I can’t for the life of me remember if Shane and Chris (Haw) talked much about the Moravian church, but as I was doing some background studies for my papers, I came across this Wikipedia article about the church. What struck me is the similarities between the images of the Moravian church and the picture on the front cover the book.
.jpg)
Now, I know it is the Agnus Dei, or the Lamb of God image and it is used in many other places than the Moravian Church, but…
Chris (of this site) is borrowing my copy of Jesus for President, so I can’t check it at the moment. Anyone know if there is a connection?
Here is the interesting part and why my last post was so concerned about marketing and intentional community. Read the history of the Moravians I linked to above, and then read these articles:
John Wesley, of Methodist fame.
and
The Fetter Lane Society, which Wesley helped create.
This all came about because of a new book I’m reading for class. E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class. I will quote from this book later I’m sure. Actually I’ll quote now:
E.P. Thompson on page 47:
”The Moravians, to whom Wesley owed his conversion, never became fully naturalized in England in the 18th century. Although many English people entered their communities…the societies remained dependent upon German preachers and administrators. While the first Methodist societies arose in association with the Moravian Brotherhood, the latter were distinguished from the former by their ’stillness’, their avoidance of ‘enthusiasm’, and their practical communitarian values; ‘the calm, soft, steady, sweet and impressive character of the service [at Fulneck] was such as appeared as a kind of rebuke to the earnestness, noise, and uproar of a [Methodist] revival meeting’. The influence of the Moravians was threefold: first, through their educational activities…second, through the evident success of their communities…and third, through the perpetuation within the Methodist societies – long after Wesley had disowned the Moravian connection – of the yearning for communitarian ideals expressed in the language of ‘brotherhood’ and ’sisterhood’.”
I found it remarkable that Thompson’s view of the Moravians is actually quite positive. His analysis of the Methodist movement is of course his primary topic, but he is not dismissive of the Moravians, which suprised me.
But what does all of this have to do with Jesus for President? Beyond the logo, I found it interesting that Wesley is so moved by the Moravians, starts a Moravian Society, and yet leaves it all behind and breaks the society. Reading Thompson, you see how political the Methodist movement became in England, but its roots were apolitical with the Moravians.
I wonder if in trying to market intentional community, the mainstream church will cause even more inevitable spinoffs and breakups to take a more political route? I know intentional community is not the holy grail, but it does seem to ring truer than anything else I’ve come across concerning fellowship with other christians. I guess I don’t want to see it become the root of another religion that breeds what we have today, complacency.
To be sure, I need to read more about Wesley, but these are some initial thoughts.
Anyone out there who would like continue this discussion?
July 2, 2008 at 11:28 pm
As a member of the Moravian Church, I note that when Count Zinzendorf revitalized the Moravian Church in the mid 18th century he did not wish it to be a separate group. He visualized it as a voice of inspiration and community to add value to the churches, and he assumed Moravians would continue to be members of existing communities as he did. (He continued to be technically a Lutheran even as he led Moravian efforts.) I visualize it as being like the Gideons — you participate without leaving your own congregation and take value back to your congregation. It has only sometimes worked that way, but it’s certainly an interesting blueprint.
That’s not exactly “subversive” but it’s definitely coming in through a side door.
July 3, 2008 at 2:49 am
I love European Church history! And actually, I’m mostly Czech. My mom’s side is primarily from the Moravian part of the country. Cool stuff to read about.
July 3, 2008 at 9:40 am
@ Al: I Didn’t know that, but it does strike me as interesting and much more organic. Gasp, that a person can be involved with more than one ‘church’ (for lack of a better word) is pretty subversive. I think there is a term for it… church hopping. Thanks for pointing that aspect out.
Does the modern day Moravian church still look at it in such a way? Or maybe a better way to put it, do you know of any places in the US that works in such a way?
July 7, 2008 at 3:08 am
just ordered my copy of jesus for president..
July 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm
There needs to be a disclaimer with the book. It doesn’t read linearly (sp?). There are many sections and they do tie together, but not as cleanly as a regular book. You can really ponder each section on its own.
Enjoy!
-mike
July 8, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Of course, the Methodist Church also began in society rather than a church. It is very similar to what Al Reynolds says above regarding the Moravians and Zinzendorf. They were the people called methodist. Wesley never intended for it to become a denomination. He remained Anglican to his dying breath.
July 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm
[moved this over to the right post]
Joe Says:
July 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm e
True, Wesley was greatly influenced by Pietiests (both Moravians & Salzburgers), especially the Moravians. However, his break with them was not political but theological. He very much liked their community, but he thought that they had some flaws in their thinking regarding assurance.Whereas Calvinists and Moravians believe the imputation of righteousness of Christ is Holiness & Sanctification, Wesley believed it was merely justification & forgiveness. Wesley felt that the Moravians confused conversion with perfection (entire sanctification).
Essentially, Wesley thought they (the Moravians) had the ordo salutis out of order.
An excellent reference for Wesley is Kenneth Collins’ book, the theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Or The Scripture Way of Salvation: the Heart of John Wesley’s Theology, also by Collins.
By the way, I’m now reading and enjoying Jesus for President.
July 8, 2008 at 9:19 pm
For me the idea of ‘membership’ really comes into question at this point. Even if a church doesn’t have membership, still the idea remains that you belong only to one church, one body.
Isn’t that just a simple divide and conquer strategy?
I mean the whole idea of the church at large, as a global body is really thrown into question here by a couple of things even if we just look at Wesley.
First, if there is some sort of disagreement, then who is to say who is right? Without getting into semantics over the so called theological arguments, I think we can see how, throughout the course of history, differences have divided us.
So is it too much to think we can’t all be as one, even with some differences?
Is it too much to think there is a better way, a way that is so simple, that sheds all of the human trappings of theology and says we each have a unique wat of following after Christ?
-mike
July 8, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I think that we must each have a unique way of following Christ. It has to be the best way we can based on our understanding. But we also should help draw other nearer to Christ… you know that whole go make disciples of all nations bit. So, you want to correct them if they are missing the mark.
The problem is, who gets to decide whether you’re missing the mark. The church (universal) never split because we agreed about everything. In a postmodern context, where there is “no truth” it becomes even more difficult for individuals to agree on what is the best interpretation and embodiment of Christianity.
Incendently, Methodism have never claimed to be THE correct or even best way of doing things. It’s interesting that Wesley considered himself very ecumenical. And I agree that he was. In fact he studied the Orthodox church, the Pietists, the Catholic, etc. A well known quote of his is “if your heart is as my heart, then take my hand”
He also taught that as long as individuals agree on the essential teachings of the faith that the little differences are irrelevant.
Unfortunately, what you consider essential, I might consider irrelevant, or vice versa. For example, some people believe that it is absolute that women can not ‘preach’ and would take that fight to the grave. I on the other hand think that they are full of crap and am not concerned about it. So, we’re back to who decides the essentials. Wesley sure never spelled them out. So, again, we’re stuck.
It does make a difference. I’m sure that if I threw enough topics out there, I’d find one where you would consider essential and another Christian would not. Homosexuality, the trinity, literal heaven and hell, freewill vs. predestination.
To the question often asked, can’t we all just get along, the answer, regrettably, is…No. In fact, that’s the very reason we don’t.
July 10, 2008 at 9:30 am
Joe-
I have to disagree about the postmdern ‘no truth’ comment. There have been many disagreements over interpretation and embodiment well before this postmodern age.
History is not set in stone. While an event may have a specifics that happen in within a set timeframe, how those events are interpreted can vary wildly.
I mention this merely because I love what Jay Bakker has to say about the Holy Spirit on the issue of homosexuality. What he says can also be used in this case as well.
“Because if we serve a real God and the Holy Spirit is real…if…if you think its a sin then don’t you believe the Holy Spirit will convict the person?”
And speaking of his parents, he had this to say about following another human being.
“…The point is how do we handle it when people make mistakes. you know, I mean we can’t follow human beings. I think that’s the problem people made with my parents. You know I thought it was about Jesus and what Jesus did; not about what we do and I thought that, you know, we’re gonna make mistakes but thank God we have Jesus.”
So John Wesley may have had some good ideas, but in setting up some sort of system of beliefs is going to create as Rob Bell calls it, “a brick wall” that can’t be examined.
And going back to the idea of post-modern thiking in regards to examination of of some sort of theology.
If we can’t go back and examine, then your disagreement of women ‘preaching’ would still be in place. In some circles of theology, slavery would still be in place as well if it was never examined.
So why do christians setup some sort of ’statement of beliefs’? Will that not change throughout time? And if it does, it generally doesn’t change willingly, why create something that will build up tension until changed in the first place?
Do we need to ‘prove’ we are christians with a piece of paper becasue are actions aren’t? I think that is the problem. We need to justify why we aren’t following the teachings of Jesus by somehow ‘proving’ we are exempt from actually doing anything besides dumping money into a plate and showing up on Sunday.
Sure, that isn’t everyone, but that is what the vast majority of church attenders are doing becasue it is what is encouraged by the leaders of the church.
What are the essentials? Love. Nothing more or nothing less. We each have a unique way of following Christ in fulfilling selfless love, anything else starts to add the trappings of man and bogs it down into a religion.
-mike