Deceptions and Blessings

This week in the Sojourners Bible Class we’re looking at Jacob’s deception of his father in Genesis 27. Over a century ago Biblical scholars determined that this story was written by an anonymous Hebrew storyteller we simply call “J”. Some of the most powerful stories in Genesis were written by J.   According to J, the reason Jacob left his family was because he had stolen his brother’s blessing. This is why he became “a wandering Aramean” who wrestled with God. Jacob was an exile from home, a deceiver forced to go an odyssey of self-discovery. Jacob steals a blessing but reaps bitterness and struggle. J does not present Jacob as a paragon of virtue, such as we depict our Founding Fathers, neither is he a hero and conqueror. He is the heel-grabber who labors and suffers for 20 years before being reconciled to his brother and family.

 Blessing:        The first thing to note about this story is the importance of the blessing by the father. It is a little hard for us to appreciate the passion of this story because we live in a world where words are cheap and rituals are empty of meaning. We hear a thousand messages each day, but have lost the ability to speak with one another about the things that really matter. We curse thoughtlessly and bless almost as carelessly, but language was still powerful and almost magical in biblical days. Walter Bruggemann (Genesis, p. 227-228) notes that the act of blessing forms the dramatic tension of the story: “Blessing is understood as a world-transforming act which cannot be denied by modern rationality. For the son as for the father, indeed for the entire family, the matter of the blessing is as dangerous as it is compelling.”

            Our popular culture mocks parents rather than looking to them for blessing and wisdom. This story of Jacob longing for his father’s blessing seems almost pathetic in a world that values the Simpsons. We are too cool, too worldly, too independent to need the blessing of a parent. We can dismiss with Jacob’s story and proclaim our liberation from such archaic rituals. So we pretend. But deep in our hearts, in that vulnerable center of our soul, is the son or daughter aching to hear a word of blessing from a parent.

            You probably remember what it was like to look for a smile or some sign that your parents were pleased with you, not for what you had done, but for who you are. You may recall what it was like to be on the cusp of full adult responsibility. You may remember what it was like to long for someone you admired place his or her hands on you and tell you that your life would turn out alright; that you were ready to make your place in the world. 

Jacob and Rebekah:                         The story of Isaac’s blessing has four major scenes with four main characters. First Isaac tells his favorite son, Esau that he wanted to bless him. Isaac knows that he will soon die, and, like a good father, he is putting his affairs in order. Esau runs off to do as his father commanded him. But off stage, or if you prefer, outside the tent Rebekah heard what Isaac told his son. Scene 2 has Rebekah and her favorite son, Jacob. Many interpreters are harsh on Isaac for having a favorite son, but they forgive Rebekah for doting on Jacob. Many people argue that Rebekah was trying to fulfill the will of God by helping her beloved son receive the blessing. That may be, but the most reasonable explanation for her actions is that she loved Jacob more than Esau.

            Rebekah knew that Jacob would take care of her after Isaac died. She may have even thought that Jacob would simply be a better clan leader than his impulsive brother. It could be that she, like all of us, acted for many reasons that she could not fully explain herself. But act she did. Whether you view her as a Lady Macbeth or a saint, she was the principal actor in this drama. She is the one who took charge of the situation and convinced her son to deceive her husband.

The Deception          The third scene involves Jacob deceiving Isaac by pretending to be his brother. There is a bit of obvious comedy in the deception itself, which I think was intended. The 1960s British comedian Alan Bennet grasped some of the inherent humor of the phrase “But my brother Esau is a hairy man, but I am a smooth man.” There is a pun in Hebrew here that still works in English, by the way. Jacob is a smooth customer. We could call him Slick Jake, but Esau is hairy man. So hairy, in fact, that Jacob wears goat skins on his hands and neck. I am sure that in ancient times they laughed about that just as much as we would today.

            Lest you are tempted to exonerate Jacob for his deception, notice how far he goes. When his father questions him, Jacob lies. When he returns too quickly with the food that Rebekah has already prepared for him, he mixes his lies with impiety. “The LORD your God granted me success,” he says. The LORD will not become Jacob’s God until much later at Peniel. Now Jacob, like many people in our own country, uses the name of God in vain to add credence to his deceptions. Genesis does not try to excuse Jacob’s actions. That is left up to preachers and rabbis through the centuries who are embarrassed that the father of Israel was a scoundrel in his youth. 

            But this is just a bit of comic relief in a scene filled with pathos. Isaac is blind and dying, and he wants to put his affairs in order. He wants to pass on his legacy and his blessing to the next generation. He has chosen Esau as his successor, but he literally cannot see the future. Isaac was in the situation that some of us may be in today. We want to establish our legacy, to make sure we have an impact on the future, but we cannot see what our successors will do, what our children will do. We have to act as best we can with our limited powers and vision, leaving the final result to God, whose purposes are sometimes different than our own. There is also pathos in the fact that Jacob feels that he must deceive his father rather than coming to him and speaking in his own voice. Jacob has to steal his brother’s identity to receive the love of his own father. Isaac remains suspicious of this smooth talker, but the smell of Esau’s clothing convinces him. Jacob leaves with his father’s benediction.

Esau and Isaac           The fourth scene is an agonizing scene between Esau and Isaac. What is most surprising in this scene is that the author appears to be so sympathetic to Esau, who was the ancestor of one of the enemies of Israel. Genesis displays remarkable insight into the complexity of human society and human motives. It is not a simple morality tale, but Genesis does teach us that some things cannot be undone, even if they were done in error. We have become accustomed to fixing mistakes, expunging police records, and making fresh starts. We are guided by the myth that “tomorrow is another day,” and that we don’t have to live with the consequence of what we did today. That’s not how the world is. Isaac gave his blessing and would not go back on his word. Esau had to live with the results of that decision.

            Lest we be too sympathetic with Esau, though, we have to acknowledge that his fate was no worse than Jacob’s would have been had things gone as Isaac planned. Jacob lied and tricked his way to a blessing intended for Esau, but Esau was not cursed. This is important to note because later Jewish and Christian tradition was very harsh on Esau. In fact, John Calvin defended his doctrine of predestination on the grounds that God had predestined Jacob for blessing and damned Esau, just as he saves some of us and damns others. Calvin argued that God’s ways are inscrutable and cannot be changed by the actions of humans, but he read too much into this story. Esau was not cursed. His life, like that of Ishmael, would be one of struggle, but he had four wives and became very wealthy in his own right.

Exile:              In the final scene, we see Rebekah and Jacob again. They now have to live with the consequences of their actions. If Rebekah had hoped that Isaac’s blessing would mean that her beloved son would be able to stay with her and take care of her, she was wrong. If Jacob had hoped that his father’s blessing would mean that he would become the head of the family and be respected by his brother, he was wrong. If either of them thought that their deception would go undetected or unpunished, they were wrong. Actions have consequences. Esau hated his brother.

            This recalls the earlier story of Cain and Abel. Abel was the younger brother whose offering was acceptable to God. Cain hated his brother and killed him. When we discussed that story many of us were bothered by the fact that no explanation was given for why Abel was blessed and Cain rejected. But in our story for today, we know why Esau hated Jacob. Rebekah did not need to go to Sunday School to figure out that Esau would kill Jacob as soon as Isaac had been buried. So she acted again to save her beloved son. She sent him away to Haran, to the home of her brother Laban, who was powerful enough to protect him from the wrath of Esau. 

            Rebekah says something very interesting as she sends Jacob away: “Why should I lose both of you in one day?” It is ambiguous whether she is discussing the loss of Jacob and Esau or Jacob and Isaac. The latter makes sense in terms of both them dying on the same day, but the former seems more likely in the context. Rebekah knows that she has lost the love of her son Esau by robbing him of his blessing, and she cannot bear the thought of losing the life of other son. She is a tragic figure here, so different from the bright young woman who received a nose ring years before. Now she is trapped in her own actions. In order to save the life of the son she loved most, she must lose him. We shall see that Isaac’s blessing does eventually come true for Jacob, but not in the way Rebekah intended. Jacob will prosper, but only after years of toil and hardship. He leaves for Haran, and mother and son will not be reunited for 20 years. 

The Jacob Saga

We’ve been discussing the book of Genesis on Sunday mornings in the Sojourners Class at Central Moravian. Today we are beginning the stories about Jacob, and I thought you might be interested. Some of this material was posted earlier on the blog.

Overview of Jacob Saga:      Last week we discussed the prelude to the Jacob and Esau saga. We will be spending several weeks examining the story of Jacob in some detail, and it might be helpful to have an overview of that saga since it is one of the longest sections of Genesis (ch. 25-36). One reason Jacob is so compelling is that he is so much like us. His struggles with God mirror our own struggles with God. And in the final analysis, the major religious point of the Jacob saga appears to be profoundly simple. God chose Jacob despite his flaws rather than because of his strengths. And that may be the message for us as well. We are chosen for reasons we cannot fathom and despite our unworthiness. Though we struggle, God remains faithful to us. 

First of all, we should note that in many ways, it is Jacob, not Abraham who is the central figure in Genesis. Though Abraham was the great ancestor of faith who first answered the call of God, the tribes of Israel would be named for Jacob. Jacob experiences the most significant change of name in the Bible, going from Jacob (heel-grabber) to Israel, the one who strives with God. Jacob’s story is a story of striving and conflict. Unlike Isaac who moved repeatedly in order to avoid violence, Jacob struggles with everyone he encounters in the world. He struggles with Esau, his mother, his father, Laban, his wives, and even God himself. God will change his name to Israel, and it is a fitting name for Jacob the scrapper. Israel will be the name of the tribes who descended from Jacob. They will strive with God all well.

            The Jacob saga is made up of many different stories that probably came from a variety of sources that scholars refer to as J, E, and P, but the final version as we have it is a masterpiece of literature. It has been carefully assembled so that the sum of the parts is greater than the parts alone. There is a careful symmetry in the story. It begins with the conflict with Esau and Jacob’s flight from his family, and it ends with the reconciliation with Esau and Jacob’s return to Canaan with his own family. So we have an odyssey here. The main character leaves his home, but cannot return until he has completed his quest.

            When he returns he is both different and the same. During his odyssey, Jacob has two significant religious experiences. The first is his famous vision at Bethel when he sees the stairway to heaven. The second is his encounter with God at Peniel when he receives a new name as well as a limp. Each religious experience marks a significant transition in Jacob’s life while affirming that Jacob has been chosen by the LORD. In the middle of Jacob’s odyssey is his time in exile in Haran when he labored for Laban. The climax of his story is the birth of his 12 sons as the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.

              It appears that the Jacob stories originated in the North, with the 10 northern tribes of Israel. The Abraham and Isaac stories are more closely associated with the southern kingdom of Judah. We can tell this in part from the place names. Beersheba is the key shrine for the Abraham stories, while Bethel is the main shrine in the north. We don’t have time to go into the whole history of Israel here, but it is helpful to remember that there were twelve tribes of Israel. The most important tribe was Judah, and that tribe established a separate kingdom after the death of Solomon. It is from Judah that we get the words Judaism, Jew, and Judea. Judah lasted longer as a kingdom than Israel did, and it was in Judah that the Old Testament as we know it was written. Most of the time when we think of Israel, we are thinking of Judah.

            The ten northern tribes disappeared after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, but they were very important. The kingdom of Israel was different from Judah. In many ways, it was wealthier and more powerful, but it was also less stable. The prophets played a key role in the politics of the north, occasionally even anointing warriors to overthrow the king. The north was never as unified as Judah was, and its holy places were destroyed. The Samaritans were the descendents of Israel and maintained some of the old religion of the Israelites. As we can see in the New Testament, there was conflict between Jews and Samaritans for centuries. Some of that conflict is reflected in the Jacob saga. The complexity of the Jacob saga and the moral ambiguity of its main character reflect the complexity and ambiguity of human society itself.

 

 

Palm Sunday – Binding of Isaac

I’m reposting a lesson for this Sunday that I did several years ago. I’m teaching on this tomorrow at Central Moravian. 

Genesis 22 – The Binding of Isaac 

Adult Bible Class of Home Moravian Church, originally broadcast April 9, 2006

 

Fear and Trembling: This week we are turning our attention to a story that has traditionally been seen as prefiguring or fore-shadowing of the Easter story. Before reading Genesis 22, I want to share with you some thoughts from Soren Kierkegaard’s work Fear and Trembling (p. 63)  . Kierkegaard warned about the tendency of pastors to preach this text too easily, too quickly. “One mounts a winged horse, the same instant one is at Mount Moriah, the same instant one sees the ram; one forgets that Abraham rode only upon an ass, which walks slowly along the road, that he had a journey of three days, that he needed some time to cleave the wood, to bind Isaac, and to sharpen the knife. And yet they extol Abraham. He who is to deliver the discourse can very well sleep till a quarter of an hour before he has to preach, the auditor can well take a nap during the discourse, for all goes smoothly, without the least trouble from any quarter.” Being mindful of Kierkegaard’s admonition, today we will take the slow road to Moriah, and we will find that the path is dreadful. Perhaps, like Kierkegaard, will find that that true faith lies on the other side of despair.

Child Sacrifice: In Genesis 22, God demands that Abraham offer his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice. You have probably heard this story before, maybe even in Sunday School, but it can be a dangerous story if mishandled. All powerful things, including the Bible, can be destructive if used carelessly. I find it harder to preach on this text than I did when I was a younger man. All you have to do is read the newspapers to know what parents are capable of. I know that you have at times cried when you learned of the death of a child that was caused by a parent’s neglect, anger, abuse, or insanity. Now that I am older and know more about the evil of the world, I am wary when I speak on passages like Genesis 22. There are those who hear voices in their heads urging them to imitate Abraham or Jephtha and kill their children. It is not just the insane or the evil who justify their crimes with stories such as this. It is also politicians and zealots who sacrifice young men and women in senseless wars; who ignore the deaths of children when they drop their bombs or blow themselves up. Today, it is too easy to sacrifice children to whatever god we truly worship, whether it be greed or pride or fear. Let us pause to remember all of the children who have been sacrificed blasphemously, and let us proceed with our lesson in fear and trembling. 

Read Genesis 22

Strangeness: Like many great stories, Genesis 22 is both compelling and frightening. It captures our imaginations and speaks to primal fears and desires. Walter Bruggemann describes it as “among the best known and theologically most demanding in the Abraham tradition” (Genesis, 185). He could have gone further and said that it is one of the best known and most demanding stories in the Bible itself, perhaps in Western literature. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin wrestled with this text because it both confirmed and shattered their theological ideas. For Luther, this passage revealed a contradiction in God himself. God willed that which he otherwise forbade and took back that which he had promised. 

If you have been following our lessons in Genesis, you know that Isaac was not just any child. He was the child of the promise. He was the reason Abraham had left all that he knew in Ur and became a wanderer in Canaan. Isaac was the proof that God was faithful to his promises to Abraham. Isaac, the laughing boy, was the future, but God demanded that Abraham kill this child of promise. And Abraham agreed to God’s demand. Which is the most terrifying?

End of Child Sacrifice: Genesis 22 was almost certainly written after the destruction of the Jewish temple, when the people were taken into exile. It is part of the struggle to make sense of the fact that the God of Abraham had let his beloved child, Israel, be abused by the Babylonians. We can read this story in terms of the debate among the priests and prophets of Israel over the meaning of the exile. Would God destroy Israel or provide a way out? In contemplating the smoke rising from Auschwitz, the story of the binding of Isaac as a burnt sacrifice gained new poignancy in the 20^th century.

In reading Genesis 22, we need to keep in mind that Abraham did not actually sacrifice Isaac. He intended to, but Isaac survived the ordeal. For over a century, historians of religion have argued that this story marked the transition from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. The ram substitutes for the first-born son. We know other ancient societies sacrificed children to appease the gods, but the Bible consistently forbids this. The God of Abraham rejected human sacrifice for all time, just as the God of Noah placed a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his covenant with the earth. The God of Israel may have been frightening, but he was always the faithful partner in the covenant. It was the God of Abraham who provided the world a moral law that protects the weak. 

Dread: On one level I am content to view this story as an ancient memory of the time when animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice. But that doesn’t do justice to the story itself. It is one of the most artfully crafted stories ever written. It is a story that invites us to explore the complexities and difficulties of life and morality. Kierkegaard captures the strangeness and difficulty of this text succinctly: “The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac, but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without this dread.” (41) Rather than give a simple catechism answer to this tale as a story of faithful obedience, let’s enter into this dreadful story. 

It begins with the simple statement that God tested Abraham. The Hebrew word for tested is translated elsewhere as tempted. God tempted Abraham. Does God test Abraham’s faith or does he tempt Abraham into doing something abominable? Or is it both? This gives an interesting perspective on the Lord’s Prayer. When we pray to God that he not lead us into temptation, we should think of Abraham. We pray that we never be put through the ordeal that Abraham faced; the ordeal of having to choose between our obedience to God and our obedience to God’s moral law; between our love for God and our love for our children.

The testing begins with God’s call, just as God called upon Abraham to leave Ur. Abraham responds “Here I am.” Abraham does not hide from the deity who has called him by name. His reply is a prophetic response; a placing of oneself at the hands of God to be used by God. “Here I am!” I am ready, willing, and able. Abraham does not yet dread the demands of God, but then he heard the words, “Take your son, whom you love.” 

Beloved Son: The translator Stephen Mitchell argues that the Hebrew here should not be translated “your only son,” as in most English versions. Isaac is not his only son, but he is the beloved son, the son of the promise. This emphasis on Isaac as the beloved is more than a way to heighten the drama of the story. We who hear this tale need to be assured at the beginning that Abraham loves Isaac. Love means that we protect our children; that we do everything in our power to bring them to adulthood; that we nurture them and care for them. Abraham loved Isaac. He wanted him to grow up, get married, and have children. He not want him to die.

The whole meaning of Abraham’s life was bound up with Isaac. Isaac was the proof that God kept his promises. Isaac was the child of the promise, the hope for the future, the living embodiment of Abraham’s hopes and dreams. Genesis does not tell us if Abraham loved Sarah or Hagar or anyone else, but it does say that he loved Isaac. This fact separates this story from all of those horrifying tales of child abuse and murder. Abraham loved Isaac as much as he loved himself – as much as he loved God. 

Many Muslim scholars believe that the beloved child in this story was Ishmael, the first born, which would make sense. It was ancient practice to offer the first-born as a sacrifice to God. We see this in the Exodus story when the Angel kills the first-born sons of the Egyptians but accepts the sacrifice of a lamb in exchange for the Israelite sons. In Genesis, though, Abraham has already given Ishmael up at the request of Sarah. So it will be Sarah’s son who is to be sacrificed. Isaac, the one she doted on, is to be slaughtered and burned as a offering to God. Abraham left while it was dark, perhaps so Sarah would not see him take the boy away from her. But perhaps she did know and spent the night in anguish. Perhaps this was her penance for sending Ishmael away, but this is not Sarah’s story. It is Isaac and Abrahams: father and son.

The Dreadful Journey: We do not know how old Isaac was, but he seems to be about the age of puberty. Some see this journey to Moriah as part of an ancient puberty ritual. We no longer know for sure. All we are told is that Abraham listened to God’s command. Without complaint, he prepared for the journey. What was he thinking as he saddled the donkey and cut the wood for the fire that would consume his son, his future, his faith, and his life? Three days they walked to the sacred mountain. Three days of dread and silence. Three days without laughter; without tears; without prayer. Three days of anguish. 

Finally they see the sacred mountain. They leave the servants behind so that no one will see the heinous crime. Isaac has to carry the wood for his own offering because the father carried the knife and the fire. Abraham carried death and destruction as they walked. Finally, Isaac speaks. He will not be like the lamb led to slaughter who does not open his mouth, but he does ask the question of innocence: “Father?” Father – a reminder to Abraham of his responsibilities and his joys. How many of us have asked that same one word question? Father?

Abraham responded to his son just as he responded to the Lord. “Here I am.” But the meaning of these words have changed. Now the words are filled with sorrow, with the silent tears of a shattered heart. No longer words of willing faith. Now they are laden with tragedy and dread. Yes, I am your father, for a little while. You are my precious child. Here I am, my son. 

Provision: Isaac, the lamb trusting his father, asks: “Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?” God will provide, is the answer. Interpreters disagree on the meaning of this. Is Abraham deceiving Isaac until the critical moment? Is this a statement of faith that God will provide a way out of this test? Could it be that Abraham has faith that God will overcome this contradiction in himself and provide a way? Some assert that it was not God testing Abraham in this story; it is Abraham who is testing God. Abraham is telling Isaac that God will surely change his mind. God will be faithful to his promise. God will prove worthy of Abraham’s devotion and sacrifice. God himself will provide the lamb.

This story is remembered differently in Islam. The child was also a prophet who knows that he will be sacrificed. He willingly submits to the will of God and the will of his father. It is the son who willingly carries the wood and offers his throat to the knife. Perhaps. 

There is an ancient Jewish legend that Abraham looked down at the face of his son as he raised the knife. A tear fell from the old man’s eye. A single tear that encompassed all of the misery of Abraham’s shattered life and his impossible choice. The tear fell into Isaac’s eye, blinding the boy. This was why Isaac could not see well later in life. He remained blinded by the grief of his father. We are not told what effect this terrifying episode had on Isaac as a person, but we do learn that Isaac’s name for God was simply Fear. The Fear of Isaac. 

The Ram: And in the moment of crisis, the LORD spoke. He called Abraham’s name twice, and yet again, Abraham responds with those words “Here I am.” Again, the meaning of these words has changed. Does Abraham respond in fear, in resignation, in anger, or in hope? You decide. This is the last time in the Bible that Abraham speaks to the LORD. We do not know if God ever called his name again, but we have no more stories of Abraham saying “here I am.” One senses that Abraham said “Enough.” He made the final sacrifice. He had offered his son, whom he loved to the LORD. Abraham passed the test, or perhaps God passed the test. Enough.

Abraham looked up and saw a ram to sacrifice instead of his son, and he named the place Jehovah Jireh: the LORD will provide or the LORD sees. Remember that the word provide comes from the Latin pro-video, or to look ahead. The LORD saw what Abraham was doing and he provided a way out of the crisis. As with the miracle of Hagar’s well, miracles are often a matter of seeing the solution that has always been there. 

Making Sense of the Story: And here we are on this beautiful Sunday morning preparing to sing to the Hosanna in worship. We have taken the dreadful journey with Abraham and Isaac to Moriah, but what sense do we make of this story? We could talk about our lives today as we ruthlessly sacrifice our children’s happiness to our ambitions, our over-work, and our selfish neglect. But that doesn’t fit this story from Genesis. Abraham was sacrificing his hopes and ambitions along with Isaac. 

We could interpret this story as an example of absolute obedience to the will of God, but is that all it is? We could conclude that this is about the test of faith, but what was the test? That Abraham believed that God would indeed provide a substitute for Isaac? That Abraham would murder his son at God’s command? Or that God would remain faithful to the covenant? 

Perhaps this is a story about idolatry and the need to achieve that perfect state of renunciation and detachment that the mystics speak of. If we speak of detachment, though, we must remember that means sacrificing all the things of this world; it means selflessness, which is different from the selfish way we sacrifice our children. When we face the dreadful journey to Moriah and come to the point of desperation, then we learn to distinguish between the renunciation of faith and the detachment of narcissism. 

What message or messages does this story of human sacrifice from ancient days have for us today? I am not sure, but as we approach Good Friday, we should ponder the mystery of the testing of Abraham as we contemplate the death of Jesus. According to Christian teaching, God demanded of himself what he once asked of Abraham. The tear that blinded the eye of Isaac of Moriah fell from the eye of God. Next week we will gather before dawn to proclaim the good news that death has been overcome.  

 

Moravian Baptism

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

Hope Moravian 8-5-12

On the occasion of the baptism of my grandson Jacob Crawford Wooten

Opening:                 A man died and went to heaven.  When he arrived St. Peter took him on a tour of the heavenly kingdom.  Just as Jesus had said, there was indeed a room for everyone, but to the man’s surprise, they were not private suites.  In fact, there was a room for every denomination.  One room was filled with the scent of incense and the sounds of millions of people chanting.  The man figured these were the Catholics.  Next to it was a very small room filled with people drinking coffee and singing German hymns.  Of course, these were the Moravians.  Yet another room had decent and orderly people discussing theology.  Obviously Presbyterians.  Finally they came to a room that had the windows covered and the door locked.  St. Peter motioned to be quiet.  Carefully the man peered through the peep hole and saw a bunch of men and women arguing about when the Second Coming would be.  When the tour was over, the man asked Peter about the mysterious room.  The good saint sadly shook his head and said, “Those are the fundamentalists.  They think they are the only ones up here.” 

Baptism Controversies             Over the centuries the Christian Church has been divided into many different churches. In the United States alone there are about 400 different denominations. There are more kinds of Baptists than there are books in the Bible. Churches disagree about many things and divide for different reasons, but some of the biggest arguments in the history of Christianity have centered around the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion. Churches disagree over the meaning of these rituals and how they should be observed. Do you immerse people in running water the way John the Baptist did? Do you pour water over their heads or sprinkle them? Do you baptize people when they are infants or wait until they are able to make vows for themselves?

            Historically Moravians have not liked to get involved in these kinds of arguments. We tend to have a live and let live attitude toward other churches. If they want to baptize in a certain way, we are not going to criticize them. We have tended to believe that if Jesus and Paul had really wanted Christians to baptize people in a particular way or at a particular age or with particular words, then there would have been more explicit instructions in the New Testament. Baptism is mentioned several times, but the closest thing we get to a specific instruction is that we should baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moravians, like many churches, apply water three times for the Father, Son, and Spirit, but that is not required. It is just a nice way of symbolizing that people are baptized in the name of the whole Trinity.

            Some people like to point out that every baptism in the New Testament involves the baptism of an adult, but sometimes we are told that a whole household was baptized at the same time. Presumably the household included children, but we do not know for sure. What we do know is that most of the people baptized in the early church were converting to Christianity from another religion. Most of them were adults who were making a dramatic change in their lives. Baptism marked a significant transition from paganism to Christianity. It was only after the church was established that children were born into the faith and baptized as infants. No one knows for sure when the church started baptizing infants, but for many centuries this was the normal practice throughout the Christian world. It was only about 500 years ago that some Christians objected to infant baptism and started new churches that only baptized adults. We happen to live in one of the few regions in the world where believer’s baptism is common. Moravians baptize children born into the church, but we do not criticize churches that only baptize adults.

One Lord, One Baptism            One of the key Scripture passages about baptism in the New Testament is found in the Letter to the Ephesians that I read a few minutes ago. “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” This little passage tells us several very important things about baptism. Baptism is an act of faith in the Lord. We do not baptize people to make them Moravian or Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. We baptize them so they will know that they belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is a public action that marks someone as a Christian. Moravians have always emphasized that it is actually the Holy Spirit who baptizes; the minister is just God’s human agent. Our ministers wear the white robe as a reminder that it is not Craig Atwood or David Merritt who baptizes; it is the Holy Spirit. So long as a baptism is performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with the intention of marking a person as a Christian, the baptism is valid no matter who does it. There is one Lord and one Baptism.

            Even though churches do baptism in different ways, every baptism is valid if the goal of the baptism is to dedicate a person’s life to the one Lord. This is why Moravians do not require you to get rebaptized if you join our church from another church. This is also why we do not rebaptize adults who were baptized as children. There is one Lord and one baptism, not many baptisms. All who have been baptized in the Christian faith belong to the same Lord even though different churches may disagree and fight. Some of you come from large families, and you know that you belong to your family even when you disagree with your brothers and sisters. Baptism is the sign that we belong to the family of Christ even if we disagree about things like baptism and holy communion. This morning we received Jacob Wooten as a member of this congregation, but morning importantly we received him as a member of the Christian Church. He became part of the household of faith that extends throughout the world. He is now in the covenant of grace. The waters of baptism did not make him a Moravian, they made him a Christian. When he grows older he will need to claim that identity for himself and confirm his faith, but he should never doubt that he belongs in Christ’s church and that his soul has been purchased with the blood of the Savior.

Moravian Baptism         Each time we baptize someone in a congregation, it is a good time to reflect on what we are doing and why. I hope you take the time to think about the words we say in our baptismal rite; there is a lot there to ponder. Moravians believe that baptism makes a public statement that a person is in the covenant of grace. This is why we baptize children instead of waiting. As you probably know, Jews circumcise boys when they are eight days old as a way to mark them as Jewish. Circumcision is a sign that a child has become part of the covenant made with Abraham. The parents take on the obligation of teaching the boy all of the laws of Judaism and to respect God. There is a lot about circumcision in the Old Testament, but Christians did not circumcise their children. Paul in the New Testament argued that circumcision was part of the Old Covenant of the law; baptism is the sign of the new covenant in Christ. Women as well as men are part of this covenant. Children as well as adults are part of the covenant.

            Grace means gift. According to the New Testament we are not saved by our own efforts. We are not saved because we do heroic things or because we have the kind of faith that can move mountains. We are not saved because we are saints. We are saved because we are sinners. We are saved because of what Jesus did for us. We are saved not because we deserve it, but because God loves us with an infinite love. We are saved because our Lord sacrificed himself for us; because he defeated the powers of sin, death, and the devil. Salvation is a gift from God and all we need to do is accept God’s gift in faith. This is why Moravians baptize babies. We know that some things are hidden from the wise and prudent, but are revealed to babes. Each time a pastor takes a child and pours the waters of baptism on his or her head, each of us is reminded that we should come to God in childlike faith. No matter how old you were when you were baptized, you came into the church like a newborn babe. You had to be lifted up by the Holy Spirit and held in the loving arms of God.

Conclusion             We baptize infants because we believe that parents have an obligation to raise their children into the faith – to teach them that the world is God’s good creation; to teach them that they have a Savior who loves them; and to teach them to rely on the strength of the Holy Spirit. We baptize infants because we trust this congregation to live up to its promise to care for children and show them week after week that they are beloved children of God. We baptize infants because we believe that it takes a church to raise a child. We baptize infants because we expect every person to continue to grow as a follower of Jesus. Baptism is not the climax of the spiritual journey; it is the first step toward heaven. The day will come when Jacob will stand on his own and proclaim that he believes in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; when he will proclaim that he chooses to live according to the teachings of Christ; and that he will be a living representative of Christ in the world. Until that day, it our responsible to protect him from harm, to teach him the meaning of right and wrong, to show him what it means to be a Christian, to hold him in loving arms, and to let him know that he is belongs in the household of God.

 

Jan Hus

Today is the anniversary of the martyrdom of Jan Hus in 1415. Hus is a Czech national hero and a saint to members of the Moravian Church, but he really belongs to the whole world. Though some still consider him a heretic, we should all be inspired by his courageous opposition to abuse, corruption, deception, and violence in the church. Like many people who stand up for truth in a age of lies, Hus became a victim of the oppression he opposed. He burned alive at the stake in a public ceremony intended to intimidate all who might follow in his reform effort. The most powerful people in Europe were frightened by this little priest from Bohemia and the books he had written. They ground up his ashes and scattered them in the river so his memory would be erased. They wanted him to one of the many who have been “disappered,” but the flame they kindled in Constance ignited the people of Bohemia and Moravia. A reformation began that continues to this day whenever ordinary people speak truth to power and remain faithful to the law of Christ in dangerous times.

American Academy of Religion

Right now I’m sitting in the San Francisco airport waiting to start the long cross-country trek. This was a fun conference since I did not have to present, chair a session, or do anything but show up. I attended two sessions sponsored by the Colloquium on Religion and Violence, which deals primarily with the philosophy of Rene Girard, whom I used in my dissertation. One paper was a fascinating discussion of the movie the Dark Knight in terms of Girard. The author convinced me that we should not view the end of the movie in terms of Christ’s vicarious atonement, the way some evangelicals have, but rather as a satanic (in Girard’s sense) escalation of scapegoating. The key to the argument is that The Batman chooses to hide the truth in order to preserve the civil order instead of unmasking the violence that has corrupted the highest echelons of public order. Batman and the Joker are locked in a mimemic rivalry in which each defines the other. The Christlike sacrifice in the movie is actually when the prisoner on the ferry chooses death rather than killing innocent people.

I also attended a very erudite session on the church historian Eusebius, which gave me lots to think about regarding how Eusebius used earlier sources in creating his narrative of the church.

Julie came with me, and we had time to enjoy the city. It’s my fourth time to SF and I never get tired of the Cable Cars. This time one broke and we got to see them replace the clutch that holds the cable. There’s a sermon in there!  We also went to the Seal Rocks. I’ll put the pictures on Facebook. Of course we ate roasted crab at Fisherman’s Wharf. I really want an action figure of Worf from SNG dressed as a fisherman now. We also drank Irish Coffee in a pub looking at the Bay. Beautiful!

Now we’re homeward bound. Over six hours in planes today, but soon we’ll be back with our daughters for Thanksgiving. There is so much to be grateful for, especially this year.

Power point slides of lectures

It was a busy fall with lectures and conferences in addition to the normal teaching load. I’ve posted several sets of powerpoint slides on the website for the Center for Moravian Studies: http://www.moravianstudies.org.  Some of the lectures are here on the blog, but many people wanted to see the slides. Some of them are repeated since topics did overlap, but here’s the list:

Motherhood of the Holy Spirit in the 18th century Moravian Church – lecture given at Moravian College

Moravian Civic Values – lecture given for the Bethlehem Rotary Club

Moravian Pacifism – lecture and discussion at Moravian Theological Seminary

Sister Judges, Elders, and Priests: Offices for Women in Moravian History – lecture given at the Moravian Archives

Moravian Theology 101 – workshop given for the Lay Seminary program in Winston-Salem

Moravian Roots of Moravian College – lecture given for Moravian College alumnae/alumni

I hope you enjoy the slides!

 

Power point on Moravian women’s leadership

Sister Judges, Elders, and Deacons

Exciting conference coming up next year!

file://localhost/Users/craigatwood/Desktop/99.jpg

Women Leadership in the Moravian Church

Sister Judges and Deaconnesses: Offices for Women in the Moravian Church

Presented at the Moravian Archives, Sept. 13, 2011

Introduction  [Slide 2]  Women “also are formed in the image of God, and share in His grace and in the kingdom of the world to come. They are endowed with equal sharpness of mind and capacity for knowledge (often with more than the opposite sex), and they are able to attain the highest positions, since they have often been called by God Himself to rule over nations, to give sound advice to kings and princes, to the study of medicine and other things which benefit the human race, even to the office of prophesying and of inveighing against priests and bishops. Why, therefore, should we admit them to the alphabet, and afterwards drive them away from books?”[1]

[Slide 3] So wrote Moravian bishop John Amos Comenius in his Great Didactic three and a half centuries ago. Comenius was writing to educated men in a society that systematically and sometimes brutally denied women the opportunity to pursue their own sense of vocation and develop fully as beloved children of God. Comenius was writing to a society that tolerated violence against women in their own homes and that largely ignored the suffering of poor women without homes.

Comenius was a prominent public witness to the traditional Moravian belief that all of God’s children should be valued and encouraged to pursue their vocations in the world. This evening we are going to take a brief tour of the role women played in the leadership of the Moravian Church. We will see that the Moravians centuries ago were very progressive in their ideas of women’s leadership, but after the death of Zinzendorf they adopted the sexist norms of their society. When Moravians in Europe began ordaining women after World War II, many people thought this was something new and radical. Little did the average Moravian know that their church had a long history of appointing women to leadership offices.

Ancient Unity             [Slide 4] Many of you are familiar with John Hus who was killed because of his opposition to injustice, but you may not know about the Taborites who were the direct ancestors of the Moravian Church. Four years after Hus’s death, thousands of men and women gathered on a hill in southern Bohemia to celebrate communion. They renamed the hill Mt. Tabor, the name of the mountain on which Jesus was transfigured before his disciples. We have the following description of what happened on Mt. Tabor:  “The people having been divided into groups, the men by themselves and the women and children by themselves, the more learned and eloquent priests, from early morning on, fearlessly preached the Word of God and especially those things that concern the pride, avarice, and arrogance of the clergy. There all called each other brother and sister, and the rich divided the food that they had prepared for themselves with the poor.”[2]

[Slide 5] The Taborites attempted to create a more just and equitable society based on Acts 4, but they ultimately failed to transform Bohemian Society. Eventually the Church of Tabor was destroyed by the rulers of Bohemia, but the idealism of that first communion on the mountain made its way into the old Moravian Church. Women were not ordained to the priesthood by the Taborites, but they played a major role in the Taborite church. They were teachers and even took part of worship leadership. True to Hussite principles, they were allowed to drink from the chalice in communion, unlike women in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Inquisition repeatedly expressed its frustration that Taborite women were educated and could discuss Scripture better than many trained theologians. Some of them claim that this was proof that the devil was working at Tabor.

[Slide 6] Some of the survivors of Tabor formed the nucleus of Unity of the Brethren, which Moravians often refer to as the Ancient Unity.[3] Although the name of the church sounds sexist today, from the beginning the church recognized that sisters were equally members of the body of Christ. The Brethren did not ordain women as priests, but they did have an office in the church for women. Women could be “congregational Judges.” The Judges in the Unity were similar to modern elders, in that they assisted the pastor in his duties of oversight. Form the instruction manuals for the judges we learn that they heard confessions and helped people improve their behavior and attitudes. Judges were trained to settle disputes within the congregation and were expected to be wise enough to prevent disputes from developing. Clearly Judges were people of respect and authority within the congregation.

What is significant for our talk this evening is that in the 15th century the Moravian Church set some women apart in the congregation as pastoral leaders. This is a rare example women being instructed and counseled by women religious authorities outside of convents. Unfortunately we do not know much about the Sister Judges, only that they did the same kinds of pastoral care that the Brother judges did.

Zinzendorf Era  [Slide 7] You are probably familiar with the name Count Zinzendorf and the village of Herrnhut in Germany where the Moravian Church was resurrected after having been destroyed by Catholic authorities. The church created at Herrnhut was not the same as the old Unity of the Brethren in Bohemia, but many of the ideals of the old Brethren found new life in Zinzendorf’s community. The Moravians were one of the most controversial Christian groups in the 18th century. To be a Moravian at that time was to be a member of the most egalitarian and multi-cultural organization in the Western world. [Slide 8]  It was not perfect by any means, but it was only in Moravian communities that you could find European aristocrats calling Africans, Native Americans, and European peasants “brother” and “sister” and even kneeling to wash their feet. Many of the most beloved practices of the Moravians today, such as the lovefeast, had their origin in Zinzendorf’s radical vision of the New Jerusalem where all followers of Christ are brothers and sisters.

[Slide 9] One of the most important leaders in the early Moravian Church was Countess Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf. She was raised in a very pious household at Ebersdorf in Germany where the mystic Hochman von Hochenau was a preacher. She and the count viewed their marriage as a partnership for the service of Christ, and she played an important role in managing the affairs of the Zinzendorf household and the church. She travelled as far as Russia to advocate for the Moravians and was the author of many hymns. Zinzendorf once claimed that his theological principles came from her. Erdmuth was given the important office of the Charnier or Hinge for the church at the same synod that elected Christ as Chief Elder. Most Moravians simply called her “Mama.”

[Slide 10] One of the most shocking things the Herrnhuters did in the early days was to select women to serve as elders alongside of the men. One of the first elders to be chosen was Anna Nitschmann who was just a teen-ager when she assumed office. Anna later founded the Single Sisters Choir and was part of the inner circle that governed Moravian affairs for thirty years. She travelled extensively, and was a participant in some of the most momentous decisions of the church, most notably the election of Christ as Chief Elder. In addition, she wrote hymns and was a much beloved counselor. Eventually she was ordained as a deacon and later became one of the first female presbyters in the Moravian Church. That’s right, she was ordained as a presbyter, but in Moravian circles she was simply called “Mutter.”

[Slide 11] Some of radical Protestant churches, like the Quakers, allowed women to preach and teach, but it appears that the Moravians were the first church with formal ministerial ordination that ordained women. At least they were the first church since the early days of Christianity. It is possible that the Moravians knew about deaconesses in early Christianity. Certainly they saw that there were women in the New Testament who held office. According to Zinzendorf the Holy Spirit anointed one hundred and twenty people to the apostolic preaching office at Pentecost, including women. He claimed through that “an equality in the teaching office between the sisters and brothers” was made that has not stopped.[4]  [Slide 12]

Zinzendorf recognized that many women are identified in the New Testament as disciples, prophets, co-workers, deacons, and even apostles. He believed that the church should strive to live up to the standard of the New Testament, and under his leadership, the Moravian Church provided many leadership roles for women denied them in other churches. Historian Peter Vogt has shown that most of the pastoral care of women was carried out by women who were ordained. Some of these women even preached publicly.[5]

[Slide 13] Scholars have identified over two hundred women who were ordained deaconesses during the time of Zinzendorf . There were also fourteen Priesterinnen (female priests or presbyters) who were ordained in secret We know that these women assisted in serving communion and leading other liturgical services, but it is not clear if they consecrated the sacraments.[6] We should not make too much of the fact that these deacons and presbyters were deaconesses and eldresses. It appears that these offices were the equivalent of the male offices, but we do not know for sure. In any case, I think that it is time that the Moravian Church officially acknowledges that it first ordained women in the 1730s rather than 1957. The fact that Zinzendorf’s successors tried to bury this history does not make it any less true.

It is significant that the female presbyters were ordained by bishops, just like the men. The Moravians were one of the few Protestant churches that claimed its bishops were in apostolic succession, and they were the only one in which bishops ordained women. Clearly they wanted these women to be within that apostolic tradition. It is also significant that a woman, often Anna Nitschmann, assisted in the ordinations of women. I would not be surprised if researchers one day learn that Anna Nitschmann had secretly been consecrated as a female bishop. Certainly she functioned like a bishop in the Moravian Church and was the one responsible for the women clergy. [Slide 14]

One of reasons that women in the 18^th century Moravian Church had leadership roles was the Choir System. You are probably familiar with the 18^th century Moravian practice of dividing the church into groups organized according to gender, age, and marital status. One of primary reasons for the choir system was so that women could be guided by other women rather than by men. As in the old Unity of the Brethren, women served as spiritual guides and mentors for other women. It should be noted that the Moravians in the 18^th century were not entirely free of patriarchal assumptions about women. Although the community gave women a surprisingly good education, most of the economic activity of women was restricted to jobs such as cooking, sewing, and childcare. Thus it is inappropriate to refer to equality, but it is evident that the power and status of women was greatly enhanced compared with the contemporary culture. Women choir leaders played important roles in the governing structures of Moravian villages. As Beverly Smaby puts it, “Male and female roles were much more symmetrical than in any other colonial society, including the Quakers.”[7]

Women were in charge of women’s education and discipline and devotional life. The choir houses for Single Sisters and for widows provided room and board so that women were not forced into marriage by economic necessity. Katherine Faull recently lectured here at the archives on the ways choir leaders helped women deal with physical, emotional, and spiritual needs as they progressed through the stages of life. She’ll be giving the Moses Lectures at the seminary in two weeks on the choir instructions. The choir system provided a useful network of support for women in Moravian communities. Single Sisters had older women to guide them through puberty and maturity, and when a Sister married, the Married Sisters Choir provided spiritual and emotional support for the new bride. Pregnant sisters met together for devotions, and they continued to have meetings for months after giving birth. When a woman’s husband died, she was immediately welcomed into the widows choir where her Sisters helped her deal with grief and change of life. In short, women were supported in every aspect of their physical, social, and mental health by women who had offices in the church.

[Slide 16]  Women had their own sphere for leadership and growth, but they were not separated from the community as whole. Men prayed for and cared for women, too. This is most evident in the 18th century Litany where the congregation offered the following prayer:

Regulate and keep in Order the festival Seasons of Matrimony (Especially of the newly married Pair N.N.) (Deut. xx. 8. ch. xxiv. 5. I Cor. vii. 5.), Let our pregnant Sisters reap the Blessing of thy having lain under a human Heart, And let those who give Suck, enjoy the Blessing of thy having sucked the Breasts of a Mother;

Sanctify all bodily Fathers to the spiritual Father, And all who bear Children, to the Mother of us all; Bless thy Gift, the Children; Visit them even in their Mother’s Womb!

May Faith in the Marriage of the Lamb be the Girdle of the Reins of the espoused Sisters, Call their Chamberlains thy espoused ones, and this will be a Girdle to their Loins; Be thyself the Reward of those Brethren, who have discharged their matrimonial Ministry with Faithfulness,

And be Thou the blessed Hope of those Sisters, who are lonely and Widows indeed; Pour out thy Holy Spirit on all thy Servants and handmaids!

Hear us, O dear Lord and God!

Examples of Female Leadership  [Slide 17] There were many important women leaders in the 18th century Moravian Church. Tonight I want to mention two of them, both of whom were African. In the 1730s, the Moravian missionary Georg Schmidt traveled to South Africa where he made contact with the Khoi people, who were called Hottentots by the Europeans. These people were viewed as animals by the European settlers and sometimes were hunted like game, but Schmidt went to them with the simple message of God’s love shown in Jesus Christ. Among the people who responded to his teaching was a young woman whom Schmidt renamed Magdalena when he baptized her. Her name recalled Mary Magdalene, the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Magdalena, or Lena as she was called, learned to read the Dutch New Testament that Schmidt gave her.

Schmidt planted a pear tree in the valley where he formed a small community of about three dozen converts. Lena was one of his assistants. Unfortunately the European authorities in Cape Town decided that the Chrisitian Gospel was too dangerous for the native peoples of Africa. Schmidt was forced to leave South Africa. It was half a century before Moravian missionaries allowed back into the territory. When they arrived they went immediately to the valley that Schmidt had worked in. There they found the pear tree blossoming. More important, the elderly Lena was still holding worship services with a small flock of believers. Like her biblical namesake, the Khoi woman was a witness of the resurrection and the mother of a church.

[Slide 18]  Another African woman who heard the message of God’s love from Moravian missionaries lived on St. Thomas. Moravians today celebrate the names of Leonard Dober and David Nitschmann, but how many of us know about Rebecca Freundlich Protten?[8] Rebecca was a freed slave living on St. Thomas who responded to the preaching of the Moravian missionaries. She became an evangelist who assured other slaves that the Moravians could be trusted. She was one of the founders of the Posaunberg congregation, which is now called New Herrnhut. Rebecca married one of the Moravian missionaries, which was a rare instance of inter-racial marriage blessed by a Christian church during the colonial era. The marriage was controversial, and both Freundlichs were imprisoned by colonial authorities. She continued to preach to the slaves from her prison cell. When Zinzendorf came to St. Thomas in 1738 he was able to secure her release. In the 1740s the Freundlichs traveled to Germany, but Matthew died before reaching Herrnhut. Rebecca was ordained a deacon in Germany. She was the second African woman to be ordained by the Moravians, which means that she was the second African woman we know of to be ordained by any Christian church. After the death of her first husband, she married an African brother named Protten and they went to Africa as missionaries.

[Slide 19] Rebecca, Lena, Anna Nitschmann, and Ermuth Dorothea are just a few of the courageous Moravian women who defied social norms and traveled the world inspired by the love of their Savior. They labored long into the night counseling and caring for their sisters. They were pastors who cared for their flocks. They were preachers and writers and musicians; brides of Christ and mothers of the church.

Theology  The historical record is clear. There were many leadership positions for women in the Moravian Church, and women played vital roles in the development of the church in the 18^th century. Some of this may go back to the heritage of the Unity of the Brethren and Comenius, but it is really Zinzendorf who deserves credit for creating such an inclusive community. He did not do it alone, obviously. His wives helped shape the practice of the church, but I think it was primarily Zinzendorf’s theology that provided the foundation for women’s leadership in the 18^th century.

[Slide 20] When the Moravian Church published a new Book of Worship in the 1990s, there was a lot of concern over the language that would be used to describe God in Moravian prayers and hymns. What most Moravians at the time did not know was that during Zinzendorf’s lifetime our ancestors routinely prayed to the Holy Spirit as “Mother.” [Slide 21] For more than thirty years, this was the accepted practice and was strongly encouraged by Zinzendorf and other leaders of the church, including August Gottlieb Spangenberg and Peter Böhler here in Bethlehem. Zinzendorf said that the motherhood of the Holy Spirit was “an extremely important and essential point … and all our church and practice hangs on this point.”[9]

[Slide 22]  One of the most important litanies to the Holy Spirit during Zinzendorf’s time was titled the Te Matrem, which was based on the ancient Te Deum Laudamus. The litany begins: “Lord God, now be praised, you worthy Holy Spirit! You, the mother of Christendom, the Church honors in unity. All the angels and the host of heaven and whoever serves the honor of the Son; also the cherubim and seraphim, they all sing with a clear voice.” This litany represents an extremely rare example of Christian liturgy using feminine language to describe God, but it was only one of several worship pieces to the mother Spirit in Moravian churches.

[Slide 23] Zinzendorf acknowledged that this type of language for the Holy Spirit was not typical, but he always insisted that it was the simplest, clearest, and best way to communicate the nature of the Holy Spirit. This is language that even a child can comprehend. Zinzendorf argued for the scriptural authority of the Mother Office by linking together the Old and New Testament verses Isaiah 66:13 and John 14:26: “When the dear Savior at the end of his life wanted to comfort his disciples (at that time the language was not as rich as ours is); by that time the Savior, who was a very great bible student, had doubtlessly read the verse in the Bible ‘I will comfort you as a mother comforts.’ Then the dear Savior thought, ‘If I should say to my disciples that I am going away, then I must give them some comfort. I must say to them that they will receive someone who will comfort them over my departure. It will not be strange to them, for they have already read it in the Bible. …There it reads they shall have a Mother: I will leave you my Spirit.’”[10]

[Slide 24]  Zinzendorf believed that the church should be a school of the Holy Spirit, which would unlike any human educational institution. It is “a family school, that is a school on the lap, in the arms of the eternal Mother” who tenderly loves her children. A Christian is like a child who “sits on the Mother’s lap, is received into the school, and is led through all classes; then it is under the special dispensation, under the motherly regimen of the Holy Spirit, who comforts, punishes, and kisses the heart, as a mother comforts, punishes, and kisses her own child.”[11] We do not know if Zinzendorf ever read Comenius’ Mother School, but this quotation is certainly consistent with Comenius’ understanding that education is a benevolent process guided by a nurturing figure.

[Slide 25]  The idea of the Holy Spirit as Mother became an important part of Moravian devotional and communal life. The church established a festival for the Holy Spirit, popularly called the Mutter Fest (the Mother festival), which was first mentioned publicly in 1752. It was observed annually until 1770. It appears that the devotion to the Mother was particularly important to the women of the community. The Church’ s Prayer to her Mother was regularly used on the Single Sister’s festival day. It is very significant that Zinzendorf compared the Holy Spirit to Anna Nitschmann, who was also referred to simply as the Mutter.

[Slide 26]  The 18^th century Moravians also had a remarkably positive view of the human body. We do not have time tonight to go into detail on Zinzendorf’s view of the human body, which is a fascinating topic in its own right. Suffice it to say that Zinzendorf took the doctrine of the Incarnation very seriously. Like the early Church Fathers, Zinzendorf spoke of a union of the divine and human in Jesus that was so complete that one can say that God was born in a stable to a virgin. God suffered. God died on the cross.[12] The Creator’s assumption of a human body blessed and redeemed humans from the law of sin and death. The Creator took on human flesh in Mary’s womb because he wanted to restore human nature and bless human life. [Slide 27]

According to Zinzendorf, the blessing of women’s bodies comes through Mary, the mother of Jesus. Nursing mothers should meditate upon the mystery that God was a baby whom Mary nursed. Zinzendorf insisted that the conception of Christ in Mary’s womb and the birth of Jesus removed all shame associated with the female body. As such, women and their bodies ought to be honored by all. “And from that same hour the womanly member, the womanly mother, was no more a shame but the most honorable of all members.”[13] Zinzendorf boldly proclaimed that the bodies of women are holy. This is one of the most extraordinary ideas in the history of Christianity, but it was hidden away for many years. Think of the shame that is heaped on women in our day and how this idea could bring hope and healing to women around the world. Once all notion of shame is removed from women’s bodies, there was no longer a barrier to their being fully included in leadership.

What Happened?  It is clear that the Moravian Church actively promoted the full inclusion of women in the leadership and fellowship of the church. The church at one time valued women of all ages and status in life, where strong women leaders were challenged to build up the kingdom of God. But something happened during the 19^th century and this history was almost forgotten. What happened? [Slide 28]

As soon as the public learned what was happening in Moravian communities there was pressure on the Moravians to conform to sexist society. Vicious polemics were published against Zinzendorf and the Moravians. Missionaries were imprisoned, and evangelists were assaulted. Many of the polemics against the Moravians mentioned the danger they posed to public order by allowing women to hold offices. As Paul Peucker has shown, some of the Moravians were also concerned that the church might be dominated by women.[14] After the death of Zinzendorf, the leadership in Herrnhut tried to reassure the public that the Moravians were not a dangerous cult threatening social norms. Men like Spangenberg published material that minimized the radicalness of the Moravian Church, and some of Zinzendorf’s boldest ideas were repressed against the wishes of some members of the church. [Slide 29]

Beverly Smaby has shown that demise of women’s leadership was a conscious decision on the part of prominent male leaders of the church to remove women from the internal decision-making process. [Slide 30] The male elders explain the new policies thus: “we are obliged to adjust ourselves as much as possible to [the world’s] customs in those things that don’t belong to the essence of our Church, and to do nothing different unnecessarily that could give the public cause to conceive all kinds of false conceptions of us and, even with the appearance of truth, to draw detrimental conclusions from [what we do].”[15] They were more concerned about public relations than the New Testament’s vision of the true Christian community that had motivated their ancestors.

Women were excluded from the committees established to manage the church’s affairs after the death of Zinzendorf. Not surprisingly, the all-male committees decided to end women’s ordination.[16] Women were no longer allowed to assist in serving Holy Communion in groups where men were present, and they gradually lost other rights in the church.

[Slide 31] In 1789, when male delegates expressed concern about women were attending synod, the women protested in writing. They called the proceedings “humiliating” (demütigend) and they tried to reclaim their accustomed leadership role stating: “that the Savior had granted us the gift that [people of] our sex want to be led and reprimanded by their own kind, which, especially in spiritual matters, is not usual in the whole rest of the world…. [T]o legitimate the service of the Sisters in the Church it is necessary, that the male servants of Jesus honor [the Sisters] with respect and trust…. [O]ur cause will surely fall into chaos, if the maids of the Savior are, from one time to the next, more and more pushed back.”[17]

One of the most disturbing discoveries made by modern historians, especially Paul Peucker, is that the church’s leaders intentionally destroyed some of the documents associated with the radical experiments of the 1740s and 1750s.[18] This included the burning of most of the letters and personal papers of Anna Nitschmann because they contained things that they were not comfortable with.[19] The reason we know so little about the most important woman in Moravian history is that the church’s male elders burned the records. Men have often erased the history of women in the Christian church, but at least the Moravians were honest enough to record that they had done this.

[Slide 32] It was not just women’s leadership that suffered in the years after Zinzendorf’s death. The devotion to the Holy Spirit as the Mother of the Church was also a source of anxiety for his successors. The first synod held after Zinzendorf’s death raised the issue of the Mutter Fest and decided that this should be restricted to private gatherings because outsiders would not understand it.[20] Some protested this decision since the Mother name was considered “a real and divine truth which the Savior has declared to us through the blessed Disciple [Zinzendorf].” It was also decided that the litanies of the church needed to be revised, and the word Mother was systematically removed. The new litanies appeared in the liturgy books of 1770 and 1773. The word “comforter” replaces “mother” in some places. The Spirit is no longer referred to as the “Mother of God’s People” but is instead “Lord God Creator.” What was once vital to the community was removed, and it was not accidental that the worship of the Moravians changed at the same time that women lost their roles in leadership. It would not be until the second half of the 20^th century that the church would ordain women in significant numbers. [Slide 32]

Conclusion  For hundreds of years the Moravians taught that women are equal to men spiritually and should be fully incorporated into the life of the church. For most of the history of the church there were specific offices for women so they could provide pastoral care to women. For a brief, extraordinary period in the 18^th century the Moravians ordained women as elders, deacons, and presbyters. During the days of Zinzendorf two of the most important leaders in the Moravian Church were called Mama and Mutter. Women served as missionaries and helped found some of the most important congregations in the Americas and Africa. Moravians even worshiped God as both Father and Mother. But there was a backlash to this positive view of women after the death of Zinzendorf. Women were slowly, but persistently pushed out of office and even the historical record was distorted. Still Moravian women and men today may be inspired by the past to create a more just future. [Slide 33]

---

[1] Comenius, The Great Didactic of Comenius, tr. by M. W. Keatinge, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1910 reprint by Kessinger Publishing, no date), 68.

[2] Kaminsky, Hussite Revolution, 284-285.

[3] Craig D. Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren (Penn State Press, 2010).

[4] Zinzendorf, Gemeinreden 32 (ZH 4), 69.

[5] Peter Vogt, “A Voice for Themselves: Women as Participants in Congregational Discourse in the Eighteenth- Century Moravian Movement,” in Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia of Christianity, ed. by Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Pamela J. Walker (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1998), 227-247.

[6] Hans Joachim Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen in der Christlichen Gemeinde: dargestellt an den Lebensformen der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine in ihren Anfängen (Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1966), 346-348; cf. Otto Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Frauen: Kirchliche Frauenrechte vor 200 Jahren (Herrnhut: Missionsbuchhandlung, 1919).

[7] Smaby, The Transformation of Moravian Bethlehem from Communal Mission to Family Economy (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 13.

[8] Jon Sensbach, Rebecca’s Revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic World (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2005).

[9] N. L. von Zinzendorf, “Eine Rede, vom Mutter-Amte des heiligen Geistes. Gehalten in London den 19. Oct. 1746,” in Der öffentlichen Gemeinreden im Jahr 1747 (hereafter Gemeinreden), Anhang, p. 2, reproduced in Hauptschriften in sechs Bänden (hereafter abbreviated as ZH), vol. 4, ed. by Erich Beyreuther and Gerhard Meyer (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962). This discourse is found between the two sections of the Gemeinreden. For more on the mother office of the Spirit, see Gary Kinkel, Our Dear Mother the Spirit: an investigation of Count Zinzendorf’s Theology and Praxis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), and Atwood, “The Mother of God’s People.”

[10] Zinzendorf, Gemeinreden 3 (ZH 4), 64 and 65. He also uses the Song of Solomon as support. Eine ist meine Taube, eine ist ihrer Mutter die liebste. Wer ist die Mutter? Ingleichen sehet Salomo in seiner Krone, damit Ihn Seine Mutter gekrönet hat am Tage der Freuden seines Hertzens. Spangenberg records a vigorous disagreement within the Brüdergemeine over Zinzendorf’s exegesis of this passage. Apologetische Schluß-Schrifft (ZE 3), 79 f.

[11] Zinzendorf, Gemeine Reden 27 (ZH 4), 375.

[12] Zinzendorf, Einundzwanzig Diskurse über die Augspurgische Konfession (ZH 6), 65.

[13] Zinzendorf, Gemein Reden, (ZH 4), Anhang, 36; Zinzendorf, Gemein Reden 1 (ZH 4), 29.

[14] P.M. Peucker, “ „Gegen ein Regiment von Schwestern“: Die Stellung der Frau in der Brüdergemeine nach Zinzendorfs Tod,“ Unitas Fratrum, Heft 45/46,

[15] Unvorgreiffliche Anmerkungen und Desideria dem Ehrwuerdigen General-Synodo zur Prueffung und Decision pflichtmaessig dargelegt von dem verordneten Unitaets Syndicats Collegion nebst Beylagen Sub. Cit: A. bis Cit. H., page 41, Moravian Archives Herrnhut, R.2.B.45.2.a, quoted by Smaby, “Negotiating Gender Restrictions.”

[16] Es sey diese erste Conf: ohne die Schw. veranstaltet worden, damit wir über ihre Concurrenz erst mit einander sprechen möchten, u. es würden sodann die Schw. ausgemacht, die künftig zur Conf: kommen solten, Moravian Archives Herrnhut, R.3.B.4.c.1, May 30, 1760, quoted by Smaby, “Negotiating Gender Restrictions.”

[17] Protokoll der General synode 1789, Moravian Archives Herrnhut, R.2.B.48, pages 481-484, as quoted in Peucker, “Gegen ein Regiment von Schwestern,” 69-70.

[18] Peucker, “Im Staub und Asches”

[19] Extr. aus einem Briefe von Br. David Nitschm. an Br. Petrum. London. 13 Sept. 65, Moravian Archives Herrnhut, R.14.A.z.44.a.18, quoted by Smaby, “Negotiating Gender Relationships.”

[20] 28th session of the synod. August 9, 1764. Verlass des Synodi zu Marienborn im Jahr 1764 gehalten, p. 1305- 1310. Archiv der Brüder-Unität, Herrnhut, Germany. Item R.2.B.44.1.c.2, quoted by Smaby, “Negotiating Gender Restrictions.”