A Moravian Response to Catholic and Orthodox Critiques of Apostolic Succession

Introduction

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox critiques of Protestant apostolic succession often rest on the claim that only churches maintaining an uninterrupted sacramental and juridical episcopal lineage can be considered fully apostolic. From this perspective, Protestant churches are frequently characterized as having abandoned apostolic succession altogether or reduced it to a merely symbolic or doctrinal concept. The Moravian Church, however, does not fit neatly into this critique. While rejecting certain ecclesiological assumptions of Rome and Orthodoxy, the Moravian Church nevertheless maintains a historic episcopate and a theologically coherent understanding of apostolic succession grounded in Scripture, early church practice, and lived ecclesial continuity.

This article responds directly to Catholic and Orthodox critiques by clarifying the Moravian position, addressing historical objections, and articulating a constructive ecclesiology of succession that is neither reductionist nor sacramentalist.

Catholic and Orthodox Critiques Summarized

Catholic and Orthodox theologians typically raise three principal objections to Moravian (and broader Protestant) claims of apostolic succession.

First, they argue that apostolic succession is intrinsically sacramental, meaning that the validity of ministry depends upon a precise, uninterrupted chain of episcopal ordinations accompanied by correct sacramental intention.¹ Second, they maintain that separation from the historic episcopal sees – especially Rome and the ancient patriarchates – constitutes a rupture in apostolic continuity.² Third, they assert that churches emerging from the Reformation lack ecclesial authority to preserve or restore episcopal succession independently.³

From this perspective, Protestant episcopal claims are often dismissed as historically incomplete or theologically insufficient.

The Moravian Clarification: What Is (and Is Not) Claimed

The Moravian Church does not deny the importance of historic continuity in ministry, nor does it treat apostolic succession as irrelevant. At the same time, it does not claim that succession operates as a mechanical transmission of grace or authority. Instead, the Moravian Church understands apostolic succession as historic, ecclesial, and spiritual, rather than juridical or sacramental in an exclusive sense.⁴

Moravians affirm that the apostolic Church is recognized where the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed, the sacraments are rightly administered, and the community lives under the lordship of Christ. Succession serves this life of the Church; it does not constitute it. This position stands closer to the ecclesiology of the early Church than is often acknowledged in later medieval developments.

Historical Continuity and the Unity of the Brethren

One frequent Catholic and Orthodox critique assumes that Moravian succession begins only in the eighteenth century and therefore lacks depth. This assumption is historically incorrect. The Moravian episcopate originates in the fifteenth-century Unity of the Brethren, which intentionally sought episcopal consecration in 1467 from bishops standing within pre-Reformation lines of succession.⁵

Unlike many Protestant communities that abolished episcopal ministry altogether, the Unity of the Brethren preserved the office of bishop continuously through persecution, exile, and near extinction. The episcopate was neither improvised nor reinvented during the Herrnhut renewal; it was consciously received from the ancient Unity through documented consecrations.⁶ This historical continuity challenges the claim that Moravian orders are merely symbolic or derivative.

The Early Church and the Nature of Apostolicity

Catholic and Orthodox critiques often project later sacramental and canonical developments back onto the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods. However, early Christian sources reveal a more fluid and pastoral understanding of ministry. While episcopal succession was valued as a sign of continuity and unity, apostolicity was primarily defined by fidelity to apostolic teaching and life in Christ.⁷

Writers such as Irenaeus emphasized succession not as a magical transmission, but as a safeguard of true doctrine.⁸ The Moravian position aligns closely with this early patristic understanding: succession is meaningful insofar as it serves the truth of the Gospel and the unity of the Church.

Unity, Not Jurisdiction, as the Purpose of Succession

A central difference between Moravian and Catholic – Orthodox ecclesiology lies in the purpose assigned to apostolic succession. In Roman Catholic theology, succession is inseparable from universal jurisdiction and magisterial authority. In Orthodoxy, it is bound to sacramental continuity within the canonical boundaries of the historic churches.

The Moravian Church, by contrast, understands the episcopal office as a ministry of unity and pastoral oversight, not as a locus of domination or exclusive authority. Bishops exist to serve the Church, not to constitute it.⁹ This ecclesiology avoids both congregational isolation and hierarchical absolutism, offering a model that is catholic in spirit without being centralized in power.

Ecumenical Recognition and Theological Consistency

The validity of Moravian succession is not merely an internal claim. Anglican – Moravian dialogues have explicitly recognized Moravian episcopal orders as historic and authentic, leading to full communion agreements.¹⁰ While Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not formally recognize Moravian orders sacramentally, this non-recognition rests primarily on theological presuppositions rather than historical refutation.

Importantly, the Moravian Church has never claimed exclusivity or superiority. Its approach allows for genuine ecumenical humility, affirming that apostolicity is ultimately grounded in Christ, not institutional self-assertion.

Conclusion

Catholic and Orthodox critiques of Moravian apostolic succession often rely on definitions of succession that the Moravian Church does not share and has never claimed to satisfy. When judged by its own stated theology – historic continuity, fidelity to apostolic faith, and service to ecclesial unity – the Moravian claim is coherent, historically grounded, and theologically responsible.

The Moravian Church does not deny the importance of apostolic succession; it refuses only to absolutize it. In doing so, it offers a vision of the Church that is apostolic not merely by lineage, but by life, faith, and obedience to Christ – the true Apostle and High Priest of our confession.

Footnotes (Turabian Style)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), §§1555–1560.
John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 90–94.
Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 62–65.
Moravian Church, The Ground of the Unity (Herrnhut: Unity Synod, 1957), §§4–6.
Rudolf Říčan, The History of the Unity of the Brethren (Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church in America, 1992), 58–62.
J. E. Hutton, A History of the Moravian Church (London: Moravian Publication Office, 1909), 171–174.
Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops (New York: Newman Press, 2001), 79–85.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.1–3.
Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 68–70.
Anglican–Moravian Dialogue, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion (London: Anglican Communion Office, 1996), 12–15.

Apostolic Succession in the Moravian Church: History, Claim, and Evidence

Introduction

The question of apostolic succession has long occupied Christian theology and church history. While the concept is most commonly associated with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, several Protestant churches also maintain a historic episcopal succession. Among these, the Moravian Church presents one of the most distinctive and historically documented cases. This article examines whether the Moravian Church traces its line of episcopal ordination to the apostles, what historical evidence exists for this claim, and how the Moravian understanding of apostolic succession differs from other ecclesial traditions.

Understanding Apostolic Succession

Apostolic succession broadly refers to the continuity of Christian ministry from the apostles through successive generations of ordained leaders. In classical Catholic and Orthodox theology, this succession is sacramental and juridical, meaning the authority and validity of ministry depend upon an unbroken chain of episcopal consecrations originating with the apostles.¹ In contrast, many Protestant traditions reject this understanding, emphasizing instead continuity in doctrine and faithfulness to the Gospel.

The Moravian Church occupies a middle position. It affirms historic episcopal succession while rejecting the notion that grace or ecclesial legitimacy depends exclusively upon it. Succession, for Moravians, is a sign of continuity and unity rather than a guarantee of sacramental efficacy.²

Origins of the Moravian Episcopate

The Moravian Church traces its roots to the Unity of the Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), founded in Bohemia in 1457. The Unity emerged from the Hussite reform movement and sought to recover the life and discipline of the apostolic church prior to medieval corruption.³ From its earliest years, the Unity of the Brethren maintained ordained ministry, but the question of episcopal authority became pressing as the movement grew.

In 1467, the Unity of the Brethren deliberately sought episcopal ordination for its leaders. Historical records indicate that three Brethren were consecrated as bishops by a bishop associated with the Waldensian tradition, a movement that itself claimed continuity with the pre-medieval Church.⁴ This event marks the formal beginning of Moravian episcopal succession and is one of the most clearly documented episcopal origins among Protestant churches.

Continuity Through Persecution

Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Unity of the Brethren endured severe persecution, particularly following the Counter-Reformation in Bohemia. Churches were destroyed, clergy were imprisoned or exiled, and the Unity was driven underground. Despite these conditions, the episcopal office was preserved.

The most notable bishop of this period was John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), the last bishop of the ancient Unity. Comenius was not only a church leader but also an internationally respected theologian and educator. His episcopal authority is historically uncontested, and his writings demonstrate a clear understanding of episcopal ministry as pastoral and unifying rather than hierarchical.⁵ Through Comenius and his successors, the Unity maintained continuity of ordination despite the loss of institutional stability.

Renewal in the Eighteenth Century

The modern Moravian Church emerged during the early eighteenth century at Herrnhut in Saxony under the leadership of Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf. Although Zinzendorf played a central role in the renewal of the Church, he was not initially a bishop, nor did he claim episcopal authority on his own initiative.

In 1735, the episcopate of the renewed Moravian Church was formally restored when Daniel Ernst Jablonski, a bishop standing in the historic line of the Unity of the Brethren, consecrated David Nitschmann as bishop.⁶ This consecration is well documented and forms the foundation of the episcopal succession of the present-day Moravian Church. From this point onward, Moravian bishops have been consecrated within this historic line.

Can the Line Be Traced Back to the Apostles?

Historically, the Moravian Church can demonstrate a continuous episcopal succession from its present bishops back through the eighteenth-century renewal, the ancient Unity of the Brethren, and pre-Reformation episcopal lines. What cannot be demonstrated – by Moravians or by most Christian traditions – is a complete, name-by-name chain reaching back to one of the Twelve Apostles.

This limitation, however, is not unique to the Moravian Church. Even Roman Catholic and Orthodox successions rely on reconstructed lists and theological continuity rather than complete documentary evidence from the first century.⁷ The Moravian claim, therefore, rests on historical plausibility, continuity of ordination, and fidelity to apostolic teaching rather than exhaustive documentary proof.

The Moravian Theological Understanding of Succession

Crucially, the Moravian Church has never taught that apostolic succession is a prerequisite for salvation or the sole channel of divine grace. The episcopal office exists to serve unity, order, and pastoral oversight within the Church. Apostolicity is ultimately measured by faithfulness to Christ, proclamation of the Gospel, and life in the Spirit.⁸

This theological stance has allowed the Moravian Church to participate fully in ecumenical relationships. Moravian orders are recognized by the Anglican Communion and respected within Lutheran and Reformed dialogues, even when sacramental theology differs.⁹

Conclusion

The Moravian Church does indeed trace a historic episcopal succession reaching back through the Unity of the Brethren to pre-Reformation Christianity. While it does not claim a mechanically provable chain to the apostles, it maintains one of the most historically grounded episcopal successions within Protestantism. More importantly, the Moravian Church understands apostolic succession not as an end in itself, but as a sign of continuity in faith, ministry, and love within the one Church of Jesus Christ.

Footnotes:

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 213–215.
Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 67–69.
J. E. Hutton, A History of the Moravian Church (London: Moravian Publication Office, 1909), 27–35.
Rudolf Říčan, The History of the Unity of the Brethren (Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church in America, 1992), 58–62.
John Amos Comenius, The Way of Peace, trans. A. M. O. Dobbie (London: J. M. Dent, 1938), xv–xviii.
Hutton, History of the Moravian Church, 171–174.
Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York: Newman Press, 2001), 221–224.
Moravian Church, The Ground of the Unity (Herrnhut: Unity Synod, 1957), §§4–6.
Anglican–Moravian Dialogue, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion (London: Anglican Communion Office, 1996), 12–15.

Moravian Seal

The Moravian Church Seal is a powerful symbol that encapsulates the core theological beliefs and historical identity of the Unitas Fratrum, or Unity of the Brethren. The central image of the seal, which dates to the 16th century, is the Agnus Dei, Latin for “Lamb of God.” This victorious lamb, representing Jesus Christ, holds a staff with a banner that signifies His triumph over sin and death. The seal is encircled by a Latin inscription, “Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur,” which translates to “Our Lamb has conquered, let us follow Him.” The emblem serves as a constant reminder of the centrality of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection to Moravian theology. It embodies the belief that through His non-violent love and willingness to suffer, Jesus overcame the destructive forces of evil and now calls His followers to a life of service and witness.

The Agnus Dei has a rich history within Christian iconography, often appearing in art to represent Jesus. The Moravian Church’s particular use of the image, combined with the powerful inscription, highlights the denomination’s emphasis on a living, victorious Christ, rather than a defeated or powerless one. The seal’s message encourages Moravians to look to Christ’s example of suffering and triumph and to follow His path. It is a symbol that resonates with the church’s history of enduring persecution for its faith, serving as a rallying cry for its followers. The phrase “Our Lamb has conquered” is not merely a statement of belief but an active call to discipleship, challenging members to live out their faith in the world, just as the early Moravians spread the gospel to marginalized communities across the globe.

Historical Background of the Moravian Church

To fully appreciate the seal, it is essential to understand the Moravian Church’s long and often tumultuous history. The origins of the Unitas Fratrum can be traced back to the followers of the Bohemian reformer Jan Hus, who was martyred for his beliefs at the Council of Constance in 1415. The Hussite movement, which predated Martin Luther’s Reformation by a century, sought to reform the Catholic Church and place a greater emphasis on the authority of the Bible. Following Hus’s death, a group of his followers established the Unity of the Brethren in 1457, in Kunvald, Bohemia. This was the first Moravian Church, founded on principles of non-violence, communal living, and a deep commitment to the teachings of Christ.

Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, the Unity of the Brethren flourished, but they faced severe persecution during the Counter-Reformation. Following the Thirty Years’ War, the church was nearly eradicated from its homeland. The surviving members, known as the “Hidden Seed,” maintained their faith in secret for a century, passing down their traditions and beliefs from one generation to the next.

The church’s miraculous renewal came in the 18th century under the leadership of Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, a German nobleman and Pietist. In 1722, Zinzendorf offered refuge to a group of Moravian refugees on his estate in Saxony. This settlement, named Herrnhut (“The Lord’s Watch”), became the center of a spiritual revival. The refugees brought with them the original constitution and traditions of the ancient Unity, which were combined with the fervent piety of Zinzendorf and his followers. It was during this period that the church’s seal took on a renewed and profound significance. The message of the conquering Lamb was a testament to their faith’s survival and a powerful symbol for a people who had endured a century of persecution. It was this renewed faith that led them to launch the modern missionary movement, sending missionaries to the Caribbean, Greenland, and beyond.

The Moravian Church Seal is therefore not just a symbol of theological conviction but a historical marker of survival, renewal, and unwavering faith in the face of adversity. It is a testament to the belief that Christ, the Lamb who was slain, has conquered, and His followers are called to carry His message of victory and peace to all the world.

Footnotes

“Moravian Seal,” The Moravian Church, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.chaskamoravian.org/the-moravian-seal.
“Moravian seal,” NCpedia, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.ncpedia.org/media/moravian-seal.
Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 18.
J. Taylor Hamilton, A History of the Moravian Church: Or, The Renewed Unitas Fratrum, 1722-1957 (Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church Press, 1967), 12.
“A Brief History of the Moravian Church,” The Moravian Church, accessed August 29, 2025, https://www.moravian.org/2018/07/a-brief-history-of-the-moravian-church/.

Bibliography

Atwood, Craig D. Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Hamilton, J. Taylor. A History of the Moravian Church: Or, The Renewed Unitas Fratrum, 1722-1957. Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church Press, 1967.

“Moravian Seal.” The Moravian Church. Accessed August 29, 2025. https://www.chaskamoravian.org/the-moravian-seal.

“Moravian seal.” NCpedia. Accessed August 29, 2025. https://www.ncpedia.org/media/moravian-seal.

The Moravian Church Foundation: A Legacy of Faith and “Conscientious Entrepreneurship”

The Moravian Church, or Unitas Fratrum, boasts a rich history spanning over five centuries, rooted in the Bohemian Reformation of the 15th century.¹ From its earliest days, a defining characteristic has been its profound missionary zeal.² This spirit of spreading the Gospel and serving the poor and needy globally laid the groundwork for organizations like the Moravian Church Foundation (MCF).³

Origins and Evolution

The genesis of the Moravian Church Foundation can be traced back to 1754, when two Moravian brothers, Ralph and Dehne, both tailors, embarked on a mission to Suriname. As self-supporting missionaries, they practiced their trade to sustain themselves, using their free time for evangelistic work.⁴ Their trading company, C. Kersten & Co., prospered and grew into one of Suriname’s largest commercial enterprises.⁵ The profits generated from these business activities were then used to establish other Moravian Church ventures across the Caribbean and Europe.⁶

This innovative approach of combining faith with business, termed “conscientious entrepreneurship,” is a cornerstone of the MCF’s philosophy.⁷ By actively participating in and supporting companies in various countries, the Foundation generates the necessary financial funding to sustain the charitable and missionary work of the Moravian Church worldwide.⁸ In 2004, all MCF participations were transferred to MCF Business Enterprises B.V. to further professionalize and ensure a strict separation between ecclesiastical and secular matters.⁹

Mission and Activities

The Moravian Church Foundation’s core objective is to support and further the specific work of the Moravian Church globally, particularly in areas where individual provinces may not yet be able to initiate or sustain activities themselves.¹⁰ The income for the MCF primarily comes from dividends generated by MCF-Business Enterprises BV.¹¹

The support provided by the MCF is prioritized, focusing on:

Theological training for ministers and other church officials.¹²
Economic, educational, and social work, especially within the Moravian Church Province in Suriname.¹³
Specific activities of the worldwide Moravian Unity.¹⁴
Other projects as deemed necessary.¹⁵

Through its funding, the MCF helps realize numerous goals, including the building of schools, support for medical work, and the translation of religious texts.¹⁶ The Foundation is managed by professional business and finance personnel, and its board of directors includes elected members from the church’s provinces who are dedicated to the ethical conduct and social responsibility of the Foundation’s businesses.¹⁷

Global Impact

The impact of the Moravian Church Foundation is felt across continents, contributing to the Moravian Church’s ongoing global ministry. Beyond direct financial support, the Foundation embodies the historical Moravian commitment to self-sufficiency and mission, continuing the legacy of those early brothers who used their trades to further the Gospel.¹⁸ This unique blend of commerce and charity allows the Moravian Church to pursue its spiritual and social aims, demonstrating a harmonious unity between church and business for the betterment of communities worldwide.¹⁹

Footnotes

“A Brief History of the Moravian Church,” The Moravian Church, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.moravian.org/2018/07/a-brief-history-of-the-moravian-church/.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.mcfworld.com/cms/context/index.php?rubric=Context.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Moravian Church Foundation,” Wikipedia, last modified May 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Church_Foundation.
“Moravian Church Foundation,” Wikipedia.
“Moravian Church Foundation,” Wikipedia.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.mcfworld.com/cms/history/detail.php?rubric=History&nr=43.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.mcfworld.com/.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Home,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Moravian Church Foundation,” Wikipedia.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.
“Context and History,” MCF Moravian Church Foundation.

Unity Mission Agreement: Moravian Church Missions in a time of Globalization

Mission is our calling

We are living in a challenging time for the Moravian Church and our global mission. There are more brothers and sisters in the Moravian Unity today than ever before. Moravians praise God and read the Scriptures in dozens of languages across the globe, and the Moravian Church is more culturally diverse than ever. This growth, geographical spread, and diversity means that Moravians are also faced with significant challenges in our globalized economy. There is an ever growing gap between rich and poor throughout the world. Civil wars and other conflicts ravage many nations, leaving millions as stateless refugees. Countless people are living on the margins of society and suffer from poverty, hunger, addiction, and despair. The destruction of nature is accelerating rather than abating, and climate change now threatens the well-being of over a billion people.

It can be tempting to retreat from the challenges, but mission has been at the heart of the Moravian Church since its renewal in Herrnhut in 1727. Moravians were called to go to the despised, rejected, and frightened people in the margins of the world to share their lives to show them Christ’s love. “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (I Peter 2:10) Moravians still believe that no one on this earth is God-forsaken; all people are made in the image of God. All people are our brothers and sisters because we share the same image of God. Our mission may be anywhere at any time whenever and wherever God calls us to go and serve.

In 1957 our modern Moravian Unity was established to facilitate and expand our global mission while retaining our unity as Moravian brothers and sisters. We are living in the midst of globalization, which provides extraordinary new opportunities for mission and building communities of faith. But globalization also brings great challenges.

Our Unity: a gift, a witness and a task

Our Moravian Unity is a gift, a witness and a task.

It is a precious gift we have received as a heritage from our ancestors in faith. This gift we need to maintain as a source of inspiration for our own mission. It is part of our heritage that we believe that our Unity is a gift of our Chief Elder, Jesus Christ.
Through our Lord and Savior we are bound together in a fellowship of love and forgiveness. Unity does not mean agreement in all things, but it does mean a willingness to love one another, care for one another, and pray for one another.

Our Unity is a powerful witness to the world that we remain together despite our cultural, economic, and linguistic differences. More than that, we Moravians care for each other in our Unity: “If one part of the body suffers, all parts suffer with it.” (I Cor. 12:22)
Our Unity is also a task given to us. We have to invest energy, time, prayer, and money to maintain the Unity and renew it. We do this not for the sake of the Unity itself, but because of our witness to the world.
We therefore commit ourselves to work together to maintain our Moravian Unity. We will not allow theological and cultural differences to break our communion, but will seek the open dialogue with each other to solve conflicts among us. In this we are a token of Christ’s reconciliation working through us in the world.

Sent out as agents of God’s love

Mission means “being sent”. We are sent to other people and cultures in humility following Jesus Christ and proclaiming his Good News. In the past, missionaries were sent from Europe to cross oceans and geographical boundaries to reach out to the so-called “heathen”, but we have learned that there are many other borders and barriers we have to cross. Our mission is not just cross- cultural, it is multicultural and intercultural. Missionaries today are sent to overcome barriers of race, class, and gender. It is our mission to speak out wherever barriers divide humanity and harm our brothers and sisters. “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” (Eph. 2:19)

Following the example of Christ, we Moravians strive to overcome the barriers which exclude people and God’s creation from living a sustainable life in peace and dignity, such as racism, power imbalances, and poverty or climate injustice.

We are living in the midst of globalization, which provides extraordinary new opportunities for mission, but also brings great challenges. In the 18th century, Moravians saw their mission in helping those who were hurt by colonization, yet our church also profited from the colonialism and colonial structures, at times even from slavery. The church is still repenting for its role in the slave-economy. In the 21st Century, we have to learn from the lessons of the past. We need to draw each other’s attention to how we Moravians participate in economic globalization and profit from unjust economic and political mechanisms. We are called to be advocates for those who are being harmed

by globalization, wherever we and they are. As Christians, we are called to change our way of life so that all God’s creation can be sustained. As missionaries we are called to be agents of God’s justice, love and mercy in a suffering world: South and North, East and West.

Proclaiming the Good News

Mission takes many forms, but it is always a witness to Christ beyond the walls of the church building. Mission includes evangelism and the proclamation of the good news of salvation through Christ. It also includes concrete acts of justice, mercy, hospitality, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The biblical mandate of mission includes tending to the sick, feeding the hungry, hosting the stranger, embracing the enemy, and removing the chains of bondage. Mission is going out into the world in love as Christ loves the world.

Since the time of Zinzendorf, Moravian mission was bold and courageous, but it has also been culturally sensitive, respectful, humble, and mutual. In our mission today, we must be self-critical and seek continually to learn, change, and grow. At this Unity Mission Conference (2017), we heartily affirmed the ecumenical statement Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World as being consistent with Moravian values.

Moravian mission is guided by the Holy Spirit. We celebrate that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world and we seek to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Our mission therefore always begins with careful listening and observing the times. Our theological understanding is sensible to the context and at times we are called to raise a prophetic voice in the midst of an unjust world. We go where we feel God is sending us, and we seek those places where the Spirit beckons. We acknowledge that the working of God’s Spirit goes beyond our understanding and our church structures. We are open for the signs of the Holy Spirit working outside the church and even outside Christianity revealing God’s love for this world. (John 3:16-17)

Participating in God’s mission to the world

Mission belongs to God. We become co-workers and servants of Christ in mission. This gives us confidence despite our own pitfalls and failures. Christ gives us strength and courage to sow the seed of love even though we are not always able to harvest the fruit.

Missionaries are not only those who are physically sent to reach out to others in other lands and cultures. Wherever we are, with our different gifts, we can be involved in Christ’s mission. Those who support this mission through their prayers, their financial and other gifts, and their compassion are equally part of the Unity’s mission. Those who live a life of obedience and mindfulness, in respect for God’s creature and in love of the neighbor, are part of the mission. We acknowledge that the people in the margins of our globalized world have their unique contribution to Christ’s mission. Our Moravian mission does not discriminate against people. Our mission is for all people – women and men, children, youth, and adults in every land. Our mission is carried out by all kinds of people. It is part of our mission to promote the dignity and worth of each person. At times we are called to offer a contrast community to demonstrate what the Kingdom of God might look like on earth.

As Moravians we see our mission as part of the worldwide ecumenical missionary movement. Together with all Christians we are on a missionary pilgrimage. In the unity of our mission we embody the prayer of Jesus in John 17. We will therefore cooperate with other Christian churches in our mission because our goal is not to increase the size of the Moravian Church. We also commit ourselves to building sustainable communities of faith that are empowered to engage in their own unique forms of mission and ministry.

Our goal as Moravian in mission is simply to do the work of Christ in this world. We follow the One who came into the world to give life in abundance to all. We embrace our calling and mission with joy and hope because this mission brings us ever closer to our Savior and the reign of God on earth.

Note: Statement on Moravian Missions drafted and approved at the Unity Mission Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, November 2017

Source: Original Source Here

The Brotherly Agreement

The Brotherly Agreement was drawn up to promote the peace of the “Moravian” community at Herrnhut. Today Moravians endeavour to establish their fellowship in keeping with its spirit.

The Triune God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures 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.
The Bible shall be our constant study: We shall read it with prayer for the influence and teaching of the Holy Spirit.
We will faithfully attend the service in the House of God and any special services that may be held in connection with our Church. We will be diligent in private prayer and will practise and encourage family worship.
Realizing that we have been called into fellowship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and being desirous that we shall be recognized as His followers, we shall conscientiously abstain from all amusements which would be inconsistent with the Christian life. We will avoid gambling of every kind.
Knowing that fornication, drunkenness and all other sins of the flesh are condemned in the Word of God, we will determine by His grace to live pure and morally upright lives.
Covetousness, dishonest practices in trade and wilful deceit are evils which are hindrances to the life of the Christians. These we will seek to avoid in our daily dealings with others.
We will earnestly oppose all superstition, obeahism and “false revivalism”.
We will avoid envy, malice, revenge, strife, quarrelling and evil speaking. We will seek to be truthful and endeavour to live in the spirit of peace and good will to others, remembering that lying, profane language, such as swearing, abuse, unclean talk and all other sins of the tongue are contrary to the Spirit of Christ.
We acknowledge that it is our duty to obey the laws of the land in which we live, and we will endeavour to promote good citizenship.
We will endeavour to settle our differences with others in a Christian manner and only seek the aid of the courts of the law as a last resort and with the sanction of our ministers.
By our industry, sobriety and thrift, we will endeavour to erect proper houses and maintain good homes.
As parents and guardians we will bring up our children in a Christian manner and endeavour to secure for them the advantages of good education.
We believe it to be our duty as Christians to care for our aged parents and helpless members of our families, and at the same time to exercise public charity as it may be within our power to bestow.
As stewards of the gifts of God, we will support the spread of the Gospel at home and abroad by means of our tithes and freewill offerings.

Source: Here

The Enduring Tradition of the Daily Watchword

The Moravian daily “Watchword,” a shared biblical text for meditation and guidance, originated in Herrnhut in 1722. For the first eight years, these texts were passed from house to house by word of mouth. Then, in 1731, they were first printed for the entire year, along with supplementary hymn verses. This marked the beginning of a tradition that continues to this day.

Each year in Herrnhut, Old Testament texts are chosen by lot, and a corresponding New Testament text is added. This process serves the worldwide Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum), with the texts then distributed to each Province to be adapted for local needs. Translated into over fifty languages, the “Text Book” is cherished and used by many beyond the Moravian Church. As Moravians, we consider this broader ministry a divine privilege, and we praise and glorify God’s holy name for it.

About This Edition

The Scripture texts in most edition are primarily from the New Revised Standard Version, used with permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of the USA. Occasionally, other translations are used and clearly marked.

For the first time, this material was not prepared by a single editor but by a team of contributors. They were given the freedom to enrich the texts with prayers, quotes, poetry, and additional verses to deepen their meaning. The editing panel hopes this fresh approach offers readers a new way to engage with the Watchword and that the varied styles will be appreciated. We extend our sincere thanks to all contributors for their valuable input and time. Hymn verses are primarily from Moravian sources but also include selections from other traditions, with full references in the index at the end of the year. All necessary copyrights are observed. Information regarding moon phases is Crown Copyright, reproduced under license from HM Nautical Almanac Office.

This edition also features new elements for daily readings:

Sunday Scripture readings now align with the lectionary used by most Anglican churches in Britain and, for the first time, include the Old Testament narrative reading.
Mid-week readings are structured so that consistent use will guide readers through the entire Bible over approximately two and a half years. Certain passages, such as genealogies, obscure legal procedures, detailed construction instructions, and repetitive sections found in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, are omitted or addressed through alternative cycles. Aside from a few complex passages in Revelation, the New Testament is fully covered.

It is our heartfelt prayer that users find this book personally impactful, leading them to a deeper understanding of the Bible and enriching their lives. May the shared daily texts foster a powerful sense of unity and fellowship with the global family of God, bridging the diverse patterns of life around the world.

“In essentials, unity…” A view of the “Moravian motto”

Most institutions in modern society try to express their special characteristics in a logo or brief slogan. In the Moravian Church, a phrase that comes closest to this, although never made official: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.”

Variously attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo and more frequently to Peter Meiderlin, a 16th century Lutheran theologian, the phrase also appears in the last published work of the Moravian bishop John Amos Comenius entitled The One Thing Needful.

After a lapse of a couple of centuries, the motto began to appear within the Moravian Church in the mid 1800s, and by 1900 had appeared in the Southern Provinces’ newspaper, The Wachovia Moravian.

So while it isn’t solely “ours,” the motto has been a comfort and rallying cry for Moravians around the world. In this issue, we offer the description found in “Our Moravian Treasures: A Manual of Topics for Theological Education in the Unitas Fratrum,” edited by the Rev. Peter Vogt, to provide additional insight and serve as the introduction for work completed by the Rev. Ted Bowman (see accompanying article) on what the motto means to a group of long-time Moravians.

“The experiences of more than 500 years have taught us that, in order to remain true to the message of the Gospel, we have to keep working on how we express our faith. With changing historical circumstances and new theological insights, our statements of what we believe have developed over time, and even today this process is likely to continue. We have found that it is best to keep the statements about our doctrine relatively simple and allow people to have different views on things that are not clear in the Bible.

One important guideline for theological reflection in the Moravian Church is the maxim: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.” While this principle is not uniquely Moravian, it reflects very well the character of our tradition. The Unity Synod of 2016 described it as a “fundamental notion” for dealing with differences within the Unity (COUF #414). It seems the principle was first used by Catholic and Lutheran theologians in the early seventeenth century. In the old Unity, it was quoted once by Bishop John Amos Comenius, and, in 1857, it was introduced to the renewed Moravian Church by Bishop Alexander de Schweinitz. Today, it is widely known across Moravian provinces and considered to be one of the “treasures” of our church.

The significance of this principle is obvious when we consider that the Unitas Fratrum, as an international church, is facing the growing challenge of cultural and theological diversity. At the Unity Synod and other international gatherings, Moravian leaders struggle to maintain the unity of our church as they disagree on important theological questions. Likewise, many provinces and congregations face the task of dealing with conflicts over matters of doctrine and belief that threaten to divide the community. How can we engage in controversial theological topics without putting at risk our connection as brothers and sisters in Christ?

The principle “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love” helps us to see that unity does not mean uniformity. Members of a church community do not need to agree on everything or always have the same opinion. While many people like the idea that others agree with them, our principle makes it clear that in the church there is room for diversity. Controversial opinions are often rooted in the fact that different people have different perspectives, due to their specific life-experience, cultural background, education, family situation, personal character, and so on. Because it is quite unrealistic to expect full agreement among people that come from diverse walks of life, there is great wisdom in the willingness to offer freedom for different views, especially in matters that clearly are of secondary importance. This makes it possible for people to “agree to disagree” and still be part of the same community.

At the same time, the principle “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love” expresses the wisdom that in those things that are truly important all members of a church community should be of the same mind. Unity means that people are connected to one another by something they all have in common. If this core of essentials is lost, the community falls apart.

What are the “essentials” for the unity of the Moravian Church? This question has often been asked and is difficult to answer because for much of our history Moravians have been reluctant to define church unity as agreement with precise doctrinal statements. Certainly, the beliefs and values expressed in the Ground of the Unity (see section 3.5.) and in COUF, Part II (“The Essential Features of the Unity”, #50-152) represent an important resource for approaching this question. Yet, it seems that the core of our spiritual identity is something different than simply a statement of doctrine, as it also concerns the way of how we do things and what kind of experiences are important to us. At the same time, we can expect that Moravians from around the world are likely to name very different things as being essential for the unity and identity of our church. This is obviously a matter that will require more discussion and thoughtful deliberation.

Our theological tradition offers an important insight that helps us to think about this question. Luke of Prague spoke of “essentials” when he employed in his theology the distinction between things that are essential, things that are ministerial, and things that are incidental. Of course, he did not know at that time the principle “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love,” and before we proceed any further it is very important to note that these two ways of talking about “essentials” are not the same. In the case of Luke, the “essentials” refer to what is essential for salvation. The principle “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love,” in contrast, speaks about the unity of the church. The “essentials,” here, are points of agreement that form the core of an organization’s shared identity. There are certain things in the life of the church, for example the regulations of our church order, where such agreement is indeed necessary for church unity, but which would not qualify as “essentials” for Luke. In turn, we find that many of the items that Luke defines as “ministerials,” such as Holy Scripture and the sacraments, seem to belong to the category of the “essentials” when looked at from the perspective of church unity. It would not be appropriate to place them in the category of “non-essentials,” which really corresponds more to the group of “incidental things” in Luke’s terminology. It is very important not to confuse these two ways of talking about “essentials.”

What we can learn from Luke is to look beyond shared traditions or agreement in doctrine when we think about the essentials of our unity. There is also the reality of God’s grace in creation, the redemptive work of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, which call forth our response in faith, hope, and love (God Creates; God Redeems; God Sustains (Blesses). We respond in faith, love and hope.) This suggests that ultimately the unity of the church does not rest in agreement about statements of doctrine but in the reality of what God does. While it is very important to discuss doctrinal matters and work towards agreement, people should bear in mind that human words are limited in their ability to capture the full truth of our faith. As we seek “unity in essentials,” let us remember that being one in Christ is a gift far greater than what we can express in theological definitions. In the end, true Christianity, as well as the unity of our church, is not based on the words of certain creeds or doctrinal statements; it is grounded in the living experience of faith in Christ, active love for others, and joyful hope that looks to the time when all God’s promises are fulfilled.

Above all, the principle “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love” points us to the importance of love for the discussion of controversial theological topics. The spirit of love involves a movement in two directions: love creates community, as it draws connections between people; at the same time, love offers freedom for difference, as each person or group is respected and valued for their own unique contribution. The spirit of love facilitates “unity-in-difference”, as it creates a space where people of different opinion can come together to seek mutual understanding and cooperation. The spirit of love thus offers the wisdom to see those who hold a different view not as opponents but as partners on a shared journey.

The unity of the Moravian Church is a work in progress. It requires theological reflection on many important issues. The principle “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love” offers us precious guidance and encouragement for this task. We are invited to speak honestly and listen carefully to each other so that we may come to under- stand how we differ in our views and discern what we have in common. We can expect that, since the Moravian Church is a global denomination, disagreements on matters of doctrine and polity will continue to be a part of this process. They do not necessarily form a threat to our unity, but they can be an opportunity for dialogue and conversation, which may lead us to a better understanding and a deeper connection, as we continue our journey into the future that God has prepared for us.

Adapted from “Our Moravian Treasures: A Manual of Topics for Theological Education in the Unitas Fratrum,” edited by Peter Vogt. “Our Moravian Treasures” is available from the Interprovincial Board of Communication at store.moravian.org.

Nathanael aka Sodpa Gjalzan, the Tibetan Lama who accepted Christ

“The following data is extracted from the book Working and Waiting for Tibet. The full source and bibliography are below.”

We will devote a separate chapter to a former lama, Sodpa Gjalzan, whose baptismal name is Nathanael.

His father was an official of high rank at the court of the Dalai-Lama. The son accordingly received an education in keeping with his father’s position, and such as should fit him for the high rank to which it was hoped that he would attain. For seven years he studied in a lamasery, gaining an unusually thorough acquaintance with the Buddhist religion and history. Of a clear, keen understanding, of extensive culture, of deep and earnest thought, he was far superior to the mass of his fellow students in knowledge and mental capacity. In character, he combined the habitual self-restraint of a lama with the excitable nature and hasty temper of a son of the soil. Cautious as a merchant, suspicious as a Chinese official, he had yet a certain frankness, which scorned to give a false reason instead of the true one. When his studies were completed, his thirst for knowledge drove him out into the world, and he spent four years in traveling, not only in his own country, but beyond the borders of the Chinese Empire.

Clad in the ordinary dress of a lama, the long red robe, sewed up from top to bottom, reaching almost to his shoes, with a girdle round the waist, and the jacket worn over the robe, he wandered about as a begging friar. His family was rich and influential, yet he might possess nothing but what he could carry about with him. Two leather wallets contained his whole property—a cooking utensil, a spoon, a brass drinking cup, a book, and any food that might be given to him.

Such was Gjalzan when a chance visit to Poo made him acquainted with Pagell. Some tracts seen at a farmer’s house induced him to attend the Christian service, and to seek an interview with the missionary, in order to learn something more about the religion of the white man. At this interview, Pagell presented him with the Gospel of St. Matthew in Tibetan. Again and again, he came to converse with the “white sahib” on Christianity and Buddhism, their points of similarity and their differences. His keen intellect showed him the greater depth and universal sympathy of Christianity, and his reverence for “The Light of Asia” steadily gave way to a growing love for “The Light of the World.”

Ere long he brought three little pictures of Buddha, printed in gold on a kind of black paper, which he had hitherto worn as an amulet, and gave them up to the missionary because, he said, he had no more faith in them. He no longer prayed to Buddha, but to Jesus. As a sign of his growing confidence, he asked his new friend to read some papers, in which he recorded his own spiritual impressions. “Though my thoughts be sinful to the end,” so he prays in one place, “let me not go on the way that leadeth to destruction. I pray Thee to make me a believer in Thy Gospel.” In another place, he says: “We must forsake even the slightest evil, and strive after even the slightest good.” Again: “Jesus Himself has brought us this doctrine. He is our only salvation. That He may draw me to Himself, and keep me as the apple of His eye!” “O God, when I was still in my own country, I had never heard of Jesus; now that the white sahib has told me of Him, I believe in Jesus Christ. When the name of Jesus was unknown to me, I was ignorant; enter not into judgment with Thy servant for this sin.” He refused to perform the duties of a lama, though he was thereby reduced to great want. Some of the farmers asked him to read aloud portions of the Buddhistic books at different places on their estates, in order to ensure a plentiful harvest. The lamas always receive good pay for doing this; but Nathanael firmly declared that it was deceit and sin, and he would not do it. Another time he was less firm. Having been called to a sick man, whom he was to cure by superstitious formula, he went home to fetch a book he needed and found the door fastened. He hesitated, went to Mr. Pagell, told him the whole story, and agreed that it was no mere chance, but a direct interposition of God.

At last, he made up his mind to remain at Poo and to become a Christian. When he asked for instruction preparatory to baptism, Pagell’s joy knew no bounds. This was a real reward of his toil; a man whose earnestness and thoughtfulness contrasted so favorably with the superficiality of his fellows; a man whose knowledge of Buddhism would make him a splendid instrument for the spread of the Gospel among his countrymen; a man who might be able to enter into the stronghold of Buddhism still closely barred and defended against the white man, the dreaded “Peling,” whom they fear will come over from Calcutta and conquer Tibet.

In order to strengthen his resolution by acquainting him with the life and intercourse of Christian Europeans, Pagell took Gjalzan on a visit to Simla. The kindness and sympathy he experienced there from Europeans and Hindu Christians, the solemn services in the large, well-filled churches, the Christian life in several English families, all made a deep impression upon Nathanael. On his return to Poo, he set to work to thoroughly master English, and being appointed teacher in the school, he went to live at the mission house. This act created an immense excitement, especially among the lamas. It amounted to an open declaration that he was a Christian. For, though the Buddhists have intercourse with the missionaries and attend services in the church, yet they look upon it as defilement for a servant of Buddha to live under the same roof with them, or to eat with them. One lama after another came to ask for an explanation of his conduct. To all alike, he confessed joyfully and resolutely that he had found peace for his soul in the Gospel. They shook their heads. They could not understand it. But his words produced the greater impression because they felt themselves inferior to him even in his knowledge of Buddhism. Half a year after the visit to Simla, he was baptized and received the name, Nathanael. Well might Pagell rejoice; for Nathanael was the first-fruits of the Buddhist priesthood, and his life after his baptism was at first an eloquent witness to the power of that faith to which he had sworn allegiance. Not that he was faultless. He was too stern and too impatient as a teacher; but he was glad to be corrected and improved greatly.

It was feared that the lamas would seek to kill him, as they have sought to kill others; but they respected him highly, partly for his knowledge, partly for his godly life. Some of the more bigoted peasants, who had formerly loaded him with tokens of honor and esteem, now treated him with neglect, but he did not mind it. He of his own accord proposed to go to Lhasa to preach the Gospel to his own people and spoke with sadness of the failure to reach the Mongolians, whom he considered superior to the Tibetans on account of their religious earnestness.

Here is your text with only spelling corrections applied:

Suddenly, however, there was a change, as though a hailstorm should gather and threaten the golden harvest. “How honestly he came; how earnestly he sought after peace and truth,” mourns Pagell; “how truly had he learned that the Lord is gracious! How he delighted in the assurance: ‘The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.’ How willingly he endured shame and contempt! He refused even to copy out a heathen book, because he was no longer a Buddhist and wanted to have nothing more to do with such things. As a Tibetan, I have never seen his equal; a cultured, intellectual man, able to express himself on the Christian doctrine with such clearness as to amaze us—in short, he was our ornament and our pride. Now the house built for him stands empty, and we feel ready to weep; for we miss him sorely. Yet the Lord has assuredly some wise purpose in view, and we do not give up hope. The remembrance of our love will go with him, and may the Lord cause him, like the prodigal son, to ‘come to himself,’ and to arise and return, if not to us, yet to Him, the Saviour of sinners.”

What had happened? The old instincts of heathenism had been aroused; the pride of the lama had been awakened in him. He had yielded to sudden temptation and committed an act of violence. Helping to build his house, he quarreled with one of the masons. The man challenged him with insulting words, and Nathanael seized his opponent by the hair and stretched him senseless on the ground with a blow from his hammer. The news was brought that Nathanael had committed a murder. Pagell hastened to the spot, helped to carry the injured man to his house, where he soon recovered so far that he could be removed to his own home. But Nathanael was an altered man. In vain were all attempts to induce him to confess his fault. He declared he would leave the village, where retribution threatened him. He was advised, at any rate, to go to Kyelang, but he replied: “I might be made angry there also, and then I should be transported to the Andamans. I had rather go back to Tibet.” He stayed in Poo a few days, but neither went to church nor visited the mission house. When he sent for his possessions, Pagell gave up everything but the implements of magic; these he broke in pieces and burned, saying: “Tell him I will give them up to nobody, least of all to a convert.” The next day, Nathanael had disappeared.

A short time after, news reached Kyelang that Nathanael had been making his way through the Spiti valley, telling the people wherever he stayed that he “was a Christian,” and asking whether they were afraid of defiling themselves by eating with him. No better proof could have been given of his honesty. He need have said nothing about it, especially as he wore the dress of a lama. A few days later, he made his appearance in Kyelang and asked to be received there. All the time between his disappearance from Poo and his arrival at Kyelang, all through his wanderings in the lonely valleys, the Spirit of God had been at work in his heart. He reached Kyelang a different man. Of his own accord, he confessed that he had done wrong and declared that he must write to Mr. Pagell to ask his forgiveness. The missionaries at Kyelang gave him a trial. His repentance proved itself to be real. He became a most useful assistant to them. His linguistic attainments and his thorough knowledge of Buddhism were invaluable in the work of Bible translation. This he did partly alone, partly in conjunction with one of the missionaries, displaying great talent and still greater conscientiousness. Often he was in dread lest, by the use of wrong Buddhist terms, he should misrepresent the truth and depth of Christian doctrine.

After he had been in Kyelang some time, he began to undertake preaching tours in the neighboring provinces. He thus became the first native assistant. He knew the language and customs of the country better than the missionaries and was a native speaking to natives, whilst they were, after all, foreigners. Mr. Heyde met with many traces of Nathanael’s work. In one village, a woman told him that “the monk from Kyelang” had spent a whole day with her, teaching her out of books that the religion of Buddha could not bring salvation, and that one could find rest only by giving up the service of idols and serving the living God. Then he met Nathanael himself in the busy market town of Leh and found that he had been addressing large audiences in the bazaar. “I do not feel nervous,” he said, “when preaching Christ. On the contrary, I feel strengthened in my faith.”

Unfortunately, this continued only a few years. Then this son of a nomadic race announced his resolve to go down into the plains. He left Kyelang for Simla, whence he went to Lahore. He is still in the North of India, bearing a good character wherever he has been. Whether he will ever return to his home or resume his missionary career, we cannot tell; but for the invaluable aid he rendered in the great work of translation, his name deserves to live in the annals of the Mission in Tibet.

Source: Translated and Revised by Ward, Arthur. Working and Waiting for Tibet: A Sketch of the Moravian Mission to the Western Himalayas (London: Morgan and Scott). Chapter I: In the Valley and in the Height. XI “Nathaniel. Originally written in German by H. G. Schneider), 1918. (Office of “The Christian”) 12, Paternoster Building, E.C. Moravian Publication Office, 32, Fetter Lane, E.C).

CHAPTER XXXIII

OF THE THINGS REQUISITE BEFORE THIS UNIVERSAL METHOD CAN BE PUT INTO PRACTICE

1. There is no one, I imagine, who, after a careful examination of the question, will not perceive how blessed would be the condition of Christian kingdoms and states if they were supplied with schools of the kind that we desire. We must therefore see what is necessary in order that these speculations may not remain speculations, but may be realised in some definite form. Not without reason does John Cæcilius Frey express his surprise and indignation that throughout so many centuries no one has ventured to reform the barbarous customs of our schools and universities.

2. For more than a hundred years much complaint has been made of the unmethodical way in which schools areconducted, but it is only within the last thirty that any serious attempt has been made to find a remedy for this state of things. And with what result? Schools remain exactly as they were. If any scholar, either privately or in school, embarked on a course of study, he found himself a butt for the mockery of the ignorant or the malevolence of the ill-disposed, or finally, being unable to obtain any assistance, found his endeavour too laborious, and gave it up. Thus all efforts have hitherto been in vain.

3. We must therefore seek and find some way by which, with God’s assistance, motive power may be supplied to the machine that is already sufficiently well constructed, or at any rate can be constructed on the foundations which exist, if the obstacles and hindrances that have hitherto been present be wisely and firmly removed.

4. Let us isolate and examine these obstacles.

(i) There is a great lack of methodical teachers who could take charge of public schools and produce the results that we have in view (indeed, with regard to my Janua which is already used in schools, a man of great judgment has written to me complaining that in most places one thing is lacking, namely, suitable men to use it).

5. (ii) But even if teachers of this kind existed, or if they could all perform their task with ease by using time-tables and forms all ready prepared for them, how would it be possible to support them in each village and town, and in every place where men are born and brought up in Christ?

6. (iii) Again, how can it be arranged that the children of the poor shall have time to go to school?

7. (iv) The opposition of pedants, who cling to old ways and despise everything that is new, is greatly to be dreaded, but for this some remedy can easily be found.

8. (v) There is one factor which by its absence or its presence can render the whole organisation of a school of no avail or can aid it in the highest degree, and that is a proper supply of comprehensive and methodical class-books. Since the invention of printing, it has been an easy matter to find men who are able and willing to make use of it, who will supply the funds necessary for the printing of good and useful books, and who will purchase books of this kind. Similarly, if the subsidiary apparatus necessary for comprehensive teaching were provided, it would be easy to find men to employ it.

9. It is evident, therefore, that the success of my scheme depends entirely upon a suitable supply of encyclopædic class-books, and these can be provided only by the collaboration of several original-minded, energetic, and learned men. For such a task transcends the strength of one man, and especially of one who is unable to devote his whole time to it, or who may be imperfectly acquainted with some of the subjects that must be included in the comprehensive scheme. Moreover, if absolute perfection be desired, one lifetime is not sufficient for the completion of the work, which must therefore be entrusted to a collegiate body of learned men.

10. But it is impossible to call such a body into existence unless it be supported and financed by some king or state, while to ensure success a quiet and secluded spot and a library are necessary. In addition, it is essential that no one offer any opposition to such a goodly plan for glorifying the Creator and benefiting the human race, but rather that all prepare to work in harmony with the grace of God, which will be communicated to us more liberally through these new channels.

11. Therefore let your zeal blaze forth when ye hear this wholesome counsel. O dearest parents of children, into whose charge God has entrusted His most precious treasures, those made in His own image, may ye never cease to entreat the God of Gods that these efforts may have a successful issue, and by your prayers and solicitations to work upon the minds of powerful and learned men. In the meantime, bring up your children piously in the fear of God, and thus prepare the way for that more universal education of which we have spoken.

12. Do you also, O instructors of the young, whose task it is to plant and water the tender grafts of paradise, pray with all earnestness that these aids to your labours may be perfected and brought into daily use as soon as possible. For since ye have been called that “ye may plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth” (Isaiah li. 16), what can be more pleasing to you than to reap as rich a harvest as possible from your labour? Therefore, let your heavenly calling, and the confidence of the parents who entrust their offspring to you, be as a fire within you, and give you and those who come under your influence no rest until the whole of your native land is lit up by this flaming torch.

13. Ye men of learning, to whom God has given wisdom and keen judgment that ye may be able to criticise such matters as these and improve them by your counsels, see that ye delay not to assist the sacred fire with your sparks, nay, rather with your torches and with your fans. Let all consider that saying of our Christ: “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and what will I if it is already kindled?” (Luke xii. 49). If He wish His fire to burn, woe unto him who, when he has the opportunity of bringing fuel to the flames, contributes nothing but the smoke of envy, malevolence, and position. Remember the reward that He promises to His good and faithful servants who employ the talents entrusted to them in such a way that they gain others, and the threats that He utters against the slothful who bury their talents in the earth (Matt. xxv. 25). Therefore, let not your own knowledge suffice you, but use all your strength to further the instruction of others. Be guided by the example of Seneca, who says: “I wish to communicate all that I know to others”; and again: “If knowledge were given me on the condition that I should keep it to myself and not share it with others, I should refuse it” (Epist. 27). Do not, therefore, withhold instruction and wisdom from the Christian people, but rather say with Moses: “Would God that all the Lord’s peoples were prophets!” (Num. xi. 29). The reformation of the Church and of the state is comprised in the proper instruction of the young; and shall we, who know this, stand idle, while others put their hand to the work?

14. May we all, with one accord, be moved to promote such a worthy object in every possible manner by advising, warning, exhorting, reforming, and in every way furthering the work for God and for posterity. And let no one think that he is not called upon to act in the matter. For though a man may be naturally unsuited to be a schoolmaster, or may be fully engaged by his duties as a clergyman, a politician, or a physician, he makes a great mistake if he think that he is on that account exempt from the common task of school-reform. If he wish to prove his devotion to his calling, to him who calls him, and to those to whom he is sent, he is bound not only to serve his God, his Church, and his country, but also to train up others to do so after him. Socrates has been praised because he employed his time in educating the young instead of holding some public office. “It is of more use,” said he, “to train men who can govern, than to govern oneself.”

15. O learned scholars, I beseech you not to despise these suggestions because they originate with one less learned than yourselves. Remember the saying of Chrysippus: “Many a market-gardener has spoken to the point. Perchance an ass may know what you do not.” And of Christ: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and ye hear its voice, but know not whence it comes or whither it goes.” In the sight of God I protest that it is not by any overweening confidence in myself, or by a desire for fame or for personal advantage, that I am impelled to advertise these ideas of mine. It is the love of God and the wish to improve the condition of humanity that goad me on, and will not suffer me to keep silence when my instinct tells me what should be done. Therefore, if any oppose my efforts, and hinder the realisation of my ideas instead of aiding it, let him be assured that he is waging war, not against me, but against God, against his own conscience, and against nature, whose will it is that what is for the common good be given over for the use of all men.

16. To you also I appeal, Theologians, since it is in your power to be the greatest assistance or the greatest obstacle to my designs. If you choose the latter course, the saying of Bernhard will be fulfilled: “That Christ has no bitterer enemies than His followers, and especially those who hold the first place among them.” But let us hope that your actions will be worthier, and more suited to your calling. Remember that our Lord charged Peter to feed not only His sheep but also His lambs, enjoining him to take especial care of the latter (John xxi. 15). This is a reasonable injunction, since shepherds find it easier to feed sheep than to feed lambs, which have still to be moulded by the discipline of the flock and the staff of the herdsman. Surely a man betrays his ignorance if he prefer unlettered hearers! What goldsmith does not try to procure the very purest gold? What shoemaker does not try to obtain the finest leather? Let us likewise be children of light and wise in our generation, and let us pray that schools may supply us with as many educated hearers as possible.

17. And suffer not envy to enter into your hearts, O servants of the living God, but rather lead others to that charity that envies not, seeks not its own advantage, and thinks no evil. Let envious thoughts arise if others originate schemes that have never entered into your minds, but be content to learn from others; in order that (as Gregory says) all, being full of faith, may praise God, and may be instrumental in spreading the truth.

18. But to you, in particular, do I direct my prayers, ye rulers and magistrates, who, in God’s name, preside over human affairs. To you, as to Noah, it has been entrusted from on high to build an ark for the preservation of the Word of God in this terrible deluge of disasters (Gen. vi.) It is your duty, as it was that of the princes of old, to aid in the building of the sanctuary, and to see that no obstacle be placed in the way of the artificers whom the Lord has filled with His Spirit and has taught to devise ingenious plans (Exod. xxxvi.) You, like David and Solomon, should summon architects to build the temple of the Lord, and should supply them with the necessary materials (1 Kings vi.; 1 Chron. xxix.) You are those centurions whom Christ will love if you have loved His little ones, and erected schools for them (Luke vii. 5).

19. For Christ’s sake, for the sake of our children’s salvation, I beseech you to listen to me. This is a weighty question, and concerns the glory of God and the salvation of mankind. Well do I know how much you love your country. If a man came to you and promised to tell you how all your towns might be fortified at a slight cost, how all your youths might be instructed in the art of warfare, how your rivers might be made navigable and be filled with merchant-vessels, in short, how your state might be brought to a higher pitch of prosperity and security, you would give, not only your careful attention, but your heartiest thanks as well, to him who showed such solicitude for your welfare. And now, what is far more important than any of these things has been shown you, namely, the real and never-failing method by which a supply of such men may be secured, men who, by discoveries such as I have indicated, can be of immense service to their country. With truth did the sainted Luther write, when exhorting the cities of Germany to found schools: “Where one ducat is expended in building cities, fortresses, monuments, and arsenals, one hundred should be spent in educating one youth aright, since, when he reaches manhood, he may induce his fellows to carry out useful works. For a good and wise man is the most precious treasure of a state, and is of far more value than palaces, than heaps of gold and of silver, than gates of bronze and bars of iron.” Solomon also is of the same opinion (Eccles. ix. 13). If then we acknowledge that no expense should be spared in order to give one youth a thorough education, what can we say when the gate is opened to the universal education of all, and to an unfailing method by which the understanding may be developed? when God promises to shower His gifts upon us? when our salvation seems so near at hand that His glory dwells with us on earth?

20. Open wide your gates, O princes, that the King of glory may come in (Psalm xxiv.) Give to the Lord glory and honour, ye sons of the mighty. May each one of you be like David, who sware unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty one of Jacob: “Surely I will not come unto the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids; until I find out a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the Mighty One of Jacob” (Psalm cxxxii.) Stay not to consider the expense. Give to the Lord, and He will repay you a thousandfold. He who says, “The silver is mine and the gold is mine” (Haggai ii. 9), can demand this as a right, yet of His mercy He adds (when exhorting the people to build His temple): “Prove me now forthwith if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Mal. iii. 10).

21. Do Thou, therefore, O Lord our God, give each one of us a joyful heart to serve Thy glory as best he may. For Thine is the grandeur, the power, the glory, and the victory. All that is in heaven and in earth is Thine. Thine, O Lord, is the kingdom; Thou art over all princes. Thine are the riches, and Thine is the glory, the might, and the power; Thou canst glorify and magnify whatsoever Thou pleasest. For what are we, who have but received Thy gifts from Thy hands? We are but strangers in Thy sight as were our fathers. Our life on earth is but a shadow and passes away. O Lord our God, all that we do to the honour of Thy name, comes from Thee. Give to Thy Solomons a perfect heart that they may do all that tends to Thy glory (1 Chron. xxix.) Strengthen, O God, that which Thou hast wrought for us (Psalm lxviii. 28). Let Thy work appear unto Thy servants, and Thy glory upon their children. And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us; and establish Thou, the works of our hands upon us (Psalm xc. 16). In Thee, O Lord, have I trusted, let me never be confounded. Amen.