Faith & Order Statements - Discerning Theological Tasks

On Doing Theology

Forwarded to the Provincial Elders Conference (PEC): 10/00
Adopted by Northern Province PEC:_____
Adopted by Southern Province PEC:_____

Discerning Theological Perspectives
within the North American Moravian Tradition

In order to guide its work in the service of Jesus Christ and the larger Church, the Commission offers the following statement of how Moravians discern theological perspectives and positions. The 500-year-long, international traditions of the Moravian Church present us with a wide variety of theological approaches and principles that have been tested, used, discarded, or accepted over the course of time. Thus, we remain aware that our formulation of the theological task will necessarily be selective and reductive in light of the rich diversity of our tradition. Yet, we strive to make our understanding (1) reflect major theological principles and practices that have guided and should continue to guide the Church and (2) open to those times when minority voices and often-neglected considerations should appropriately guide the Church.

Central to the Theological Task

In developing theological positions, Moravians begin with a heart relationship with Christ and a love for one another. The motto, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, love,” expresses the Moravian understanding that a life grounded in love allows wide diversity of theology and practice to thrive in the midst of a deeper unity. Although this motto remains an oft-quoted and meaningful statement of our general approach to matters of faith and life, its simple polarity between “essentials” and “non-essentials” obscures a three-fold distinction among “essentials,” “ministerials,” and “incidentals” that also has played a significant role throughout the history of the Unity and that can continue to be useful for theo-logical discernment today.

The “essentials” of our faith have been variously described throughout our history. In both the Ancient Unity and the time of Zinzendorf, the “essentials” were understood in terms of relationship with God through Christ and the receiving of God’s grace and salvation. One of the earliest formulations of the essentials expressed them as—from the side of God—the grace of God, the saving work of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, and—from the side of humanity—faith, love, and hope. In this understanding, the essentials are expressed primarily in “relational” terms. In a move toward a more doctrinal approach, the General Synod of 1879 defined eight “leading doctrines” that are still often cited as “the eight essentials.” In this case, the essentials were defined primarily in terms of beliefs rather than in relational terms. In 1957, in a return to earlier approaches, the General Synod set a statement on The Ground of the Unity into the Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum at the place where the eight essentials had previously been listed. The Ground of the Unity upholds our relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ as central and essential.

As with the common polarity between essentials and non-essentials, Moravians often approach theological discussions and decisions in terms of whether we are fundamentally a “doctrinal” or a “relational” church. Although the “in all things love” part of the motto gives primacy to relationships, again, understanding our theological task in terms of a simple polarity between doctrines and relationships, or head and heart, obscures a deeper complexity that was not overlooked by the Ancient Unity. As a Church, we do give primacy to relational elements of our faith and life. At the same time, we most helpfully approach theological discernment when we see the categories of “essential and non-essential,” “doctrine and relationship,” and “head and heart,” not as “either/or” polarities standing in tension, but as “both/and,” complementary components of faith and life. These are not opposing ends of a continuum, but are dif-ferent threads that must be interwoven in order for the fabric of the life of the Church to remain sound and whole.

The three-fold approach to essentials, ministerials, and incidentals avoids seeing life and faith in terms of overly-simple polarities. By affirming the wisdom of a three-fold perspective, we can avoid forced choices between what are sometimes (falsely) perceived as two opposing impulses. Simply stating the motto might help clarify our over-riding approach to our life together. It can also provide a well-intentioned but damaging sanction not to undertake the difficult steps needed to discern when we’re faithfully adhering to enduring truths and when we’re “piously,” but unfaithfully resisting God’s call for us to change. Simply dividing all matters into “essentials” and “non-essentials” can lead us away from perceiving a more “graded,” multi-level set of distinctions that can clarify our theological task.

In the Moravian tradition, theological reflection has not served as an abstract, intellectual enterprise, but has been directed toward opening up individuals, congregations, and our denomination to the possibilities Christ offers us in life, action, and mission. In general, “right belief” has not been secondary to “right action,” but it has been understood to stand in service of right action. Theology and practice necessarily grow and change with each other. As we seek Truth in our deliberations and practices, we call upon all the gifts God gives us to enable our discernment—the guidance of scripture, the leading of the Holy Spirit, intellectual rigor, prayer, devotional contemplation, God’s call(s) to individuals, God’s call(s) to our Church, and God’s call as manifested in other Christian traditions. We seek openness to God’s leading, wherever that might take us, whether it is to “tell the old, old story,” or to follow along new paths toward unprecedented ways.

This approach is consistent with a relational understanding of the “essentials”—the grace of God, the saving work of Christ, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and our re-sponse of faith, hope, and love. At the same time, it creates the expectation that while our understanding of “right action” in faith, love, and hope can change over time, we perpetually live under the call to discern what those “right actions” might be in our own day. We do, in fact, live, organize, and structure our lives individually, congregationally, and denominationally according to our current understandings of the call of God. Even if we do so imperfectly, we strive to reach that goal. In the midst of that striving stands the “middle ground” of the “ministerials”—the Word of God, both as found in scripture and in proclamation, the sacraments, church discipline, and the Church itself in its role as the people of God.

The ministerials stand in service of the essential relationships we have with God, with each other and with the world. They are not “essentials” for salvation. However, neither are they “non-essentials,” since they constitute the ways in which we actually live in response to the essential relationships that undergird our lives. Thus, the simple polarity between essential and non-essential does not accurately capture the complex dynamics of individual and communal lives of faith. Our understandings of the ministerials can change over time—and thus those understandings stand as “incidentals” or “non-essentials—how we baptize, how we cele-brate communion, what hymns we sing, what we include in our Book of Worship, who or how we ordain, etc. Our status as people of God, however, places a necessity upon us to discern true understandings and genuinely faithful and loving practices—we do baptize, celebrate communion, engage in ministries, etc. We best respond to God’s gracious calling by weaving together the differing and vital threads of doctrine and relationships, head and heart, essentials, ministerials, and non-essentials into the actual practices of a living Church. A three-fold perspective on the life and faith of the Church helps us along that way.

Guidelines Along the Way

We recognize that we undertake our theological tasks in the context of the great creeds of the larger Christian Church and in dialogue with people living within other faith traditions. Our full communion agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America invites a more sustained, intentional, ecumenical consultation into the Church’s theological work. When asked for a statement of our practices and beliefs (which combines the essentials, the ministerials, and the incidentals of our Church), we might point to our Book of Worship, which expresses our living faith, and to the Book of Order, which varies somewhat by province but also contains in common The Ground of the Unity. Though we use these documents as expressions of our life and faith, we also understand them to be historically and culturally conditioned. They are to be treasured without being seen as final or above critique and change.

“The Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation; and this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life.” We understand books of worship and books of order to be derived from scripture. Through the centuries, our relational emphasis has helpfully allowed us to undertake our theological tasks without one scriptural approach dominating and, thereby, limiting our Church. Relational considerations have allowed differing doctrines of scripture, head and heart, to intertwine. Many different voices reflecting many different approaches to scripture have influenced Church decisions. Counter-balancing perspectives often prevent extremes from leading us astray. At the same time, however, a perpetual desire to find “the center” can misdirect our desire to find Truth, which, scripture itself shows us, often lies not only at the center, but also at the margins of or beyond the boundaries of current understandings. Thus, above, below, and within our own voices, we must listen for the Spirit leading us into all truth.

Even this principle, however, can be fiercely contested. In the gospel of John—“"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” (John 16:12-13)—Christ’s words leave to the ongoing discernment of the Church whether or not an existing belief or practice adequately expresses the word of God in scripture or whether we are being led to a new, fuller understanding of the truth. The first epistle of John offers a balancing admonition—“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.” (I John 4:1). Both admonitions apply to the “old” as well as to the “new.” Thus, whether we hold scripture as the “only” or the “primary” basis of faith, life and practice, we must consider our understanding of scripture in light of the leading of the Holy Spirit, prayer, devotion, call, intellectual critique, and the ecumenical tradition of the church. Scripture and the Holy Spirit speak both to us and through us, so that we must perpetually examine the validity of our witness and the reality of our openness to their leading. This caution, however, should not prevent us from believing and acting boldly as the guidance of scripture and the Spirit become clear.

At times, bold belief and bold action will create conflict—whether those beliefs and actions call for change or for staying the same. Our relationally-oriented Church, perhaps, could usefully understand some potential conflicts as part of the discernment process itself. Conflict can bring clarity to what is truly at stake in certain beliefs and practices, and allow us to understand more fully what we do and why we do it. Here, head and heart, doctrine and relationship, essentials and non-essentials—rather than being seen as oppositional polarities—must find their most helpful balance, a balance that necessarily will shift and change through-out the course of the discernment process. Without a willingness to explore in depth, and even in conflict, why we do as we do, we circumvent our own desires to reach Truth. Whether affirming or critiquing current theology and practice, the Church acts with faith, love, and hope when it acts circumspectly or boldly as the occasion and the Spirit require.

Weaving the Tapestry of Life and Faith

At all levels of the life of the Church—individual, interpersonal, congregational, provincial, denominational, and ecumenical—we are called upon both to take up our cross and to live in the power of the new creation. Thus, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling while simultaneously proclaiming the gospel with joy and boldness. Our motto offers with simple clarity a perspective that often directly contributes to the building up of the Church. At the same time, too simply applied, it can lead us to cover up or mislabel conflicts that offer the possibility for genuine growth at all levels of the life of the Church. Our essential relationships with God, each other, and the world, in response to the gracious, loving work of the triune God, lay upon us the call to discern “right actions” of faith, love, and hope. These essential relationships find expression in the ministerials of scripture, proclamation, sacraments, and the discipline and life of the church. Although any particular doctrines and practices might be, in themselves, incidentals or non-essentials, the theological task of discerning the directions in which we should go remains an inescapable vocation of the Church.

Our theological explorations work out most faithfully, lovingly, and hopefully when we avoid seeing our theological task in terms of simple, oppositional polarities. We cannot predict in advance the best balance of head, heart, doctrine, relationship, essentials, and non-essentials. We cannot pre-determine which spiritual gifts or which guiding principles should exert the most influence in our deliberations on specific issues. We cannot predict in advance whether God will call us steadfastly to reaffirm our traditions, beliefs, and practices or boldly to re-shape them.

We can, however, be sure that God calls us, that our task is to remain open to the Spirit’s guidance, and that our joy is to follow that call wherever it might lead us. Our love for Christ and for each other guides us best in all our discerning when it is genuine love that seeks, not unity at all costs, but unity in Truth.

Faith and Order Commission (October 2000)

	The Moravian Interprovincial Faith & Order Commission
	Statements of the Moravian Interprovincial Faith & Order Commission
[BACK] On Doing Theology Forwarded to the Provincial Elders Conference (PEC): 10/00 Adopted by Northern Province PEC:_____ Adopted by Southern Province PEC:_____ Discerning Theological Perspectives within the North American Moravian Tradition In order to guide its work in the service of Jesus Christ and the larger Church, the Commission offers the following statement of how Moravians discern theological perspectives and positions. The 500-year-long, international traditions of the Moravian Church present us with a wide variety of theological approaches and principles that have been tested, used, discarded, or accepted over the course of time. Thus, we remain aware that our formulation of the theological task will necessarily be selective and reductive in light of the rich diversity of our tradition. Yet, we strive to make our understanding (1) reflect major theological principles and practices that have guided and should continue to guide the Church and (2) open to those times when minority voices and often-neglected considerations should appropriately guide the Church. Central to the Theological Task In developing theological positions, Moravians begin with a heart relationship with Christ and a love for one another. The motto, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, love,” expresses the Moravian understanding that a life grounded in love allows wide diversity of theology and practice to thrive in the midst of a deeper unity. Although this motto remains an oft-quoted and meaningful statement of our general approach to matters of faith and life, its simple polarity between “essentials” and “non-essentials” obscures a three-fold distinction among “essentials,” “ministerials,” and “incidentals” that also has played a significant role throughout the history of the Unity and that can continue to be useful for theo-logical discernment today. The “essentials” of our faith have been variously described throughout our history. In both the Ancient Unity and the time of Zinzendorf, the “essentials” were understood in terms of relationship with God through Christ and the receiving of God’s grace and salvation. One of the earliest formulations of the essentials expressed them as—from the side of God—the grace of God, the saving work of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, and—from the side of humanity—faith, love, and hope. In this understanding, the essentials are expressed primarily in “relational” terms. In a move toward a more doctrinal approach, the General Synod of 1879 defined eight “leading doctrines” that are still often cited as “the eight essentials.” In this case, the essentials were defined primarily in terms of beliefs rather than in relational terms. In 1957, in a return to earlier approaches, the General Synod set a statement on The Ground of the Unity into the Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum at the place where the eight essentials had previously been listed. The Ground of the Unity upholds our relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ as central and essential. As with the common polarity between essentials and non-essentials, Moravians often approach theological discussions and decisions in terms of whether we are fundamentally a “doctrinal” or a “relational” church. Although the “in all things love” part of the motto gives primacy to relationships, again, understanding our theological task in terms of a simple polarity between doctrines and relationships, or head and heart, obscures a deeper complexity that was not overlooked by the Ancient Unity. As a Church, we do give primacy to relational elements of our faith and life. At the same time, we most helpfully approach theological discernment when we see the categories of “essential and non-essential,” “doctrine and relationship,” and “head and heart,” not as “either/or” polarities standing in tension, but as “both/and,” complementary components of faith and life. These are not opposing ends of a continuum, but are dif-ferent threads that must be interwoven in order for the fabric of the life of the Church to remain sound and whole. The three-fold approach to essentials, ministerials, and incidentals avoids seeing life and faith in terms of overly-simple polarities. By affirming the wisdom of a three-fold perspective, we can avoid forced choices between what are sometimes (falsely) perceived as two opposing impulses. Simply stating the motto might help clarify our over-riding approach to our life together. It can also provide a well-intentioned but damaging sanction not to undertake the difficult steps needed to discern when we’re faithfully adhering to enduring truths and when we’re “piously,” but unfaithfully resisting God’s call for us to change. Simply dividing all matters into “essentials” and “non-essentials” can lead us away from perceiving a more “graded,” multi-level set of distinctions that can clarify our theological task. In the Moravian tradition, theological reflection has not served as an abstract, intellectual enterprise, but has been directed toward opening up individuals, congregations, and our denomination to the possibilities Christ offers us in life, action, and mission. In general, “right belief” has not been secondary to “right action,” but it has been understood to stand in service of right action. Theology and practice necessarily grow and change with each other. As we seek Truth in our deliberations and practices, we call upon all the gifts God gives us to enable our discernment—the guidance of scripture, the leading of the Holy Spirit, intellectual rigor, prayer, devotional contemplation, God’s call(s) to individuals, God’s call(s) to our Church, and God’s call as manifested in other Christian traditions. We seek openness to God’s leading, wherever that might take us, whether it is to “tell the old, old story,” or to follow along new paths toward unprecedented ways. This approach is consistent with a relational understanding of the “essentials”—the grace of God, the saving work of Christ, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and our re-sponse of faith, hope, and love. At the same time, it creates the expectation that while our understanding of “right action” in faith, love, and hope can change over time, we perpetually live under the call to discern what those “right actions” might be in our own day. We do, in fact, live, organize, and structure our lives individually, congregationally, and denominationally according to our current understandings of the call of God. Even if we do so imperfectly, we strive to reach that goal. In the midst of that striving stands the “middle ground” of the “ministerials”—the Word of God, both as found in scripture and in proclamation, the sacraments, church discipline, and the Church itself in its role as the people of God. The ministerials stand in service of the essential relationships we have with God, with each other and with the world. They are not “essentials” for salvation. However, neither are they “non-essentials,” since they constitute the ways in which we actually live in response to the essential relationships that undergird our lives. Thus, the simple polarity between essential and non-essential does not accurately capture the complex dynamics of individual and communal lives of faith. Our understandings of the ministerials can change over time—and thus those understandings stand as “incidentals” or “non-essentials—how we baptize, how we cele-brate communion, what hymns we sing, what we include in our Book of Worship, who or how we ordain, etc. Our status as people of God, however, places a necessity upon us to discern true understandings and genuinely faithful and loving practices—we do baptize, celebrate communion, engage in ministries, etc. We best respond to God’s gracious calling by weaving together the differing and vital threads of doctrine and relationships, head and heart, essentials, ministerials, and non-essentials into the actual practices of a living Church. A three-fold perspective on the life and faith of the Church helps us along that way. Guidelines Along the Way We recognize that we undertake our theological tasks in the context of the great creeds of the larger Christian Church and in dialogue with people living within other faith traditions. Our full communion agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America invites a more sustained, intentional, ecumenical consultation into the Church’s theological work. When asked for a statement of our practices and beliefs (which combines the essentials, the ministerials, and the incidentals of our Church), we might point to our Book of Worship, which expresses our living faith, and to the Book of Order, which varies somewhat by province but also contains in common The Ground of the Unity. Though we use these documents as expressions of our life and faith, we also understand them to be historically and culturally conditioned. They are to be treasured without being seen as final or above critique and change. “The Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is the only source of our life and salvation; and this Scripture is the sole standard of the doctrine and faith of the Unitas Fratrum and therefore shapes our life.” We understand books of worship and books of order to be derived from scripture. Through the centuries, our relational emphasis has helpfully allowed us to undertake our theological tasks without one scriptural approach dominating and, thereby, limiting our Church. Relational considerations have allowed differing doctrines of scripture, head and heart, to intertwine. Many different voices reflecting many different approaches to scripture have influenced Church decisions. Counter-balancing perspectives often prevent extremes from leading us astray. At the same time, however, a perpetual desire to find “the center” can misdirect our desire to find Truth, which, scripture itself shows us, often lies not only at the center, but also at the margins of or beyond the boundaries of current understandings. Thus, above, below, and within our own voices, we must listen for the Spirit leading us into all truth. Even this principle, however, can be fiercely contested. In the gospel of John—“"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” (John 16:12-13)—Christ’s words leave to the ongoing discernment of the Church whether or not an existing belief or practice adequately expresses the word of God in scripture or whether we are being led to a new, fuller understanding of the truth. The first epistle of John offers a balancing admonition—“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.” (I John 4:1). Both admonitions apply to the “old” as well as to the “new.” Thus, whether we hold scripture as the “only” or the “primary” basis of faith, life and practice, we must consider our understanding of scripture in light of the leading of the Holy Spirit, prayer, devotion, call, intellectual critique, and the ecumenical tradition of the church. Scripture and the Holy Spirit speak both to us and through us, so that we must perpetually examine the validity of our witness and the reality of our openness to their leading. This caution, however, should not prevent us from believing and acting boldly as the guidance of scripture and the Spirit become clear. At times, bold belief and bold action will create conflict—whether those beliefs and actions call for change or for staying the same. Our relationally-oriented Church, perhaps, could usefully understand some potential conflicts as part of the discernment process itself. Conflict can bring clarity to what is truly at stake in certain beliefs and practices, and allow us to understand more fully what we do and why we do it. Here, head and heart, doctrine and relationship, essentials and non-essentials—rather than being seen as oppositional polarities—must find their most helpful balance, a balance that necessarily will shift and change through-out the course of the discernment process. Without a willingness to explore in depth, and even in conflict, why we do as we do, we circumvent our own desires to reach Truth. Whether affirming or critiquing current theology and practice, the Church acts with faith, love, and hope when it acts circumspectly or boldly as the occasion and the Spirit require. Weaving the Tapestry of Life and Faith At all levels of the life of the Church—individual, interpersonal, congregational, provincial, denominational, and ecumenical—we are called upon both to take up our cross and to live in the power of the new creation. Thus, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling while simultaneously proclaiming the gospel with joy and boldness. Our motto offers with simple clarity a perspective that often directly contributes to the building up of the Church. At the same time, too simply applied, it can lead us to cover up or mislabel conflicts that offer the possibility for genuine growth at all levels of the life of the Church. Our essential relationships with God, each other, and the world, in response to the gracious, loving work of the triune God, lay upon us the call to discern “right actions” of faith, love, and hope. These essential relationships find expression in the ministerials of scripture, proclamation, sacraments, and the discipline and life of the church. Although any particular doctrines and practices might be, in themselves, incidentals or non-essentials, the theological task of discerning the directions in which we should go remains an inescapable vocation of the Church. Our theological explorations work out most faithfully, lovingly, and hopefully when we avoid seeing our theological task in terms of simple, oppositional polarities. We cannot predict in advance the best balance of head, heart, doctrine, relationship, essentials, and non-essentials. We cannot pre-determine which spiritual gifts or which guiding principles should exert the most influence in our deliberations on specific issues. We cannot predict in advance whether God will call us steadfastly to reaffirm our traditions, beliefs, and practices or boldly to re-shape them. We can, however, be sure that God calls us, that our task is to remain open to the Spirit’s guidance, and that our joy is to follow that call wherever it might lead us. Our love for Christ and for each other guides us best in all our discerning when it is genuine love that seeks, not unity at all costs, but unity in Truth. Faith and Order Commission (October 2000)