple Declaration of the Evangelical Moravian Church, concerning their heretofore Present and Future Labours among The Savages, Negroes, Slaves and other Heathens.” Trans. Leonard Dober, 1740. (Manuscript in the Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, PA).

This document—originally written in German— was signed by Leonard Dober, who, presumably, translated it into English or at least signed it as validation of its authority.

THE

HINGE

20 The accuracy and current implications of this argument became clearer upon reading and rereading teachings from the Ancient Unity in preparation for these lectures. See Craig Atwood, “The Use of the “Ancient Unity” in the Historiography of the Moravian Church,” Journal of Moravian History, Vol. 13/2, 2013, 109-57.

21 This approach aligns with Zinzendorf ’s extended discussion in A Manual of Doctrine.

London: Printed for James Hutton, 1742. ECCO Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Print Edition (Reproduction from the British Library, printed on demand, July 2017), 199-204. This Manual is written in question and answer format, catechetical style. Pages 199-204 discuss the proper attitude one should have toward “higher powers,” which include all levels of political rule.

Kings, Princes, Rulers, Magistrates are all to be obeyed. They are placed in their roles in order “to execute wrath upon him that does evil and to praise him that does good” (citing Rom. 13:3-4).

These pages also include a biblical list of people in positions of power who acted favorably toward early Christians. As open as the 18th century Moravians were in many ways, particularly in encouraging spiritual growth and ecumenical tolerance, they did not have much room for internal dissent or challenges to authority from those who wished to join them.

22 Zinzendorf ’s invocation of Moravians leaving Georgia because of a dispute with governing authorities does not specify what the conflict with the authorities was about. Although both Adelaide Fries’ and Aaron Fogelman’s work on the Georgia mission both note a variety of internal and external factors that led to its end, they ultimately weigh the factors differently—Fries giving primary influence to external pressures to provide financial support or actual engagement in military service; Fogelman giving primary influence to internal conflicts great enough to undo the community’s ability to stay together. Fogelman’s case is compelling, and he makes it while acknowledging that pressure to serve in the military was, in fact, an issue for the community. It seems rhetorically risky for Zinzendorf to bring this up, but he seems to take the route of full disclosure. He wants to assure his audience that if conflict with authorities becomes significant, the Moravians have a precedent for voluntarily leaving. They’re not coming to create trouble for the authorities.

Political leaders in a new area of mission will not care whether the actual cause for Moravians leav-

35

23 The original text has no item “j” but skips from “i” to “k.”

24 All quotations from Zinzendorf ’s speech come from Oldendorp, History of the Mission, 362-63.

25 See also Zinzendorf, Manual of Doctrine, 222-323.

“1404 Q: And how do they do, as to their outward Calling?

A: Wherein any Man is called, therein he abides.

I Cor. VII 24 1405 Q: If he was a King?

26 See Jennifer Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford University Press, 2002 for discussion of material, physical, and bodily realities of first century slavery and their implications for early Christian understandings of spiritual bondage and freedom as well as community ethics and practices. For similar Moravian understandings that drew a sharp line between the relative weight given to consideration of peoples’ spiritual condition and their material conditions, see Crews, and Starbuck, With Courage, 311-12, ftnt. 1.

27 Gerbner, Katharine Reid. Christian Slavery: Protestant Missions and Slave Conversion in the Atlantic World, 1660-1760. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2013. Accessed October 5, 2017 8:32:22 AM EDT. http://nrs.harvard.edu/ urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11095959; particularly chapter 4, “Inner Slavery and Spiritual Freedom: German Pietism and the Critique of Black Christianity on St. Thomas, 1730-1735,” 146177.

28 Gerbner, Christian Slavery, 174-75.

1408 Q: But whom doth he now serve?

29 August Spangenberg, Idea Fidei Fratrum: An Exposition of Christian Doctrine, as Taught in the Protestant Church of the United Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum, trans. Benjamin LaTrobe (London, 1796). Fourth English edition. Published & Distributed by Calvary Moravian Church, WinstonSalem, NC, 2005. http://calvarymoravian.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/04/idea_fidei_fratrum. pdf (accessed April 20, 2016), section 187. (The PDF does not contain page numbers but preserves the section numbers of the original.)

A: Not Men, but the Lord Christ Col. III 23, 24

30 Thorp, “Chattel with a Soul,” 447-451.

1409 Q: And from whom doth he receive his Wages?

31 Thorp, pp. 444-5.

A: Yet were he Christ’s Servant, ver 22 1406 Q: If he was a Slave?

A: Yet were he the Lord’s Freeman.

1407 Q: So one does not seek to be released from his Servitude?

A: Art thou called being a Servant? Seek not to be loosed ver. 21.

A: Of the Lord he shall receive the Reward of the Inheritance ver. 24 1410 Q: How does a Servant look upon a tyrannical Master?

A: He is subject not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. I Pet II 18 1411 Q: But if his Master be a Brother?

A: Then he does not despise him because he is a Brother; but rather does him Service, because he is faithful and beloved. I Tim VI 2

32 Emerson B. Powery and Rodney S. Sadler Jr., (2016-04-18). The Genesis of Liberation: Biblical Interpretation in the Antebellum Narratives of the Enslaved, Westminster John Knox Press, Kindle Edition, locations 42-43.

33 Powery, Genesis of Liberation, locations 170175.

34 Powery, locations 117-19.

35 Powery, locations 510-21.

36 Atwood, “Apologizing,” 55-56.

37 Powery, locations 1006-1274.

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

36

ing Georgia was internal or external, just that if conflict arises, Moravians will vacate the premises.

See Adelaide L. Fries The Moravians In Georgia 1735-1740. Printed for the author by Edwards & Broughton, Printers and binders, Raleigh, NC, 1905, 145-220. For a revisionist view, see Aaron Fogleman, “The Decline and Fall of the Moravian Community in Colonial Georgia: Revising the Traditional View,” Unitas Fratrum (2001), 1-22.

38 “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due” United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3. This section of the original Constitution was made moot by the 13th amendment’s abolition of slavery.

39 Powery, locations 3931-37.

40 Powery, locations 3972-3974.

41 The “Essential Features of the Unity” (an underutilized section of the Church Order that follows immediately after The Ground of the Unity) remind us that we are called to preach “from the fullness of the Word of God.” See Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum (Moravian Church) 2016, Published by Order of the Unity Synod held in Montego Bay, Jamaica 12th – 19th August 2016 © Unitas Fratrum 2017, #100b, p.

21.

42 It should be noted that the list of verses sends mixed signals about treatment of strangers, foreigners, and aliens—all the more reason why discernment of which verses align with the heart of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel has such importance.

43 Comenius, Unum Necessarium The One Thing Necessary [or: The One Thing Needful]. trans., Vernon H. Nelson. Moravian Archives 457 S. Church Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 www.MoravianArchives.org ISBN: 978-09719411-4-4 (accessed 12-27-16), chapter VIII, 54-55. (I did not de-genderize the pronouns in this passage since it ends by holding up “the seed of the woman,” not just “men,” as the bulwark against “the seed of the serpent.”

THE

HINGE

37

Response: The Rev. Dr. Lynnette Delbridge

I admire Frank’s courage in undertaking this far ranging and challenging question, “How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?” Put another way, “How many Moravians does it take to change a social practice when we use scripture to defend our places of privilege?” As I reflect on Frank’s paper, I realize that he is, himself, being one of those Moravians trying to change a “doctrine.” He does so by inviting us to hear words of confession and warning, to feel empathy for people on both sides of a power relationship, and to be more critical about the way we use scripture to justify our actions.

Frank was wise to start with an issue upon which most of us would agree. Enslaving, buying, and selling other human beings is abhorrent.

From this place of agreement, we can look with regret and shame at the way our ancestors in the faith used a few passages of scripture to justify their acceptance of, and participation in, slavery. Frank’s case study serves as a strong word of confession and warning for us: “See, even the best of us can get something so important terribly, terribly wrong.”

If confession and warning are a good place to start in changing our minds about an issue, then empathy for people on both sides of a “worldsorting dichotomy” is another positive step. Frank invites us to feel empathy for the privileged white European males who were trying their best to share the gospel but who were blinded by the assumptions held by the world in which they lived. Understanding how much we too want our own ministries to succeed, that we too need to reassure people that we will fit in, and that we too have to deal with political realities, I could not help but empathize with Zinzendorf, Dober, Nitschmann, and Spangenberg. Do I not justify my own questionable actions just as they justified the enslavement of other human beings? They, at least, were comfortably convinced that they were right. On many issues, I am not comfortably convinced that I am right at all.

Still, I conform to, and participate in, the culture around me.

For example, I care deeply about sustaining the health of our planet.

I know using fossil fuels builds up greenhouse gasses and speeds global warming. And yet, I am not ready to withdraw from a world that requires me to use them to heat my house, drive my car, or turn on my lights and computer. Beyond a polite, exploratory conversation, I have not advocated for divestment from fossil fuels in the investments made for us by the Moravian Ministries Foundation. Much like my Moravian brothers and sisters who congratulated themselves that they were at least kind to their

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

38

The Rev. Dr. Lynnette Delbridge is associate pastor of Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

slaves, I try to salve my conscience by saying that I, at least, plant a garden, eat less meat, faithfully recycle, and own a hybrid car. I even try to “gently” raise the issue at church without offending anyone. I hope in a century or two, our Moravian descendants will look back and say, “How could she?

How could they have been so complacent, so reluctant to take concrete action to care for the earth God created and asked us to sustain?”

While Frank’s account invites us to identify with our leaders from the 1700s, his descriptions also invite us to feel empathy for the slave Andrew who was a member of the community in Bethlehem for thirty years. As Frank points out, during those years, Andrew had to know that he was vulnerable, still a commodity who could have been bought or sold if he became an economic burden or a troublesome social presence. I am willing to believe that many of us at some point in our lives have found ourselves on the underside of one of Frank’s “World-Sorting Dichotomies.” Certainly, as a white, middle-class, educated woman from the South, I have lived in the world enjoying a place of considerable privilege and power. But as a woman in a world that still exhibits an incredible amount of misogyny and addiction to hierarchy, I can also empathize with Andrew. I too know the need to appear quiet and compliant; to speak only when spoken to; to be perfect, effective, but at the same time invisible and completely non-threatening. I know what it is like to live this way in order to have some freedom in my own sphere of influence, to have some safety to pursue the life and ministry goals that are important to me.

By inviting us to identify and empathize with people on both sides of an imbalanced power relationship, Frank helps us to be more self-reflective about our own places of privilege and vulnerability. Understanding and feeling both prepares us to do the hard work necessary when God calls us to “change a doctrine.”

Finally, Frank asks us to be more self-conscious about the way we use scripture to justify our places of assumed privilege and our social practices.

Certainly, as Frank suggests, we should look at a whole range of words and concepts in the Bible rather than depending on a few proof-texts. In fact, a passage without a key word in it may be profoundly relevant. For instance, Acts 10-11 says nothing about including or liberating slaves, women, people of color, immigrants, poor people, or people of different sexual orientations or gender identities. Peter’s new understanding, however, that God shows no partiality became fundamental to the early church as it grew to accept Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35). Peter’s question in Acts 11:17 remains relevant and challenging for us today: “If then God gave them [the Gentiles] the same gift that he gave us [ Jewish Christians] when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?”

THE

HINGE

39

It is also important to be aware of the historical background behind the biblical texts we use to justify our actions. For instance, the writers of the New Testament texts which are often used to condemn male homosexuality today (I Cor. 6:9-10, I Tim 1:9-10 and Romans 1:27) would have known about male prostitutes, the sexual exploitation of male slaves, and the practice of pederasty in which an older man would use a young male for gratification but then discard him when he became a mature adult. We too would condemn these practices. The biblical writers, in their time and place, were not talking about, or reacting to, long-lasting, committed relationships between two equal, same-sex partners. We should not use their words to condemn a social practice that they could not have known or imagined.1

Like any well-researched, thought-provoking paper, this one leaves me wishing for more. I wish for a word of hope. Over the years, we Moravians have changed some of our social practices. Depending on your perspective, these changes have been incremental and excruciatingly slow in coming or they have come much too quickly. Still, they have come. So, I am curious. How is it that we no longer justify the practice of slavery, or that, in some places at least, women are called to serve as lay leaders and pastors?

How is it that the 2002 Northern Province Synod moved to “recommend full participation (membership, activities, and lay leadership) in the congregation for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation” and further resolved that “homosexual individuals shall be supported and affirmed by being allowed to celebrate their lives as individuals and/or couples completely within the bounds of the church and under the graces which our Creator imparts to all persons”?2 How is it that the 2014 synod went further and voted to allow people in same-sex, committed relationships to serve as ordained clergy?3

From my perspective, these are signs of hope. How did we make these changes? How were we influenced by attitudes and social movements in the larger culture around us? Was it our Moravian practice of years of patient conversations, of study guides, of holy conversations? Was it looking back at our history and learning what our forebears believed about essentials and ministerials: that God’s actions and our responses in faith, love, and hope are essential but that scripture and our interpretations of scripture are ministerials?

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

40

In turning to scripture for guidance, we should also be aware that there are a variety of voices and opinions reflected in this very human document written over hundreds of years. It is always good to let the voices in the texts question and trouble one another. What, for instance, would a conversation sound like between the writer of Exodus and the writers of the New Testament texts who instructed slaves to be submissive to their masters?

I wonder if Frank would be willing to offer us another year of careful research and a resulting paper? Would the Center for Moravian Studies sponsor a conference with several people looking at such a big topic from several angles? Surely, there is much more to be done as we seek to be a people who are open to the new things a just and merciful God is calling us to be and do. n

Endnotes 1

Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

2

Resolutions 1 and 6 from the Committee on Church and Society, 2002 Northern Province Synod.

3 Resolution 6 from the Second and Final Report from the Committee on Church and Society, 2014 Northern Province Synod.

THE

HINGE

41

Response: The Rev. Judy Ganz

First of all I would like to thank Br. Crouch for his detailed analysis, his ability to clearly state some of the issues that challenge our church, both in its early development and today, and the suggestions that he gives for avoiding doctrinal mistakes in the future. As Br. Crouch notes, our church has always recognized that “interpretations of scripture might be distorted,” citing the Confession of 1535. This is not just an “ancient” teaching, but was reaffirmed in our 20th century document of The Ground of the Unity, which states: “the mystery of Jesus Christ which is attested to in the Bible, cannot be comprehended completely by any human mind or expressed completely in any human statement.”

Yet, many of us seem to easily fall into the error of the Pharisees in John 9—we cannot imagine that we could be wrong. With the ever-increasing diversity within our global church, the lack of respect for differing understandings of scripture will not only lessen our ability to see the new thing that God might be doing among us; it could also split our church. I appreciate the challenge that Br. Crouch has given us to look at all of the relevant texts that relate to an issue in light of the broader themes of the scriptures, fully aware of our own possibility for human error.

I understand that Br. Crouch could not address in his paper the multiple other factors that can affect the development of doctrine. But I do believe that life experience is a critical element that needs to be included in this discussion. It can greatly influence the interpretation of scripture, no matter how many texts one looks at. It impacts what scriptures we hold as key, and it can open (or close) us to the new ways that the Spirit may be trying to teach us. The experiences of Chelčický and the members of the Ancient Unity, seeing the misuse of power by the Roman Catholic church, encouraged them to counter the tradition of the church, live a simple and righteous life, and to put the scriptures into the language of the people.

The enslaved and formerly enslaved, as Br. Crouch notes, because of their experiences, found a different meaning in the scriptures than what their masters taught. Our brothers and sisters living in Africa have experienced another side of slavery, having had villages raided and people killed or taken away. In an effort to weaken resistance, male captives were sodomized. I can’t imagine the long-term impact of this brutality on African perceptions of human sexuality.

My own experiences in the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 made me painfully aware of issues of systemic injustice and oppression, which high-

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

42

The Rev. Judy Ganz is a retired Moravian minister and former director of the Board of World Mission for the Moravian Church in North America.

light the scriptural themes of justice for me today. Br. Crouch states that the early Moravians were “products of their time and upbringing, as are we all.” Recognizing the impact of our experiences on our own perceptions of scripture, good or bad, is an important way to begin to see beyond them.

Also, Br. Crouch acknowledges that knowing the experiences of the slave Andrew could have challenged the Bethlehem Moravians’ understandings regarding slavery. Getting to know the experience of the person who is being subjugated because of our interpretation of scripture is another way to open our eyes to new ways that God might be leading us.

Another important element in our understanding of God’s work in our lives is through our faith community. Because of our differing experiences of God in our lives, we each have the potential to bring to our faith communities a broader perspective of what God asks of us. But our faith communities also help to challenge us when we have misunderstandings.

Dialogue with each other is critical—not only within the local congregation but within the wider/global church as well.

It concerns me when some people choose to leave the table rather than continue to struggle together over a controversial issue in order to seek more clearly what God may be teaching us. It concerns me that there can be such a strong belief that “I am right” that there is no respect that people on all sides of an issue are faithfully trying to follow their Lord.

Br. Crouch noted that it is the Spirit who will lead us into all truth ( John 16:12-13). Are we open to this promise of Christ? Are we able to loosen our hand on our preconceptions, and to humbly seek God’s guidance for a deeper understanding of what the scriptures are saying to us—be that confirmation of traditional understandings or a new way of going forward?

I really appreciate the point by Br. Crouch of “assessing a doctrine on the basis of how its resulting practices succeed or fail in demonstrating love for God and especially love for neighbor.” He develops this point in terms of world-sorting dichotomies that have been used to differentiate who is superior and who is inferior, categories that were challenged by the early church as other revelations and new experiences took on new meaning.

Evaluating understandings and practices in light of their demonstration of love for God and love for neighbor can help with discernment between things of the world and things of God. Love wins; or perhaps it is better said in our Moravian “motto”: “in all things love.”

Because of our long-standing Moravian understandings that it is our relationship with Christ that is the core that holds us together, along with our history of recognizing the fallibility of human understandings of the scriptures, I have always believed that if any faith community can find its way through the divisive issues of our day, the Moravians can. I thank Br. Crouch for giving us some additional tools to help us for doing just that. n THE

HINGE

43

Response: Justin Rabbach

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?” Rev. Dr. Frank Crouch puts this question near the end of the presentation, but this appears to be the very question that undergirds the entire lecture. While it may not be explicitly answered in the text, I feel the answer resounds through the stories shared throughout.

One.

For better or worse, just one is needed to change a doctrine. One person has the potential to take good intentions and turn them to ill. One is enough to turn the tide. Often these are the figures we read about most in history books. In the Moravian world the list of names begins with folks like Hus, Zinzendorf, Dober, and includes many others.

One more, following the same path, starts setting actions in stone as precedent, and one more after that makes it more difficult to move against the tide. Only one more, and one more, and one more… and then there is no other way. Each of these additional folks are just some “one” as well, yet soon we view others as a collection of folks we deem to be immovable, at least on our own, or as just one ourselves.

This perception of our inability to enact change at the individual level paralyzes us such that we take no action, and thus the inability of one to make change becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

So, how do we start to make a difference, to learn from what we now (nearly universally) view as “mistakes”? Frank mentions his switch of pronouns to refer to Moravians as “they” or “we”. I think it is important that if “we”are looking to shape our shared future, that we are consistent in sharing in our past, and not making use of the “they” when we don’t agree with actions that have occurred, and use “we” when we are proud of the work of those who came before. True learning, growth and adaptation can only occur when we can claim the whole of history, the good and the bad.

In the lecture, we hear: “Sometimes Moravians have been spectacularly ahead of their time, with a historical record of insight, countercultural practices, martyrdom, exile, inclusion and mission that left much of the world that encountered them starring on in amazement or anger saying, ‘What are you doing? And who gave you permission?’” To recapture and hold onto this spirit, we must recognize that there is no magic formula to be in relationship with “the world.” We see how both trying to seclude ourselves from the world (Bethabara), and trying to insert ourselves into it (Danish slave holdings on St. Thomas), can lead to bending to the world’s

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

44

Justin Rabbach is director of Board of World Mission of the Moravian Church North America

influence rather than our Christian vision and mission. So, how do we make our faith, our essentials, stand out stronger in the system we work in?

We, and I claim my part in that we, cannot allow the platitude of “love for all” to give permission for neglect of the fact that deep injustice and inequalities exist in our world, and in our Moravian communities. In 1760, in the midst of ownership of slaves, Spangenberg said, “there is no difference between [slaves] and other brothers and sisters.” To me this reads eerily like the line from George Orwell’s book Animal Farm where the declaration is made that “All animals are equal,” but this changes all to quickly to add the caveat, “but some animals are more equal than others.”

It was encouraging then to hear: “Moravians at their best don’t judge doctrine by how it works out logically or systematically, but by how it works out in its impact on human lives, how it demonstrates or doesn’t demonstrate love for our neighbors.” If this can still be said for us (Moravians) today, then we are not only on a path to being at our “best,” but we are on the cusp of doing something great…. like the Great Commandment.

I wish it were as easy as me saying, “we won’t make any mistakes ever again as a community if we just follow the Great Commandment,” but there is so much more nuance in our history and our lives.

If the Moravians had truly held an anti-slavery stance in the 1730s, and refused any contact with the Danish powers in St. Thomas, what would have been the progress of the spread of the gospel? I cannot proclaim to know how history may have been shaped differently, but might Moravians have hastened the end of the practice of slavery by doing their part to speak against it? Or, might they have been excluded from sending missionaries to many places, and would that have been the end of the purpose and function of the Moravian Church?

For what sake do we bend our values, or our essentials today? Who will give a lecture about us in 250 years denoting our writings as either forward thinking or behind the times?

The reading of this lecture evoked for me the memory of a scene from the movie, Lincoln, where Pennsylvania representative Thaddeus Stevens is implored by the president to hide the full extent of his views on equality so that they can take an incremental step forward. It is a powerful scene as you see this character; representing a real historical figure, struggle with whether to hold firmly in a position that may impede progress, or to bend, even temporarily to allow for some forward movement through compromise.

Yet, I write this as a white, straight, upper-middle-class male in the global one percent. So, I do not think it is my voice which can signal when it is time to compromise, or how to do so. My role is to be uncompromisTHE

HINGE

45

These are simply words, but I believe them and know in its simplest form of following the Spirit, I am not alone. Then, as we are reminded, “Moravian doctrines try to move as quickly as possible from belief to practice.” Perhaps there is (faith, love, and) hope for us… and the world, yet and always.

I am just one voice, but am happy to add that voice in harmony with any one other who would like to sing the same tune. n

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

46

ing in an earnest endeavor to fulfill the Great Commandment. In this, I hope I can find guidance for the straightest path forward to justice. In that way, I hope I can be one, living a doctrine worthy of furthering a Christian witness under a Moravian umbrella.

Response: Rev. Dr. Neil Routh The Rev. Dr. Neil Routh is pastor of Grace Moravian Church in Mount Airy, N.C.

Dr. Frank Crouch does a wonderful job of bringing together a well-reasoned New Testament lens and historic Moravian faith for discerning our current challenge. That challenge includes strong opinions about inclusion (or exclusion) of those who are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender. He graciously reminds us of the importance of development and change, while maintaining high regard for biblically sound discernment.

Dr. Crouch makes me feel great appreciation for the depth of awareness and understanding about Moravian heritage that has been brought to light in the last two decades. Specifically, he draws upon methods of understanding that were foundational for those who formed the Unitas Fratrum.

They were also at the core of the Moravian renewal period of Zinzendorf.

But perhaps the greatest gift of his essay is how he disturbs us to wrestle with our own sense of self-assuredness when it comes to thinking that a particular expression of faith (or practice) can remain set in stone no matter what. This is the problem which describes the Pharisees in John 9.

Dr. Crouch’s commentary is sound and enlightening. Research into historically Moravian actions (and inaction) related to slavery and racism was the center of my research for a Doctor of Ministry (2000). This awareness has guided my participation with the Moravian Team for Dismantling Racism (Southern Province, 2006 to present). I found his assessment of Moravian responses to slavery solid.

It is hard to come to terms with our heroes who lived at another time and chose to affirm the norms of their day, that we now see as morally and ethically wrong. It is even more painful to look at ourselves and to discern what norms we support that do not consistently reflect the grace and love Jesus embodied. Dr. Crouch’s choice of using the story of John 9 as a lens for discernment is very helpful. But even then, applying a theological lens to Moravian life falls short without what I would call “practical pietism.”

We need to come to terms with a faith tradition that was developed around a community of members who were personally committed to practical engagement – i.e., meeting daily to weekly in small groups for mutual accountability and spiritual maturation.

This was the bedrock of the way the ancient Unitas Fratrum organized itself, as well as the renewed Moravians. While the choir system was not uniformly practiced in all areas of Moravian ministry, and in every physical location where Moravians existed before the early 19th century, it provided the foundational level where Moravian faith and practice was developed and expressed.

THE

HINGE

47

To be clear, when Moravians valued and practiced their version of practical pietism through the choir system, the community thrived, and discernment of spiritual and communal issues was managed well. But when the choir system was set aside, practical pietism faded to the background and Moravian expression mirrored the cultural norms of the environment.

It appears that the choir system was not a place that fully embraced the inclusion of brothers and sisters who came into Moravian communities through slavery. Dr. Crouch’s essay makes me wonder what would have happened if they had been fully included. The broader story of dismantling racism and the norms that supported slavery in other settings beyond the Moravian church includes ample examples of how small-group, Christian pietism served as a tool to build the needed awareness and courage to dismantle institutional and cultural norms. In these groups when love and empathy reached a level of mutual respect, issues could be addressed with productive outcomes. It is not an exaggeration to say that the spirit of Jesus, reflected in John 9 toward the healed man, becomes far more apparent and consistent where practical pietism and mutual, inclusive community is present.

I wonder if the failure of leadership for Zinzendorf, Spangenberg, and other key leaders – in regard to cultural racism and norms that supported the institution and industry of slavery – began at the very basic level of their own participation in the choir groups in which they insisted the rank and file Moravian Church members should attend. Had they formed a close covenant group with Anthony, Toby, and others who were among the early converts to Moravian communities, I think their actions would have been different. Actual strategies to address the threat of violence from outside forces could have emerged as readily as they did in other movements where inclusion and Christian pietism were brought together. Since they did not, we will never know.

The pressure to conform to cultural factors in America proved to be a powerful factor in the eventual demise of the choir system, as well as practically lived Moravian pietism. When we gave up on the choir system, we also shifted away from our own heritage of practically lived Moravian

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

48

Gathering the community into groups by age, gender, and marital status for frequent mutual prayer, discernment, and study of scripture has long been touted as the center of Moravian life. I think it is fair to say, however, it was the absence of this expression of pietism that fueled bad decisions about slavery and inaction toward institutional and cultural racism. For example, when the community of Salem ended racial integration in common worship (Synod of 1818), it was one indicator that Moravian pietism was rapidly fading. Within a short time, the Single Brothers’ choir failed. Within forty years, the visible evidence of the choir system had all but disappeared from Salem.

pietism. To succeed at the level of discernment for which Dr. Crouch is suggesting would require new engagement with pietism at the level found in the choir system.

The core of Moravian faith and practice is lost in translation when we choose to engage it without being committed to some form of active Christian pietism (i.e., meeting weekly with a mutually accountable and committed group of fellow Christians). I wonder what could happen if more Moravians committed to meeting weekly in such groups, making every effort not to make the same mistake of exclusion our ancestors did.

In other words, actively including people with different views. Better yet, include LGBT folks who share a common desire to discern God’s leading.

Doesn’t anything less make us guilty of how the healed man’s community treated him in John 9?

The greatest gift that Dr. Crouch offers us in this essay, is the challenge to see the present moment in our church communities. If we are to reach a standard of discernment reflective of John 9, we must find a way to reconnect to the roots of practical Moravian pietism that seeks to be courageously inclusive of the very people the larger culture seeks to exclude. n

THE

HINGE

49

Response: The Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson

In an assessment of cultural orientation that I did recently, I was at first quite surprised to find that in terms of cultural norms and attitudes my orientation was closer to where I now live than to where I grew up. On further thought, I concluded that there was no need for surprise because the assessment simply confirmed that context plays an important role in how I see the world. More than I was immediately conscious, my present context has a greater weight on my cultural attitudes and behaviour than I would have admitted. As I read Dr Frank Crouch’s essay, “How Many Moravians Does It Take to Change a Doctrine?,” I had to keep reminding myself of this fact: context is at work in our interpretation even though we may not be mindful it. Interpretation of the Bible and the Moravian tradition will be also be shaped by our experience and the trusted authorities on whom we rely.

The aim of Frank’s paper was to give a “historical and biblical journey through Moravian approaches to scripture.” The expression “Moravian Approaches” was interesting because it immediately raised for me the query of what constituted a Moravian approach. This I took to mean approaches taken by individual members of the Moravian Church over time because a “Moravian approach” suggest something authoritative, which is really difficult to imagine without an accepted constituted authority.

The paper has raised a number of interesting topics relating to how we receive and understand a Moravian approach to scriptural interpretation. All the issues cannot be covered in this brief response to the essay; therefore I will limit my comments to two issues, namely: (a) sources that define a Moravian approach to scripture and (b) the Bible, Moravians and the heterosexual/LGBTQ debate.

The approach that Frank takes to his survey is two-fold: first he looks at some original sources, like the writings of one of the earliest Moravian leaders, Peter of Chelčický, through the 1535 Confession and the 1616 Ratio Disciplinae and Comenius’ Panorthosia, to the Moravian diaries and Missionary reports of the 18thcentury. Along with the reliance on these early sources, he admits the advice and influence of modern, trusted authorities, whom he describes as “veritable fountains of knowledge.”

In terms of his sources my disappointment, though, was that with the exception of a reference to a statement in the 2014 Synod of the American Northern Province, he makes no specific reference to instances of scriptural interpretation conducted by Moravians after the 18th century. In one

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

50

The Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson is pastor of University Road Moravian Church, Belfast and Kilwarlin Moravian Church, Hillsborough, both in Northern Ireland

sense the omission of about 200 years of possible sources for understanding Moravian approaches to scripture can be excused by the fact that the author had a particular interest in the way Moravians approached the institution of slavery and the practice of keeping slaves. In another sense the exclusion cannot be easily justified, given the topic, since it is in that period of exclusion one will find examples of other approaches in a very large section of the Moravian community, namely, in Africa and the Caribbean.

It should not be surprising, then, that what we get in Frank’s “Moravian approaches” is, for the most part, American or European Moravian approaches to scripture.

The issue of exclusion of some perspectives is also related to accepted authority. Nowadays it is difficult for a respected source on scriptural interpretation not be a published source, even though the sources in the historical records on which we rely to form opinions of the past are mostly unpublished. There are published non-American and non-European sources, for example Hastings (1979), Maynard (1982) and Cuthbert (1986), who have influenced Moravian scriptural interpretation in the 20th-century Caribbean, as have non-Moravians like the Methodist William Watty (1981) and various Roman Catholic writers on liberation theology. The point is that in forming a total picture of Moravian approaches to scripture, great care should be taken with what we select and the case can be made for reading not only published authors, most of whom are American and European, but also unpublished sources, not least those who are non-American and non-European. Close attention to these will show that Moravians across Africa, the Caribbean and Central America lean on the historical contexts of those regions in their interpretation of scripture. This is particularly evident in the writings of Cuthbert and Maynard.

The fact that the Moravian Church is a relatively small community worldwide does not diminish the reality and importance of a contextual approach to Moravian hermeneutics. Looking at five and a half centuries of Moravian approaches to scriptural interpretation, then, seems to require an approach which reckons with non-American and non-European contexts in which Moravian scriptural interpretation have been taking place.

The issue of sources is related to what constitutes a Moravian approach to scripture. All editions of the Ground of the Unity have maintained that: “just as the Holy Scripture does not contain any doctrinal system, so the Unitas Fratrum also has not developed any of its own because it knows that the mystery of Jesus Christ which is attested to in the Bible, cannot be comprehended completely by any human mind or expressed completely in any human statement.” [Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum, 2016, #4]

THE

HINGE

51

Frank tells his readers that “our [Moravian] approach includes consideration of the difference between works instituted by humans and works commanded by God.” If in practice, this discernment of human instituted works and of divine imperative means that the Moravian way of scriptural interpretation involves listening to and learning from others, including Christians from other communions, then the ecumenical character of the Moravian approach would not have been missed by Frank. Otherwise, the “Moravian approach” he builds is not as Moravian as it needs to be.

The ability to listen to the perspectives of others is central to the debate on human sexuality, or more particularly, to what Frank calls the “world-sorting dichotomy better known as Hetersosexual persons/LGBTQ persons.” This topic, though mentioned only towards the end of the paper, is clearly a major one, if not the main issue, lying in the background of his interdisciplinary historical and biblical journey. The fact that Moravians in the past erroneously justified slavery and practiced the keeping of slaves, out of failure to read scripture in a fulsome way, is juxtaposed with the debate on the place in the church for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer persons. On this subject, some comment is also necessary.

If I have not read Frank incorrectly, he gives a caution that our present generation, by focusing on “a small set of scripture passages that have been seen in a particular way,” not fall into the error of our forebears in the way they used scripture to justify slavery. He fears that a “vast number of Moravians follow the same pattern of biblical interpretation with respect to human sexuality as those 18th and 19th century Moravians did to slavery.”

The author is not unmindful that juxtaposing the human sexuality debate with a discussion on slavery is as dangerous as it is emotive, and he is keen to ensure that he is not misunderstood. He states: “I don’t mean that anyone who condemns LGBTQ persons would necessarily support slavery as well.” The risk of being misunderstood is not insignificant, not least because a large section of the Moravian community, which carries in its communal memory the atrocities of slavery committed against their for-

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

52

The importance of how to regard a particular approach as being more authoritatively Moravian than another, except by virtue of the fact that it might be more prevalent or is better known, cannot be overstated. The authoritative position of the Moravian Unity, if the outcomes of the Unity Synod can be so regarded, is that there is no approach to doctrine that should be called Moravian per se. If there is an authoritative approach to doctrine for the Moravian Church, it is at the nexus of “two millennia of ecumenical Christian Tradition and the wisdom of the Moravian forebears.” [Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum, # 4]. This de facto commitment to ecumenical hermeneutics, as a feature of the Moravian Unity, should neither be overlooked nor taken for granted.

bears, overlaps with that section from which we also have significant opposition to LGBT orientations. The move, therefore, to have the conversation about the Bible and slavery appearing to be intertwined, if not collapsed into a single conversation about the Bible and homosexuality (or other issues of human sexuality), is probably not good strategy. That approach robs both subject matters of their independence and makes it difficult to have a conversation about one without implicating the other.

The way the Bible is used in the Heterosexual/LGBTQ debate is, however, important. Without making specific reference to a passage in the Bible, the resolution accepted by the Unity Synod of 2016 states that, “the Worldwide Unity [of the Moravian Church] …accepts the principle, based on its understanding of faith and biblical testimony, [my emphasis] that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman and is a precious gift from God.” [Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum, 2016]. This resolution is in force until 2023 and, no doubt, efforts might be made to change this position as Moravians in different contexts are seeking Unity-wide endorsement of a different view on marriage.

In countries that have voted to legalise same sex marriage, the discussion has tended to be framed in terms of individual human rights and equality. In contexts like the Caribbean and Africa, however, people see the heterosexual/LGBTQ debate as a trend towards gender minimisation and gender neutrality, as well as a departure from biblical testimony, which has been founded on the idea that individuals are created, male and female, in the image of God. The attitude and objection to same gender sexual relations is construed not as a denial of the freedom, rights, or individual self-understanding and choice, but should be heard as an unwillingness to surrender to a globalising trend, which is perceived as seeking to make null and void the traditional male-female biological distinctions. The challenge being faced is not simply for the rights of individuals to be recognised but for a certain understanding of the human being, which has heterosexual intimate relations as its norm, to be surrendered altogether. In its place there seems to be a requirement for an understanding to emerge in which there is no norm for human sexual relations, and where individuals relate sexually as they wish and as they choose.

This brings us to the text of Galatians 3:28 to which Frank alludes and on which he relies to equate the man/woman dichotomy with the free/ slave. He argues that like the slave/free and other world-sorting dichotomies, the male/female gender dichotomy “no longer have authority within… the life and practices of the people of God.” The book of Galatians in general, and 3:28 in particular has been the subject of much scholarly examination, and we clearly do not have the space for all the arguments associated with Gal 3:28 to be repeated here. However, a few comments are needed on this verse because of the import of this passage on how we unTHE

HINGE

53

For the commentary on the book of Galatians I have benefitted significantly from the work by Hans Dieter Betz [H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984]. Though written about 30 years ago, it is still regarded by many contemporary scholars as one of the most significant pieces of work on Galatians. In his work, we see that there is general consensus that the text in Galatians 3:28 is understood to mean that in Christ, and consequently in the Christian church, the religious, cultural and social distinctions between Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, men and women are abolished. The challenge we find with the text and where the dispute arises is whether we are to take the saying to mean that the biological distinctions between men and women are also abolished. The difference with the male/female dichotomy is that in addition to the social, cultural and religious distinctions, it could also imply biological distinctions. Some people see Galatians 3:28 as also asserting the abolishment of biological distinctions, which would be consistent with a trend in modern society towards gender neutrality. The abolishment of biological distinctions between men and women is well attested in gnostic literature, where it is was also argued that the primordial man of Genesis 1:27 was neither male nor female and in some cases both male and female.

The advocacy for same gender sexual relations, which some argue is theologically appropriate because in Christ we are, and in the eschaton will be, gender neutral and neither male nor female, is deeply challenging, if not problematic. The erasure or at least minimising of the biological distinctions between men and women, which is a recovery of gnostic anthropology, is something that does not sit well with some Moravians. These Moravians do not see philosophical or biblical justifications for abolishing or surrendering the male/female biological distinctions and the traditional practice of sexual relations across genders, that is, between a male and a female. This is the position that is reflected in the 2016 Unity Synod resolution. At the same time, these Moravians are committed to, and advocate for, the abolishment of the social, cultural and religious distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women.

A fundamental issue raised by Frank’s article is the challenge we have when we read and interpret written text in scripture and the Moravian tradition. The fact that everyone has a bias, and that in any enterprise of interpretation we will be selective, means that securing diversity of perspectives must be built into how we read, interpret and come to new decisions. This

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

54

derstand the character of the Christian community today. These comments are made being mindful of the charge of focussing on a single passage.

However, this is a risk one has to face sometimes, in order to do justice to biblical interpretation.

must be applied to our reading of the Moravian heritage, the Bible and conversations about human sexuality and about the changes we might seek to embrace. Frank’s paper has argued that making erroneous judgements is a real and present danger, especially but not limited to the more privileged and powerful. Listening to and learning from others at every turn is one of the ways to mitigate this danger. n

THE

HINGE

55

Dr. Crouch’s Response

Sr. Delbridge notes the importance of “empathy” when considering both sides of a world-sorting dichotomy. Since we are products of our own time, we cannot simplistically criticize people of the past for being blinded by the “certainties” of their day. This does not let us off the hook but potentially keeps us honest about our own potential for error. At the same time, Sr. Delbridge, Sr. Ganz, and Br. Routh note the difference it might have made if 18th century Moravians had cared about more than slaves’ conformity to Moravian assumptions and expectations. The fact that European Moravians saw “negroes” as inherently inferior prevented them from listening to or learning from what slaves brought to them out of their own contexts and insights.

Minoritized persons in the US—for reasons of race, ethnicity, gender and/or sexual identity, etc.—still find themselves consistently talked over, silenced, and warned to stay in their place by “authorities,” social pressures, or violence. As Sr. Ganz notes, these realities readily occur when we do not attend to “experience” or as Br. Thompson notes, “context.” Empathy (or lack of it), experience, and context stand as distinct elements that affect “what scriptures we hold as key. And it can open (or close) us to the new ways that the Spirit may be trying to teach us” (from Sr Ganz). Br. Rabbach reminds us, “True learning, growth and adaptation can only occur when we can claim the whole of history, the good and the bad.” As hard as it can be to hear, the truth can set us free.

So, as Sr. Delbridge states, “I wish now for a word of hope.” Indeed, all of the respondents suggest avenues of hope both within and outside our Moravian communities. Br. Routh adds, “applying a theological lens to Moravian life falls short without what I would call ‘practical pietism’ … meeting daily to weekly in small groups for mutual accountability and spiritual maturation.” As sources of hope, we can look to those who see that “the Moravian way of scriptural interpretation involves listening to and learning from others, including Christians from other communions” (Br. Thompson); who “seek to be a people who are open to the new things a just and merciful God is calling us to be and do” (Sr. Delbridge); who know their “role is to be uncompromising in earnest endeavor to fulfill the Great Commandment” (Br. Rabbach); and who understand that “it is our relationship with Christ that is the core that holds us together” (Sr. Ganz).

The lectures focused on a task that precedes hope—accepting our ability to make mistakes, particularly those we justify on longstanding grounds we hold as true, often without re-examination. As I said, “It is my observation that the times that the Moravian Church got things most

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

56

Thank you to the respondents. Their responses add dimensions to and critiques of the lectures that would have made them clearer and better.

egregiously and terribly wrong were times when they thought that the Bible makes it easy to tell the difference between things of this world and things of God.” I still hold that view as applied to church practice related to LGBT+ persons. I respect Br. Thompson’s substantial critiques that, based on the 2016 Unity Synod, represent a different, majority view of the worldwide Moravian Church. And I would like to see all sides move beyond stating our positions and engage more in exploring our presuppositions.

Br. Thompson notes his “disappointment … that with the exception of a reference to … the 2014 Synod of the American Northern Province, [Br. Crouch] makes no specific reference to instances of scriptural interpretation conducted by Moravians after the 18th century … [or to] other approaches in a very large section of the Moravian community, namely, in Africa and the Caribbean. It should not be surprising then that what we get in Frank’s “Moravian approaches” is, for the most part, American or European Moravian approaches to scripture.”

Given the lectures’ limited scope and the fact that footnotes show only sources cited, not all sources read, the critique is understandable.

However, the lectures lifted up African voices that were too long ignored in Moravian approaches to slavery: (1) the Moravian slave, Andrew—whose life story’s horror was overlooked by a community of people who benefitted from owning him as property, and (2) other slaves who spoke through Powery and Sadler’s book, The Genesis of Liberation, calling out scripture passages and an understanding of love for neighbor that Christian slaveholders missed or ignored. The African slave voices, speaking to deaf ears long ago, speak again to us now and constitute the crucial underpinning on which the lectures stand.

The lectures focused on how Moravians have put into practice an enduring understanding stated by the Ancient Unity, the Renewed Church, and the Globalized Church that “the understandings of ‘truth through which people are instructed and formed through faith for salvation and righteousness are to be sought and derived from [Scripture].’” This was most recently stated, “Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life” (Ground of the Unity (GoU), 1995, par. 4). Further, final authority for interpretation lies with the Holy Spirit, through whom “the recognition of God’s will for salvation in the Bible is revealed completely and clearly” (GoU, par. 4).

The question driving my research centered on how Moravians have, do, and might in the future put into practice that understanding of an inherent connection between scripture and life. The structure of Moravian arguments supporting slavery strikingly resemble arguments used to exclude Gentiles 2,000 years ago, prohibit full participation of women in the past and today, and prohibit full inclusion of LGBT+ persons as well.

Using that same structure, opposition to full inclusion of LGBT+ persons THE

HINGE

57

Br. Thompson states that the lectures’ views align with US or European arguments that tend “to be framed in terms of individual human rights and equality … [and that] surrender to a globalising trend, which is perceived as seeking to make null and void the traditional male-female biological distinctions … [in order for] an understanding to emerge in which there is no norm for human sexual relations, and where individuals relate sexually as they wish and as they choose.” I would counter that the lectures are not framed in terms of individual rights and equality, nor do they advocate a normless world in which sexual relations are open to whatever anyone wants to do. Instead they are framed in terms of tensions between “old ways and new ways” and “things of the world and things of God.” The lectures do argue that traditional views shouldn’t be dismissed lightly, but they also possess no privileged status that leaves them beyond questioning.

The lectures critique how Moravians and others used a handful of biblical passages to establish, enforce, and fight for traditional understandings about slavery and roles of women that were espoused as truths declared by God. Moravians now officially repudiate those understandings, e.g., ordination of women is “the” official Moravian view as found in the globalizedMoravian-Church-approved Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum (COUF) (par. #844; #861; Res. 50, p. 205).

The lectures critique a view of scripture that understands “scripture as the sole standard” to mean that one can faithfully interpret scripture by quoting a few passages to support a longstanding practice of exclusion without also testing those passages against the fullness of scripture (COUF 100b). That approach incorrectly equates “it says X somewhere in scripture” with “the fullness of scripture says X.” As the lectures note, scripture itself reminds us repeatedly of our ignorance and limited knowledge and proclaims God’s freedom to do new things. Unfortunately, Moravians occasionally join a worldwide tendency to force a long-excluded group—e.g., slaves or women or LGBT+ persons—to speak for themselves out of a position where their objections to oppression are dismissed as too tainted by self-interest to be considered credible. Moravians did that with slaves, and I’ve seen (and see) it repeated across the Moravian world with respect to both women and LGBT+ persons. It is reasonable to be suspicious of self-interest. But what one sees as self-interest could represent legitimate

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

58

spans all continents on which Moravians reside, including statements from North America and Europe (Alaska, Czech Republic, dissenting views in American Northern and Southern provinces), the 2016 Unity Synod, and the 2014 Unity Bishops’ Conference (5 of 17 bishops signing it were from the US or Europe). I have no illusions about the minority status of the lectures’ views within the majority of the Moravian world. My critique centers on the argument’s structure, used across the globe by persons living centuries apart.

objections to unjust oppression. We fail in discernment when we do not consider that possibility.

Finally, Br. Thompson speaks clearly on behalf of “Moravians [who] do not see philosophical or biblical justifications for abolishing or surrendering the male/female biological distinctions and the traditional practice of sexual relations across genders, that is, between a male and a female …

At the same time, these Moravians are committed to and advocate the abolishment of the social, cultural and religious distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women.” I agree with him that our disagreement lies not at the level of our different conclusions, nor at the level of the evidence by which we justify our conclusions, but at the level of why certain evidence or passages of scripture convince “me” but do not convince “you,” and vice-versa. Church conversations would be most productive by staying at that level long enough to hear each other and see where God calls us to go.

I would further respond that each world-sorting dichotomy in Br. Thompson’s description is not limited to a social, cultural, or religious distinction. Each dichotomy also assumes a hierarchy rooted in biological, bodily differences. Jews and Gentiles were distinguished (at least for men) by bodily circumcision. American and European arguments supporting slavery were distinctively racial and racist in their insistence on “biological” inferiority based on skin color, hair, and ancestry. Ancient and contemporary disparagements of women’s roles, potential for leadership, intellectual capacity, or reliability in crisis pretend to be based on differences in anatomy, physiology, hormones, etc. Bodily differences were and are translated into enduring social, cultural, religious, and legal hierarchies. The same is true for LGBT+ persons, whose social, cultural, religious, and legal standing fluctuates as traditional heterosexual holders of power seek to use six passages of scripture as “the” key evidence for determining whether gender or sexual orientation and identity are chosen or biologically determined, whether they are naturally fixed in only two ways or lie in various places on a continuum, or whether once fixed they could ever change. Regardless of where we eventually end up on any of those questions, it seems to me that Sr. Delbridge identified the biblical guide with the most enduring, dichotomy-breaking force: “Peter’s question in Acts 11:17 [about full inclusion of Gentiles] remains relevant and challenging for us today. ‘If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?’”

I thank the respondents for their time, insights, and thought-provoking critiques. May we continue to discern when the Spirit is reminding us of things Christ already told us and when the Spirit is leading us in new ways into all the truth. n THE

HINGE

59

6th Bethlehem Conference

& Music

The WalTer ViVian Moses lecTure in MoraVian sTudies

Dr. Winelle Kirton-Roberts “Evangelical Protestantism In Antigua And Barbados, 1834-1914” The MoraVian Music FoundaTion PresenTs

A Night of Chamber Music MoraVian hisTorical socieTy annual lecTure

Rev. Dr. Craig Atwood “Creation of the Modern Moravian Unity in 1957”

October 11th–13th, 2018 Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

moravianconferences.org | 610.866.3255 The conference is sponsored by the Moravian Archives, Moravian College, and the Center for Moravian Studies, in partnership with the Moravian Music Foundation, Moravian Historical Society, and Moravian Theological Seminary.

HINGE

THE

“How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?”

60

on Moravian History

THE

HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG

Colophon

FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH

The Hinge is published with the assistance of the Center for Moravian Studies of Moravian Theological Seminary and the Interprovincial Board of Communication of the Moravian Church in America. ©2018 Center for Moravian Studies. All rights are reserved.

Editors: Craig Atwood, Laura Gordon Send letters to the editor, articles, book reviews, and other contributions to Craig at atwoodc@moravian.edu The Hinge Editorial Board: Zachary Dease, Sam Gray, Sarah Groves, Hans-Beat Motel, Joe Nicholas, Janel Rice, Justin Rabbach, Neil Thomlinson, Livingstone Thompson, Volker Schulz, Peter Vogt, Jane Weber Hinge illustration by Todd Tyson of Kernersville, N.C. Wood cover design by Colleen Marsh, Bethlehem, Pa. Layout/Design by Mike Riess.

The cost for subscribing to The Hinge is $30. Send checks payable to: The Hinge c/o Jane Weber Moravian Theological Seminary 1200 Main Street Bethlehem, PA 18018 Contact Jane (weberj@moravian.edu) to change your subscription information or to request additional copies of The Hinge. Single issue rate: $7 The Hinge is provided free of charge to Moravian clergy, thanks to the generosity of the Center for Moravian Studies at Moravian Theological Seminary.

Recent issues of The Hinge are available online at www.moravianseminary.edu/center/ hinge.htm.

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

HINGE

Center for Moravian Studies Moravian Theological Seminary 1200 Main St. Bethlehem, PA 18018-6650

THE HINGE

Moravian College

THE

Non-Profit Org. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Lehigh Valley, PA Permit 521