THE
HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG
FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH
American Moravians in the Vietnam War by the Rev. Dr. David Schattschneider
Adventures in Protest by the Rev. Bill Gramley
Responses by The Rev. Aaron Linville The Rev. Andrew Craver
A Reflection on Polarisation in Northern Ireland and the Church’s Response by the Rev Sarah Groves
Vol. 24, No. 1: Summer 2019
THE
HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG
FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH
Volume 24, Number 1: Summer 2019 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 I am happy to be filling in for Craig Atwood as the editor for this issue of The Hinge, which takes on the relationship of war and the church. This edition presented an unusual challenge: David Schattschneider, author of one of the lead articles, wrote this for a conference and had finished much of the task of turning into a written article before he passed away. Bill Gramley’s personal reflections obviously come from a very different standpoint. Our respondents then went in very different directions. Because we could not ask Brother Schattschneider for his response to the responses, we did not ask that of Brother Gramley either. Without the authors’ summary responses, this issue might feel a bit more disjointed and unfinished than some, but I believe this is fitting given the topic. The Vietnam War left America with a lot of unfinished business about its place in the world—and the world a different place in terms of the types of wars that are now fought in it. The US is now in its eighteenth year of war in Afghanistan, and though I suspect this war and the home front feel very different than they did in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, our respondents remind us of the very real after-effects of those touched by our more modern wars. They remind us that because of this, there is work to be done. More than that, this issue’s writers remind us that we, the church, have work to do. All of them call upon the church to engage in dialog and to seek understanding, even reconciliation. While Brother Craver and Sister Graves remind us that this is true related to the modern military violence, Brother Linville broadens the list of topics where the church could be one of the few places that encourages those with different points of view to come together. [Continued]
THE
HINGE
Notes from the Editor [Continued from previous page]
Personally, I wonder what would happen if, when Christians gathered around the table to discuss these difficult issues, we would make the conscious decision to gather around the Lord’s Table. No conversation without communion. No attempt at being present with each other without the presence of Christ at the table. No working to try to reconcile without remembering him. If you agree that we should gather around the table to discuss difficult topics, perhaps this issue can serve as a menu. Riddick Weber Guest Editor
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
2
3 American Moravians in the Vietnam War Era The Rev. Dr. David A. Schattschneider (1939-2016) served as Dean of Moravian Theological Seminary. This paper was originally delivered at the 4th Bethlehem Conference on Moravian History and Music, Moravian College, October 2-5, 2014.
Introduction My remarks today might better be called “observations” rather than ‘the definitive history’ of American Moravians in the Vietnam War era. Although many books1 have been written about that era attempting to present complete analyses and explanations, for many Americans, it is still an unhealed wound that raises personal questions about our identities as Christians and as Americans. In September 2014, a new play “Almost Home” by Walter Anderson opened at the Acorn Theater in New York City. It is the story of a Vietnam War veteran returning home to the Bronx. In his review of the play, Bruce Chadwick observed, “Vietnam never really fades away, especially for the generation of Americans that fought it or protested it.”2 I lived through the Vietnam War trauma, so I am interested in that era for personal and professional reasons. It all began for me as a teenager trying to find French Indo-China on a map while watching grainy films of the French army on that new invention called television. Could the legendary, even mythic, French Foreign Legion, really have been crushed and forced to surrender to an unknown Asian force at a place called Dien Bien Phu in May 1954? The July/August 2007 issue of the Moravian Magazine contained a commentary “The Church and the War in Iraq.” In this article the Rev. William Gramley, wonders if any Moravians are discussing the Iraq war and the issues surrounding it. He can only report, “I hear a whole lot of silence.” After considering the points Gramley raised, I began to wonder how American Moravians reacted to the Vietnam War. Was there only
THE
HINGE
As I called for in my Moses Lectures of 1999, in our study of Moravian Church history after the 18th century, “let us find new heroes and heroines. We need to identify people, primarily American men and women, clergy and lay, whose life stories send meaningful messages to contemporary Americans.”3 The stories of some such persons may be found as we reconsider the church during the Vietnam War era.
The Vietnam War in Brief Identifying the years of the Vietnam War Era is a subject that is still debated by historians since the United States never formally declared war, but the years 1959-1975 mark the period of open US military presence in Vietnam. The Vietnam War started as a war of independence from French colonial rule of Indo-China, years before the US became openly involved. The French were losing the war and sought help from the United States. Ho Chi Minh led the anti-French forces, called the Viet Minh, which were receiving support from the Soviet Union. Thus Vietnam became a hot zone in the Cold War. We now know that the US began secretly sending military supplies to the French in the early 1950s to try to stop the advance of Marxism in Asia. Gradually the war became a civil war between the pro-Western south and the pro-Communist north led by Ho Chi Minh. Even in the south, there was warfare between government forces and the Viet Cong. The first two American soldiers to die in battle in Vietnam were killed on July 8, 1959 in a skirmish with Viet Minh forces north of Saigon. From that point the US became more aggressive in supporting the pro-Western government in Saigon, sending naval vessels, military advisors, and additional soldiers. On August 7, 1964, in response to an attack on US naval vessels, the US Congress overwhelmingly passed the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” that allowed the President to “take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force” to prevent further attacks against US forces. On March 8, 1965, 3,500 US Marines landed at China Beach to defend the American air base at Da Nang. At that point there were already 23,000 American military “advisors” in Vietnam. The war dragged on, and US involvement escalated throughout the 1960s. The conflict spread to neighboring Laos and Cambodia with great loss of life among civilians and devastation of villages and farms.
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
4
silence then or did something else happen? If something else did happen, what did those happenings have to say about the American Moravian Church and its beliefs regarding war and peace, our duties as citizens, our understanding of church and state issues?
By 1972 it was clear that the US would not win the war and North and South Vietnam would be united as an independent country with a Marxist government under Ho Chi Minh. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973 by representatives of the United States, South Vietnam, Viet Cong, and North Vietnam. The last American soldier was killed on April 29, 1975 during the chaotic evacuation of Saigon. The scene of US military personnel and some Vietnamese civilians being evacuated by helicopter from the US Embassy roof in Saigon as the victorious Viet Cong rode into the city was televised live. The US military presence in Vietnam began in secrecy and ended in humiliation. About 55,000 Americans died in the war, and more than ten times that number of Vietnamese died. This paper focuses on the response of the Moravian Church in North America to the war and how it addressed the issues being debated in public demonstrations and in American living rooms.
Conscientious Objection in the Moravian Church In 2007 Moravian Theological Seminary observed its bicentennial with many events celebrating its founding on October 2, 1807. One of the souvenirs of the celebration was a historical timeline chronicling events in church, seminary, and national life from 1807-2007. As I thumbed through the timeline, I noticed this entry for 1969: “Classes cancelled for one day for a teach-in on issues related to the Vietnam War.” I remember that day: October 15. The lounge of the Haupert Union Building was filled with students, faculty, and staff watching several large television screens presenting coverage of nationwide events which involved more than a million people. Prosser Auditorium provided the setting for presentations by local faculty members and students. Thus Moravian College joined the national “teach-in” movement. The first Vietnam teach-in, organized by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was held on March 24, 1965 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The movement quickly spread as teach-ins were broadcast by closed circuit TV to college campuses throughout the country. May 15, 1965 saw the largest teach-in, held in Washington, DC with a group of over 3,000 students and professors, broadcast to over 100 US college campuses. The Moravian Church had been thinking about war and peace long before that teach-in. Although the Moravian Church (or better, the Unitas Fratrum) was founded as a peace church in 1457 and maintained a pacifist stance up to 1800; this stance eroded in the 19th century.4 That same Seminary bicentennial timeline quoted above notes that in 1817 “Moravian Church conferences in the North and in the South pass votes to allow members to serve in the military,” and later in 1863 “two professors and several students enlist with Union forces when confederates invade
THE
HINGE
5
Pennsylvania.”5 Among the confederates invading Pennsylvania were Moravians from North Carolina.
Conscientious objection to military service based on religious beliefs is a tradition dating back to the colonial era in America. The first national draft of military personnel came during the Civil War, but objectors to the draft, such as Quakers, could pay a fine or hire a substitute to serve in their place. By the time of World War I, these alternatives were eliminated by the government, but the Selective Service Act of 1917 provided for conscientious objectors who were members of “any well-recognized religious sect… whose existing creed or principles forbid its members to participate in war in any form.” Those who were granted conscientious objector status still had to serve in the armed forces as non-combatants. Problems arose with this provision for conscientious objectors, though. There was neither a definition of a “well-recognized religious sect” nor was there a definition of “non-combatant.” Some conscientious objectors were opposed to service that supported violence, such as carrying ammunition. Representatives of the historic Peace Churches (Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and Quakers) met with President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 and 1940. Thanks to their advocacy, the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 broadened the previous rules by allowing conscientious objectors to be assigned to noncombatant service as defined by the President. For those who conscientiously opposed to participation in any military service, be assigned to “work of national importance” under civilian direction. A further broadening of eligibility for conscientious objection occurred in 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that COs need not believe in a Supreme Being. And in 1970, this was expanded to say that an individual may object to military service on ethical and moral grounds, if such convictions are “deeply felt.”7
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
6
Even though Moravians were free after 1817 to enlist in the military, the church recognized that some members might refuse to bear arms or resist the military draft during war for conscientious reasons. The Northern Province synod of 1936 recognized “conviction of the right of conscience on the part of the individual to refuse to bear arms, or to submit to military training.” 6 The resolution directed the Provincial Board of Christian Education to “devise ways and means of preserving a record of the members of our congregations holding such convictions concerning warfare,” and it stipulated that persons wishing to be recognized as conscientious objectors “shall have been members [of the church] in good standing for at least one year previous to such application.” The points enunciated in this 1936 declaration were to become the foundation for the Northern Province’s enduring position regarding conscientious objection.
Churches and others developed such programs for alternative service. The National Interreligious Board for Conscientious Objectors8, formerly the National Service Board for Religious Objectors (NSBRO), was established in 1940 by the historic Peace churches to provide a central agency to represent the concerns of COs in dealing with the federal government. It was a service agency providing extensive educational materials about the draft and conscientious objection to military service. Eventually more than forty religious bodies supported its work through membership on its “Consultative Council.” The Moravian Church in North America provided alternative service opportunities for conscientious objectors through its Moravian Overseas Voluntary Enlistment (M.O.V.E) program administered by the Northern Province Board of Foreign Missions. The program was coordinated by the Mennonite Voluntary Service Program that provided the actual work placements. Single Moravian men 18 years or older who were registered COs also had to register with the denomination and the Board and agree to service for at least 26 months. In 1941, on the eve of America’s entrance into World War II, the Northern Provincial Synod declared:9 Whereas, war, the enmities it foments, the wanton distortion of truth it engenders, and the defiance of the righteousness of God it demonstrates is manifestly abhorrent to the Gospel and the Spirit of Christ, and Whereas, “There is wide agreement with regard to the rights of the conscientious objector,” and Whereas, the Moravian Church has within its membership some in good standing who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war, on the ground that it is incompatible with the mind of Christ, and Whereas, in any conflict of loyalties Christians must unhesitatingly follow the Christ, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that this Synod reaffirms the position taken by the Provincial Synod of 1936, namely, “That Synod records its conviction that Jesus Christ came to be the Savior and Lord both of every person and of every human relation and activity.” RESOLVED: that this Synod declare its conviction of the right of those who in honest obedience to conscience refuse to bear arms or to submit to military training; RESOLVED: that opportunity be continued for each conscientious objector within the membership of the Moravian Church to file their declarations with the Christian Education Board, in accordance with the provisions determined upon by the Provincial Synod of 1936 in
THE
HINGE
7
order that, as occasion may warrant, their cases may be laid before the representatives of Government with a view to determining their status.
The Northern Province returned to the subject of conscientious objection in 1970, in the midst of the Vietnam turmoil, when it reiterated the right of each church member to follow the dictates of his or her own conscience and to “lend spiritual support, ministerial guidance, and moral compassion to each Christian who arrives at a conviction which was based on sincere Christian motives.” Further: RESOLVED: that this Synod reaffirm that the position expressed within our ancient motto, ‘In essentials, unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity’ makes provision for honest differences of opinion within the fellowship of our church, even on divisive national, social and political issues as are reflected by American involvement in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, and selective conscientious objection.”10 It is interesting to note that this is one of three times where the terms “Vietnam” or “Southeast Asia” occur in synod resolutions during the era. The terms occur first in an earlier Eastern District synod resolution that ended up being incorporated in this Provincial Synod resolution. The terms occur later in a 1974 Northern Province synod call for study and response in support of President Gerald Ford’s call for amnesty for Vietnam War “deserters and draft dodgers.” The terms do not occur in any Southern Province Synod resolutions for the era under discussion. I am indebted for that insight to the Rev. William Gramley who has graciously given me access to his voluminous files on the Moravian Church and the Vietnam War Era. Although it does not refer to the Vietnam conflict by name, the Southern Province Synod of 1968 passed a long and strongly worded resolution of support for those in “Conscious Opposition to Bearing Arms.” It recognizes the moral dilemmas often confronting young people regarding military service and that “the bearing of one another’s burdens is essential
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
8
RESOLVED: that this Synod, in order to implement its concern for the conscientious objectors within the membership of the Moravian Church, authorizes a token payment of five dollars a month toward the support of the National Service Board for Religious Objectors, through the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, which operates camps where conscientious objectors perform their “work of national importance,” a part of the expenses of which is borne by various Christian denominations; and that this Synod authorizes the editor of The Moravian, through its columns, to request funds for this cause, under the supervision of the Provincial Elders’ Conference, and that these funds be administered and acknowledged in the customary manner by the Provincial Treasurer.
to the fulfilling of the law of Christ.” It urges the PEC to examine those who appeal to it as COs and to duly register those whom it finds to be “true conscientious objectors.” Those persons are to be offered counseling which will include “both spiritual and legal advice” and they are to be encouraged to consider “service in the Military Medical Corp, our Country’s Peace Corp. or other fields of compassionate service, which violate neither conscience nor patriotism for one who truly seeks peace.” In the Northern Province, letters from the PEC outlined the process to apply for CO status and gave full support to the candidates. The applicant was to secure from their local draft board Selective Service form 150, which included a claim for exemption and required that four questions be answered concerning religious training and belief. The applicant was required to write a letter to the Board of Christian Education and Evangelism (later to the PEC) stating one’s beliefs, and the pastor also was required to write a letter stating that the applicant was counseled and stating whether or not the applicant’s objections were or were not legitimate. The applicant had to be certified as a “bonafide member of a Moravian Church.” These materials “registered” the applicant with the Moravian Church as requesting CO status, and all such records were kept on file by the BCE&E (later PEC) in order to support the applicant’s appeal to a local draft board. In the Northern Province, the available records show that between 1970 and 1972, twelve men sent letters to the PEC requesting recognition as COs. Before March 1967, there were only “two or three” such “registrations,” and records are not available for 1967 – 1969. A lottery to determine the order of call to military service was held on December 1, 1969 and so the number of applications for CO status increased at that time. In the Southern Province, the Synod of 1968 ordered the PEC to appoint a committee of one layperson and two clergy to determine the validity of requests for CO status. A lawyer was added to the committee in September 1969. Between 1968 and 1973, six men were certified as conscientious objectors. The committee was dissolved in August 1973. There is no record of how many Moravian applicants received CO deferment. Nationally, during the Vietnam war, a total of 170,000 men received CO deferments, while as many as 300,000 other applicants were denied deferment. The question of amnesty for over 600,000 men who evaded the draft by various means was a controversial issue during the Vietnam War era. Bill Gramley reminds us that “A special Youth Congress with representatives from nearly all Moravian Churches in America met in November 1973 and voted 85 to 43 in favor of unconditional amnesty for draft evaders and deserters.” Yet the Northern Province Synod the next year recommended only study about and individual action in regard to the amnesty issue. THE
HINGE
9
Peace Advocacy in the Moravian Church
The same synod (perhaps at the urging of Schwender and his supporters) adopted the Moravian Prayer for Peace which congregations were urged to paste into the 1923 hymnal on page 15 as an alternative to the “Prayer in times of war” as found in the Litany. “O Thou King of kings and Lord of lords, who desirest that all men should dwell together in Unity: Let Thy will be known and done among the nations; guide their feet into the way of peace. Remember us and all mankind in Thy mercy. Deliver us from the sins which give rise to war and conflict and strengthen within our hearts the will to establish righteousness and justice in the earth. Give unto us and to all who worship Thee the sincere desire to live in peaceful and loving fellowship with all men. Fix our minds and hearts upon Thine eternal purposes for the children of men.
Hear us, gracious Lord and God.11”
The Northern Province Synod of 1956 commended the Moravian World Peace Committee for its work and resolved “that the program of furthering world peace be fostered by the PEC through a committee of its selection.” The exact wording of this Prayer for Peace was not included in the 1969 hymnal, although echoes of it can be found in the Liturgy for National Occasions (p. 99). There are also echoes in the current Moravian Book of Worship in the liturgies for National Occasions (pp. 139-142) and Peace & Justice (pp. 148-153).
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
10
Many of the synods that met during the troublesome Vietnam War years passed what might be termed rather generic resolutions reiterating the Church’s loyalty to the government in pursuit of its goals of freedom and democracy and urging prayer for the nation’s leaders. At the same time that the Church through its synod was attempting to provide space for a variety of opinions on the current issue, it was also providing support for the development of advocacy groups with a more vigorous approach to Vietnam War concerns. This advocacy model was first incarnated in the Moravian Peace Committee, which emerged following World War II. The Northern Province Synod of 1946 created what became the Moravian World Peace Committee with Brother Fred O. Schwender, a lay person from Utica, NY, serving as chair. The Committee advocated for various world peace issues (including nuclear disarmament) and an unsuccessful attempt (in cooperation with the Southern Province) to re-settle in the US and Canada those European Moravians displaced by WWII.
It was not until 1970, in the midst of the domestic turmoil over Vietnam, that the Northern Province synod finally approved the creation of the Moravian Peace Fellowship that was first proposed in 1956. The Peace Fellowship’s “chief object shall be witnessing for peace with God and among men by the practice and teaching of non-violence and the proclamation of freedom from war and bloodshed by the liberating power of Jesus Christ…” The organizational structure approved placed it tightly under control of the PEC and the Synod. The Peace Fellowship was to “establish a program of witness,” provide resources for an annual Day of Prayer for Peace and general information “about war and peace, conscientious objection, military obligations, and related matters.”12 As Brother Gramley points out, “In the Northern Province this organization had 121 lay members and 50 clergy in its ranks at the peak of its efforts during 1971 and 1972. A number of these were from the South since their Peace Fellowship didn’t get organized until about 1973.”13 I am really not sure of what became of the Moravian Peace Fellowship. In the North, at least, it appears that many of its functions were more or less taken over by the Standing Committee on Church and Society that was established by the Provincial Synod of 1986. Throughout the Vietnam War years various local ad hoc groups with lay and clergy members sprung up in different geographical areas of the Church. Letter writing campaigns, lobbying of local politicians, and occasional public protests comprised their efforts. Often denominational leaders expressed stronger convictions about the issues in these settings than they did on the official floor of synods. Concerns about Vietnam also surfaced in the church’s periodicals. Until 1970 each Province had its own journal: The Wachovia Moravian for the Southern Province and The Moravian for the Northern Province. They merged in 1970 to become The North American Moravian. A random sampling of the three monthly periodicals suggests that, with one exception, while Vietnam-related issues were not the main focus, they also were not forgotten. In the February 1967 Wachovia Moravian, Moravian pastor and Chaplain William B. Kerner, Lieutenant, US Navy, pointed out that “Work of Navy Chaplain is Essentially a Personal Ministry.” He noted that among his duties was the occasional difficult task of helping to notify families of the death in Vietnam of a loved one. Occasionally articles on historical topics would appear with contemporary concerns in mind such as Brother William Cranford’s discussion of 18th and 19th century Moravian views in his article “Conscientious Objection: What is the Moravian Tradition, Where May Youth Find Information?” in the Wachovia Moravian in June
THE
HINGE
11
Similar low-key references to the national debate over Vietnam occurred in The Moravian until 1970 and in The North American Moravian after the merger. The one exception to low-key references may have been the April 1969 issue of The Moravian. The editor, Brother Bernie Michel, himself a WWII veteran, decided to tackle the issues head on in an issue devoted to “Peace” with a striking photograph of the United Nations headquarters building on the cover. He assembled a cast of Moravian Church members to address all aspects of the debate. There was the obligatory history article about past Moravian thoughts on the subject written by the new history instructor at Moravian Theological Seminary, to which I gave the now seemingly audacious title, “The Peace Movement in the Moravian Church.” Brother Richard Watson presented “The Case for Conscientious Objection” while Moravian pastor Chaplain George Scilley, Major, US Army argued “The Case for Military Service.” Brother William Gramley offered an opinion piece “Peace from Protest.” Readers were reminded by Brother Ted Bowman that “Not to decide is to decide,” and Sister Sylvia Lambert Weinlick discussed, “The Peace Corps: Understanding one’s self and other cultures.” The issue appears to have been well received and did not provoke a flurry of letters to the editor.
Conclusion We may never know exactly how many American Moravians served in the military during the Vietnam War – how many were killed in battle, how many were wounded, and how many were listed as missing in action. We also may never know exactly how many American Moravians actively protested during this era – how many wrote letters, lobbied politicians, sang and shouted in the streets. Nor will even know exactly how many American Moravians kept their opinions to themselves in an effort to avoid stirring up controversy and division in church and society– those who said nothing, but prayed and suffered in silence and expressed themselves in the secrecy of the voting booth.
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
12
1968. In a Wachovia editorial of February 1968 the editor expressed the view that the presidential election of that year and the Vietnam War would be the two defining national issues of the coming months. Brother Howard Cox offered Wachovia readers “Vietnam – an Appraisal” in July 1969 which included the perhaps prophetic sentence, “The tragedy of our involvement in Vietnam is that we have tried to apply a military solution to political and economic problems.” His thoughts did evoke a letter in a later issue expressing strong disagreement. The December 1969 issue of the magazine reported the results of a Special Provincial Synod in the Southern Province that, perhaps reflecting the tensions of the times, gave its support to “the freedom of the pulpit in its proclamation of the total Gospel.”
We may some day hear more of the stories of pastors and lay members who did endure controversy and disruption of their lives – who left the church in frustration and disgust or remained while questioning the church’s ability to effectively proclaim the gospel in a militaristic society. The American Moravian Church did not support the Vietnam War as some sort of Christian crusade against godless Communism nor did it condemn it as a simplistic solution to a flawed national foreign policy. What the American Moravian Church did do during the Vietnam War era was to endorse the right of conscientious objection to military service. It sought to fully support those who chose that path while it also endorsed and supported the ministry of military chaplains. The Church, through its educational ministries, sought to provide information about and expression of a wide variety of viewpoints on the issues of that day. Newsletters (for example, from the Moravian Peace Fellowship), memos to pastors, and pamphlets from National organizations such as the National Interreligious Board for Conscientious Objectors, were distributed on a regular basis. What the American Moravian Church did do during the Vietnam War era was to articulate a thoroughly modern understanding of the so-called Protestant Principle – the final obligation of each believer to decide for himself or herself after all the prayer, study, and discussion are over.
Endnotes 1 NY Times Book Review, June 20, 2010, p. 11. Philip Caputo noted in his book review of “Girl by the Road at Night,” by David Rabe that by 2010, a Massachusetts bookseller named Ken Lopez listed 3,500 titles in a catalog of Vietnam War literature. 2 Bruce Chadwick, “From Vietnam to New York City in 1965: From One Jungle to Another”. Posted online 9/26/14 on www. historynewsnetwork.org. 3 David Schattschneider, “The Roots of the Contemporary Moravian Church in North America.” 4
Moravian Pacifism
5 “A Timeline of the Moravian Church and Theological Seminary,” 2007 6 “Resolutions of the Moravian ChurchNorthern Province on Social Issues” (rev. 2018)
THE
HINGE
https://www.moravian.org/northern/wp-content/ uploads/sites/5/2019/07/Resolutions-on-SocialIssues-2018-edition.pdf 7 http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/ conscientiousobjection/co%20website/pages/HistoryNew.htm 8 In 2000, it changed to its current manifestation as the Center on Conscience and War. 9
JNP 1941, pp. 242-243, R. 16-20
10 Ibid, p. 33 11 Synod Proposals. GSyn 1957 1.284.B. Moravian Archives Bethlehem. 12 Bill Gramley, “The Moravian Peace Fellowship,” The North American Moravian, March 1971, p. 23 13 Bill Gramley
13
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
14
HINGE
15 Adventures in Protest The Rev. Bill Gramley is a retired Moravian pastor living in Lewisville. N.C. It was 1966 and I was 31, had a wife and four children and was now the pastor of Olivet Moravian Church on the outskirts of Winston-Salem. Prior to this I had been a student pastor on St. Croix and served three years as pastor of two churches on Antigua in the Caribbean. In 1965-66 I studied for a year at Duke Divinity School, but I needed a job, and so I was called to Olivet. Early in 1967 a minister friend of mine, Jim Johnson, said, “Bill, why don’t you go to Washington and find out what this war in Vietnam is all about?” So I made arrangements to ride to Washington with a couple of Quakers. We went to a “teach-in” conference where we listened and learned. We learned that the war—now involving American troops, helicopters, and planes in ever increasing numbers since 1965—was actually a civil war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh of the North had declared independence from Japan after World War II and then fought off the French, their longtime colonial rulers, and defeated them at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The French left, but people in the South did not like the communist government of North Vietnam and asked the United States to come and help them. President Kennedy, and then President Johnson sent advisors and then troops in larger and larger numbers to support the South Vietnamese. While the South claimed to be democratic, its ruler, Diem, was basically a corrupt dictator and some of his own people, called the Viet Cong, resisted him, while his supporters and their army never became serious fighters against these rebels or against the North’s army. Hence, our U.S. Troops did most of the fighting and dying. When I came back from Washington, I was convinced that we were really no different from the French colonialists and were messing in a civil war like other imperialists. The main reason we were in Vietnam was to fight the spread of communism backed by Russia and China, although we found out that the Vietnamese did not like the Chinese. We were told by our government that if we didn’t stop the spread of communism in Viet-
THE
HINGE
It so happened that I also did research during 1967 and then wrote a thesis on “Theological Issues in the Vietnam Conflict” to try and get a Masters Degree at Duke. This work obviously kept the subject in the forefront of my thinking. I did not know everything about the fighting, but I did believe that this war was wrong and that the increasing death and destruction wasted human life and potential as well as blighting the land and resources of a rather poor country. While some leaders in our nation could see that this was a losing battle in which we were getting bogged down, the fear of communism’s spread was enough to override their questions and challenges. Furthermore, the lies our government made about body counts, pacification programs, and success stories added to my unrest. When I came home from Washington, I took it upon myself to try to inform my city and area about our mistaken involvement in Vietnam. I began to write letters-to-the-editor of the Winston-Salem Journal and Twin City Sentinel. I recently found a file I kept and noted that I wrote eleven letters to the newspapers from February 10, 1967 to February 15, 1968. I also began to preach against the war. I remember one sermon entitled, “Wake Up and Die Right,” in which I pointed out how this war was getting more and more inhumane, was killing civilians, and was causing atrocities. (When I re-read the sermon recently, I could sense its strident tone, and now, some 50 years later, could understand a little better why I met with resistance.) Stories were coming out about our troops throwing prisoners out of helicopters and flame throwers burning down villages. It was mostly the killing and lies from Washington that I protested. On February 26, 1967 43 citizens put their names on a letter to the President calling for an end to the war. We paid for space to have it printed in the Winston-Salem Journal. I still remember one time when I was working with a few others in Winston-Salem for an effort called “Negotiation Now!” (We tried to get businesses to support this effort but only one man, Frank A. Stith III, signed our petition.) I was standing silently on the Post Office steps on Fifth Street holding a sign for “Negotiation Now!” when a couple from my church drove by, looked at me, and surely wondered what in the world their pastor was doing. About a year or so later, probably in 1968, some members went behind my back with a petition to have me removed as their minister.
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
16
nam, then Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos would also fall like so many dominoes. We justified our right to be there when Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 10, 1964 based on attacks on our ships in that area.
I did not preach often on this subject but enough that the joint boards (Elders and Trustees) called me into a meeting in April of 1967. I knew I was in trouble. I clearly remember waiting in fear and trembling in the basement of the parsonage across the street before they called me over to the meeting. The boards told me in no uncertain terms to quit preaching about this war and perhaps about civil rights in this era of segregation. I did not know what to say, so I did not say anything or at least did not argue with them. In my mind I was thinking that I always tried to interpret the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament as they related to our life and world today. I believed that killing was not in accord with how we are to live. But it was obvious that these members felt threatened. As word of my plight got around, twenty-one ministers in our Province sent a telegram to the Provincial Elders’ Conference (our administrative board for all our churches) on May 8, supporting my right to speak the truth as I understood it. Its final sentence read, “It seems to us that at stake is the question of the integrity of the pulpit in every Moravian congregation.” A couple of months later at one of the board meetings I got so upset at their resistance to me that I finally said, “I resign!” I did not think about what this would mean to me or my family or what I would do. One minister, Ed Mickey, wrote me and advised me as a leader not to get too far ahead of my people, but I guess I had plunged ahead, and it was too late to reverse course. Basically I got along with most of the members, had a good working relationship with the Youth Fellowship, and shared in some gatherings and discussions with young couples around my age. There were a good number of them. The administrative board asked me not to resign, so I stayed until I was called to serve West Side Moravian Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania around the middle of 1969. I had suffered resentment from many and felt repercussions in my digestive system, but I went there for the next seven years in what I considered a kind of exile. One other thing of note took place before I left and that was at our Province’s Synod in 1968. Another minister, Ted Bowman, and I put together a resolution calling for the creation of a Moravian Peace Fellowship. This would be an organization for conscientious objectors, but it was certainly seen as a slap in the face against American patriotism and support for our soldiers. I had one young man in my congregation who didn’t want to go to war and I had another who did, a sample of the divisiveness in our country. While Moravians have been pacifists in earlier periods of our history, we were no longer in that camp. The resolution was soundly defeated by a vote of about 150 to 12. One minister lambasted me at the Synod but did call me the next day to apologize. The overall resentment I felt there made me feel as though I was at an American Legion Convention rather than a church meeting.
THE
HINGE
17
I continued to lobby for an end to the war and went to Washington another six times in peaceful marches and lobbying. Eventually through Walter Cronkite and TV footage, the shooting of Kent State student protesters, the My Lai massacre, and Life magazine’s up front and gallerylike photos of U.S. Soldiers killed in a typical month, most Americans were ready to end the war and its tragic consequences. However, I continued to get negative criticism. One short card I received after I had put a letter in the Bethlehem Globe-Times on May 4, 1972 hurt. It said: “What a complete bore. We shall return to our beloved Moravian Church when you ‘GROW UP.’ The parents of a young SERVICE MAN.” I was so upset that I wrote an article called, “When I Grow Up” to explain why I was protesting the war. I don’t know if I distributed it or not. I do not exactly know why I chose to protest this situation. I was never interested in politics or big social issues when I was in college. I did drop out of ROTC after my two required years, and I did take seriously the teachings of the New Testament about how we are to live in peaceful, forgiving, and trusting, rather than judgmental or hateful, ways. However, I had never spoken out on things like this. Maybe I was naïve. I know I was not afraid of authority figures like Presidents. I did have a spirit of perseverance and determination, but I do not think I expected the reaction I got. I did not realize we had military veterans in the congregation or
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
18
I continued to speak out against the war in my new pastorate, but I did learn one thing. William Sloane Coffin Jr., the chaplain at Yale University, who also questioned U.S. Policy and supported draft card burners, said that as long as he did the personal care and pastoral work required in his ministry, his people would allow him to spend time on special political or social ventures he felt he needed to do. After I wrote a pastoral letter on May 10, 1970 to all my church members asking them to write to their members of Congress to express their views, it was not too surprising that the Board of Trustees at West Side asked me on May 15, 1970 to give them a report on the use of my time. I wrote a long three page single-spaced mimeographed report and gave a detailed accounting of things I had done like the 314 pastoral calls I had made so far that year, how much money I gave each month, all the meetings I attended, my Friday evenings with my family, and my involvement with efforts to stop the war in Vietnam. I got no repercussions from them. In fact, they gave me permission the following year, from March 3-11, 1971 to attend the Paris Peace Talks with a 130 other U.S. Citizens. When I returned, I gave talks to the Rotary Club and other groups now that many Americans were joining in questioning why we were fighting in a devastating and un-winnable war so far away.
other military ties or that patriotism was a major value. On the other hand, I had gotten facts about this war and felt I should share them and I tried to “speak the truth in love.� Whether I did that or not I cannot say. I went back to Olivet on September 25, 1988 to have members take a brief survey about whether their views had changed when I was there 20 years before. Of thirty-nine persons, fifteen said that I created division, that I should not have the church deal with politics, or that I upset their feelings of patriotism. On the other hand, thirteen said they changed their thinking to some extent. I did not ask for, expect, or seek this adventure, its pain and the discoveries I made about myself and my people. I probably could have done it differently, but I did not know how. I just felt called to speak out, and the chips fell where they did. When we make mistakes, we are likely to learn what to do differently. Or do we? The world continues to threaten war and wages wars and spends billions of dollars for those purposes every year.
THE
HINGE
19
Response: The Rev. Aaron Linville
I admire David Schattschneider for digging into the contentious issue of the Vietnam War and its accompanying peace movement. His research and conclusions shed light on how we might improve our responses to our differences and to the antagonistic atmosphere in our current world. Two observations stand out to me. One is that the church can and should intentionally engage division. The other is that timidity and silence are not helpful. Really, these are two sides of the same coin. I do not know if it is more difficult to discuss complex and divisive issues today or five decades ago during the Vietnam War. What I do know is that it is not easy today. I believe that the church should be the place where difficult and hard conversations happen because our allegiance to the Lamb of God is stronger than any political, economic, social, or ideological chasm that separates us. That is what I believe the church should be, but that is not who we are. Not yet, at least. During the Vietnam War, it seemed impossible to escape the debate over whether or not the war was justified or needed. The Moravian Church was caught up in that debate, as evidenced by numerous Synod resolutions and articles in the provincial magazines. Today, Moravians cannot escape debates over how we should respond to climate change; the failure of US immigration laws; the widespread loss of human life due to addiction, suicide, and gun violence; the reality that same-sex marriage is legal in the US and Canada; the ethics of our war on drugs; the continued destruction of life because of and through our foreign policies; and the need for racial reconciliation, just to name a few. On the congregational level, and, to a lesser extent, the provincial level, our reaction to these difficult and divisive issues seems to be avoidance instead of engagement. For example, there are many references in scripture to immigrants and immigration, but how many of our congregations have held Bible studies on Scriptural responses to immigration, even though immigration was the predominante issue for the 2016 presidential campaign and the 2018 midterms? Both provinces held formal, structured conversations about same-sex relationships and the church, but how many congregations held Bible studies to understand how the other sides believe they are being faithful to scripture? Without these in-depth examinations, it is too easy for us to dismiss a beloved child of God instead of embracing them as our sister and brother.14
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
20
Aaron Linville is pastor of Millwoods Moravian Church in Edmonton, Alberta.
There seems to be a prevailing sense of timidity, fueled by fear, that keeps us from engaging these topics intentionally and directly. As followers of Christ, we must learn to interact with each other in productive conversation in order to understand each other and how we might, together, proclaim Good News in all these situations, instead of the news of conservatism or liberalism. The church and its congregations must engage in the topics and questions of our day. When we do that intentionally and directly, we might be able to understand each other and learn how to proclaim a deeper Good News than conservatism or liberalism. By sharing these conversations, we are acting not as mouthpieces for a news outlet or politician, but as God’s light, shining hope in this dark world of division and apathy. These conversations are difficult, but they can happen. When the church does not intentionally engage the questions of the day, it is all too easy for us to confuse political and social tenets with the Gospel of Jesus Christ,15 which is idolatrous. These conversations can and must happen. I think the positive reception of the April, 1969 issue of the Moravian Magazine (the one that intentionally “tackles the issues [of the Vietnam War] head on” and seems to have been well received) shows that these conversations can happen . The call of Christ is not a call to timidity. It is a call to follow a human being who we believe is God in the flesh, who engaged with the issues of his day in ways which revealed grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Jesus did not avoid concerns of his world, but instead led the people to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, and self-control despite their concerns and divisions. The least that the church can do is talk about the divisions we face in hopes of reconciling sisters and brothers. We can at least recognize our sisters and brothers as beloved children of God. Ignoring or avoiding contentious issues might feel safer, but it does not lead to reconciliation or deeper discipleship. Christ engaged this world to redeem it. We should at least talk with and listen to each other in our own congregations so we can begin to reconcile our differences and divisions. 14 In the most recent edition of the Hinge, Brother Frank Crouch encourages us to use the approximately 4,314 verses which are relevant to human sexuality, family, and marriage as the starting place for this conversation. Maybe those verses are a good place to start. Frank Crouch, “How many Moravians does it take to change a doctrine?” Ed. Craig D. Atwood, The Hinge 23, no.3 (Summer 2018): 28-29. The scripture references in the Southern Province’s 2018 Synod Resolution 12, “Moravian Statement Concerning
THE
HINGE
Immigration” would be another beginning point for a similar conversation on Biblical understandings and responses to immigration. 15 See Frank Crouch’s discussion of Zinzendorf, Nitschmann, Dober, and especially Spangenberg’s biblical, political, and social relationship to and justification of chattel slavery in the 18th century. Ibid, 14-24.
21
The Silence Continues: Today’s Wars, One Moravian’s Response The Rev. Andrew Craver serves as pastor of Bethel Moravian Church in Bethel, Alaska. When he wrote this piece, he was a Moravian chaplain serving in the U.S. Army Reserves with a unit in Honolulu, Hawaii. He honors two nouns as proper throughout this aritcl in accordance with US Army doctrine: Soldier and Family. In the fourth semester of my M.Div. program, I served as a hospital chaplain in a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in Durham, NC. I was serving in my first US Army Reserve unit located in Charlotte, NC and preparing to spend the following summer in basic course training at the US Army Chaplain Center and School (USACHCS). During that semester I found myself swimming in the depths of generations of traumas inflicted by my nation’s addiction to military conflict. Every day I was in the VA hospital I heard, saw, and perceived the pains that only people with military service can know. My Reserve unit’s battle assembly weekends gave me a chance to see fellow Soldiers closer to deployments and training, people dealing with the fresher wounds of war and preparing for war. In a class of roughly one hundred other candidates at USACHCS I learned about serving Soldiers and their Families through spiritual provisions like counseling, worship, and other services. Since that semester I have served two other US Army Reserve units, and I am currently working in a third as a chaplain. The most valuable lesson I took away from that semester, and the foundation for everything I have learned about providing religious services to Soldiers since then, is a message that I do not think Americans really take to heart: human beings fight in wars. One major difference between today’s conflicts and that of the war in Vietnam is the definite start date. 9/11 started as a terror attack. Towers and walls fell in on two of our country’s most prized institutions, but the tragedy of that day has still not ended because the body count has grown to this very day. The blow that violence and death have dealt against human lives is the problem at the root of Rev. Gramley’s accurate statement concerning the silence of the Moravian Church on the Iraq War – and if we were silent then, what I hear now is a vacuum. Not only are Moravians in the United States mute about the multiple conflicts our country is currently engaged in, but our prolonged silence has caused atrophy in our memory of and care for the people whose lives are most damaged by war.
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
22
I felt a bitter mix of pride and sorrow as I read Dr. Schattschneider’s article. Pride, because people cared and tried to provide care for people dealing with the threat of war; sorrow, because I cannot say the same thing about our church today. I understand that war is a tough subject from a pulpit or in an elders’ meeting. The politics of war are divisive. Veterans and military families need to know and feel that their sacrifices are respected. We must honor the men and women who have died to protect the U.S. Constitution.16 Honest patriotism is a loud and active supporting voice to people whose lives are wounded by war, and one’s voice is only the first step in a long care process. Many raise arguments that the war in Vietnam was unjust on many levels, and I believe many of the arguments are valid. The question of U.S. military presence in the country in the first place was an issue, the treatment of Vietnamese nationals was horrific (even for a war), and demanding that American men enter that war on a lottery basis undoubtedly created fears in American culture which could have easily been avoided by the implementation of a volunteer force.17 However, the movements against the Vietnam War also bore their own problems. The mistreatment of service members who were returning from their deployments was not a careful method of demonstrating peace. Nobody craves peace with greater fervor than people whose hands, hearts, and heads have borne the work of Ares. If today’s Moravian Church is still wondering about our pacifist roots, then we need to consider what that looks like in a country that will continue to perpetuate war as a political and diplomatic tool. The U.S. is going to continue sending military forces around the world, whether for valid reasons or otherwise. War is a fact of American life. If Moravians wish to revive the foundations of our oldest history, then it is time to consider how Christ thought of war in places such as the sermon on the mount. In the beatitudes, Jesus proclaims a blessing on the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). Now, whether a Moravian believes that a veteran’s service is the work of a peacemaker is not my concern. What matters in the face of our country’s inevitable wars is whether or not all people are received and cared for in peace. The personal experiences our veterans have with war should contribute to our desire to share peace. Whether Moravians consider veterans heroes is incidental, what is essential is that Moravians live into God’s call as faithful, loving, and hopeful followers of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. We are called to share those essentials with servicemembers who have been ordered to the deepest apathy, hatred, and despondency. If we cannot manage to facilitate peace for the people who suffer from war, then we are not peacemakers either. THE
HINGE
23
16 US Army. “Oath of Commissioned Officers.” (https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html). AND: US Army. “Oath of Enlistment.” (https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html). 17 Representation in the US armed forces relative to the wider national demographic is well worth the time for study, especially as any citizen without a bachelor’s degree is not qualified to serve as an officer. See: http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2017-demographics-report.pdf.
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
24
If we also truly believe that Christ took on the full experience of humanity, then we must also recognize the image of God in our own forces as well as those whose allegiances serve American opposition. Seeing war itself and the disasters that lead to war as the problem is the first step in living more fully into the idea of a peace church. Follow the way of peace by sharing our essentials with people intimate with war through a church meal, appropriate respects at a funeral, or a service partnership with the local VFW post. Live into the peace that we proclaim through Christ. A ministry that supports military servicemembers by providing a peaceful place to receive appropriate care does not have to be a stance against war, but it is a stand for peace.
Parallel Observations: A reflection on Polarisation in Northern Ireland and the Church’s Response The Rev. Sarah Groves is pastor of Gracehill Moravian Church in Gracehill, County Antrim, Northern Ireland. I live and serve in a bitterly divided society where history has not had the good grace to lie down and die. Here in Northern Ireland national identities clash in a post conflict society, and too often the religious identity goes along with the national identity: Irish identity (Nationalist) along with Catholicism and British identity (Unionist) along with Protestantism. I am writing in the build-up to the 12th July commemorations where on the 11th night huge toxic bonfires will be lit, and on the morning of the 12th day, Orangemen will parade the streets with banners of Protestant King William and his victory over Catholic King James at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 – yes, really that long ago!!! Now don’t get me wrong. The people I live and work with, Protestant and Catholic are amongst the nicest I have ever met. The sense of humour (the craic) is mighty, the countryside beautiful, tourism is rightly a growing industry—I love living here. So, please come and visit us soon. The Good Friday Agreement signed in April 1998 has brought peace to this land, and no one with any sense would dream of going back to the dark days before it. However, the Good Friday Agreement could not change the fact that there are basically two competing loyalties badged by religious differences. On the one side there is a heart (if not economic) desire for union with the Republic of Ireland. From this side came the Irish Republican Army advocating armed struggle to ‘free the North of Ireland and send the Brits home.’ The murderous Provisional IRA emerged from 1969 onwards with a campaign that shot and bombed soldiers, police, prison officers and also civilians who had nothing to do with the authorities or the political process. There was a campaign to ethnically cleanse areas of the country by picking off and killing farmers and others in isolated places. As a result, many Protestants from the south and west of Northern Ireland fled across the river Bann into the eastern Protestant strongholds. On the other side were those who had always identified with Britain, many of whom could trace their ancestry to Scotland and had a fierce loyalty to the Presbyterian Church. They have been in the North of Ireland for hundreds of years and see this place as their home. Historically they
THE
HINGE
25
So much more could be said about ‘the Troubles,’ but thank God we now are on the other side that time. Suffice it to say there is still enough pain, grief and bitterness on both sides to sink a nation. Tensions are generally hidden but come out clearly in our politics. By and large Catholics vote SDLP or Sinn Fein which are both nationalist parties, and Protestants vote for a variety of unionist parties. The result, at the moment, is a stalemate. We have had no devolved Legislative Authority for over two and a half years. In the sporadic negotiations to restart our Government neither the nationalist nor the unionist side will back down for fear of upsetting their voter base. How should a Moravian minister preach in such a situation? I can only speak for myself and share something of my experience in this highly polarised situation. Firstly, I have to recognise that I did not grow up in this culture. I have come from the other side of the water, and I have not lived through what my congregation have lived through over the years. When you dig a little you discover that everyone has a story to tell, a friend killed by an IRA fire bomb, a teenager’s evening out ending in terror when a bomb was thrown into the pub, workers strikes, legal and illegal road blocks, bag searches when going shopping, rings of steel around local towns and cities, and Northern Ireland becoming a cultural bywater missing out on so much. Then there was the situation of the police and their families, always being aware that the next bomb or sniper’s bullet could be for them even if on seemingly innocuous work, having to attend terrible dreadful scenes of death and destruction, followed by constant vigilance, fear, and danger that is not over even now. Many in my congregation have connections with the police. I have seen my role as being to listen, understand, and support, and only then gently challenge viewpoints. To denounce political stances and
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
26
feared union with the South which had been established as a de facto Catholic state. However, Northern Ireland had been geographically created to keep it as a Protestant Province of Britain for as long as possible. The Protestant establishment worked to keep political power and influence in the hands of those who supported the Union (the United Kingdom) and thus alienated many Catholic Nationalists. There was inevitably Protestant reaction to the IRA violence which in the end resulted in random killing of Catholics in retaliation for IRA murders. There were also some cases of illdisciplined behaviour by the Army that was covered up (for example, the Bloody Sunday killings in Londonderry) and, at times, collusion between the Police and Special Branch with Loyalist* terrorists (for example, the killing of the nationalist solicitor John Finucane).
cultural responses from the Unionist/Protestant side from the pulpit or to criticise the Nationalist side would for me be unthinkable. That does not mean that I do not say anything; I pray in Church often for a restoration of our Legislative Assembly, without assigning blame. In discussions and chat with members of the congregation I would talk about politics and try to explore their viewpoints. I have realised that much bitterness from the Protestant community is directed towards the Catholic Church because of their perceived support of IRA members, often because they have conducted funeral services for terrorists who have been killed. Yet just a few years ago, when a Protestant/ Unionist terrorist was killed by his own side, his family were members of a Moravian Church here and it was debated as to whether his funeral should take place in one of our churches – but it did because of pastoral concerns for his family. I think it caused us all to reflect on the position the Catholic Church has taken over the years about funerals. Further polarisation comes because we mostly educate our children separately, in Catholic and de facto Protestant schools despite the increase in formally integrated education. From a religious point of view, so much of the Protestant theology in Northern Ireland is opposed to the Catholic Church. Here it is much easier for me to take a stand, publicise and attend ecumenical events, be seen in the company of folk and priests from the Catholic Church, and reference the Catholic Church from the pulpit. Indeed many at Gracehill support me in that, yet I am aware that others would walk out if a priest were invited to preach on a Sunday morning. However, one of the prominent peace makers, in Northern Ireland—a Methodist—is a regular and welcome visitor to our pulpit. By and large the Moravian Church in Ireland has not publicly taken a stand on the issues of the Troubles. Partly it is just not the way we operate as a Church and partly it is because we are so small we are only talking to ourselves. Of course, it is also because there are so many different views. Just a discussion about which paper to place an innocuous advert in can produce strong reactions. Within the Irish District our Chairman who sits on the Irish Churches Legacy Commission on Victims initiated a discussion at District Conference about who was and who was not a victim in our culture. The debate was illuminating as different people were able to articulate their views in reasonable privacy. I wrote the debate up in brief for the Moravian Messenger in July 2017. I have written editorials for Moravian Messenger a couple of times directly and indirectly about the Troubles here.
THE
HINGE
27
So, I reflect, write, question, pray and, above all, try to love and support those who come to the issues of our society from such a different perspective and background to me. * Note: Loyalist is the term used for more extreme political Unionists; Republican is the term used for more extreme political Nationalists
HINGE
THE
American Moravians and the Vietnam War
28
In conclusion I have come to realise that plants grow in the soil in which they are planted, and that affects their growth. The background to life here in Northern Ireland has been hard and bitter for many years. Mistrust between communities still exists, and differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are much more accented here than in other places in the United Kingdom. Recent history is too painful to be ignored by either side. Any attempt by me as an outsider to ignore this and berate my own people would be more than fruitless. People who are openly criticised inevitably become more defensive of their positions, and arguments never change people’s minds.
THE
HINGE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOG
Colophon
FOR THE MORAVIAN CHURCH
The Hinge is published two times a year 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. ©2019 Center for Moravian Studies. All rights are reserved. Editor: Craig Atwood Guest Editor: Riddick Weber 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