Replies: 42 Comments
on Monday, May 10th, Phillipa said
It's time for all concerned Moravians to show up at the offices of the PEC with picket signs. If they won't pay attention to our concerns, let's embarrass the snot out of them.
on Tuesday, May 11th, Little Fly said
I dare say the situation is a little more complex than homosexuality and pluralism. That is like saying this fall's election will be decided entirely on the basis of people's opinions regarding the budget and abortion. In other words, this suggestion is reductive. What other reasons are at play here?
I suspect Macedonia will prove similar to Mizpah, where a group of people will storm off in a huff, slowly trickle back to the church, and the congregation will be happier for it. Of course, not everyone will return, but they will be happier too. I guess, unfortunately, only one of these groups will have the comfort of knowing that they are true Christians. Some things are more important to congregations than their size. Some provinces are radical enough to think the same way.
on Tuesday, May 11th, Phillipa said
LF: I agree that the whole situation is more complex than homosexuality and pluralism. There are various other accountability questions. However, it seems like letters, conversation and politely worded concerns haven't gotten anything accomplished. I suspect that there are many earnest Moravians who are really tired of having their concerns ignored. Things got a little rude and startling when Greg Little was fired. I think it's time to get a lot more rude. It's time to demand answers and not to let the PEC get a decent night's sleep until they produce said answers. I am not advocating harassing individual members, but harassing the group until they talk.
Little was fired because he was not "abiding by agreements he made when he was ordained to follow the rules of the Moravian church." When you are ordained, do you not make a promise to preach that Christ is the only way to salvation? Read the Moravian Covenant for Christian Living. I think it says something like that somewhere in there. So why wasn't Truman Dunn fired? Because the PEC is full of weak-kneed little old ladies (and men) who hate confrontation. They want to "go along to get along." The leadership of the Church needs to be stronger, to have more backbone than they do. Weak-kneed little old ladies usually are easily embarrassed and that's one experience they will go a long way to avoid. It is their Achilles heel(pardon my metaphor-mixing). I say let' hit them in their very weak knees. Ask are-you-still-beating-your-wife kind of questions like "are you saying that funds due to the Province are more important than the core values and beliefs the church was founded on?" and there's always the question of "what do you do with all the money we send you?" "Why are you paying so much to hellp run the Board of World Missions when almost all of its personnel have resigned?" The PEC's lack of answers and accountability would not escape notice if they were a governmental body. The press would be all over them. I don't want to see the church splinter into a lot of little pieces. In this case, I think confrontation can be a catylist for change and improvement. Polite avenues have failed us. It's time to stir the pot and see what bubbles up.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Reepicheep said
I couldn't agree with you more, Phillipa, but I think the problem on the PEC is twofold. 1) There are members of the PEC who, on the spectrum of theological beliefs, are much closer to Truman Dunn (if not standing along side him) than is comfortable for evangelicals. 2) There are also members of the PEC who were aghast at Dunn's statements and are evangelical to their core... but this second group cannot think outside of the box. They are hung on the notion of unity at all costs and they believe (rightly or wrongly... I dunno which) that they can effect change from the inside.
I also agree, LF that the situation is more complicated. The problem is that many see this denomination moving away from traditional Moravian doctrine (aka - Christian doctrine)... and the PEC seems to be leading the way with its actions at Messiah MC, Macedonia MC and its refusal to back off from the full cmmunion talks with the ECUSA."
Things get even more troublesoume in light of Br. Atwood's new study guide on the Ground of the Unity and the Covenant for Christian living. Atwood makes the statement (I think on page 59) that the Ground does not require profession of faith in Christ or even a belief in Christ. But that is confusing at best (and misleading at worst... in fact, this section of Atwood's book quotes the Ground,"We believe and confess...").
The Chatechism of the Moravian Church in America for the Instruction of Candidates for Confirmation (Published by Order of the Provincial Synod of 1956) clearly states in the answer to Question 22 "How should we respond to such a Saviour?" Answer: "We should confess Him before men." Again in Question 52 "What is the Christian Church?" Answer: "A fellowship of all: Who have confessed Him." Yet again in Question 64, "What are the duties of a Church member toward His Lord?" Answer: "To confess His name before men and to seek to promote His glory by a worthy life."
And from a purely logical POV... why does the Moravian Church have a Chatechism if a profession or belief in Christ is not necessary?
So yes, the problem goes way beyond the split at Macedonia... and the only persons who can prevent the same thing from happening province-wide have turned a deaf ear to the evangelicals in the province.
ybiC,
Reepicheep
on Wednesday, May 12th, Little Fly said
I would encourage you to articulate what questions you want answered and the range of outcomes you are willing to countenance. Additionaly, I would encourage you to take your questions directly to a member of the PEC. I have never been denied a complete answer when I have approached one with a difficult questions.
Now, I ask you to consider the range of outcomes you are willing to countenance because merely saying this or that minister should be thrown out of the church is not the way to run a church. I don't know of any church that sumarily tosses clergy out because they have made a doctrinal error, especially when their congregation wants them and when they have shown a willingness to submit to the discipline of the church. In Dunn's case, both of these conditions are met. Additionally, Dunn's sermons and activities are under close scrutiny. You, Phillipa, right now, have the capacity to recieve copies of Dunn's sermons so you can review them yourself! I encourage you to do so.
Admittedly, I am satisfied with the discipline Dunn is recieving. I am also a liberal, am willing to countenance gay marriage, and am a member of the Moravian Church. I also understand that conservatives within the MC do not feel that their answers have been adequately addressed, and I feel that they deserve answers to these questions. This is why I encourage you to draft a list of these questions and a range of options.
I, as a liberal, gay-loving, hell-bound conventicle need to hear them, both to aid my reflection on the issues, to understand better what resources you need to find answers to these questions, and so that maybe we can have them answered together. I need answers to your questions as much as you do.
Even if I do not agree with you on outcomes, if we cannot feel empathy for what is bothering each of us, then this is a sign of great depravity in both of us. So, tell me, liberal conventicle that I am, what you need answered, and we will seek those answers together.
Or, with all due respect, you can take the Athanasius road, call me endless names, reduce my thought to a caricature, slander me (Down with liberals, up with God!), wish I would slither away, and further divide the church, all the while praising yourself that you have purified it with the blood of those Christian brothers you alienated in the process. Yes, Athanasius, I would still appreciate a defence of this ugly side-effect of the voice so many evangelicals have chosen to adopt, the fact that fellow Christian brothers and sisters are the only victims in this culture war. Convince me that treating people like myself like crap, calling us names, and suggesting that we have no claim on what our church believes or does earns you rewards in heaven sufficient to offset the good brothers and sisters I have seen driven away because of words like these. As you are a minister of the MC, I suspect I should be able to ask this of you without you calling me any other ugly names.
on Wednesday, May 12th, polana said
LF - I have to say that after reading several postings and your comments to those postings that most of the name calling (especially the ugly stuff) seems to come from you. Maybe you are not aware what your fingers are typing? Or possibly we are redefining name calling?
on Wednesday, May 12th, Little Fly said
Reep, I have only had opportunity to glance at your post, but it raises excellent questions. I will attend to it further later on and be sure to respond. But the issues you raise here are exactly the kind I could see you and Phillipa developing into a list of questions you could take to a PEC member.
Briefly, on the confession issue, I would suggest that a confession of faith is reasonably necessary as a criterion for full membership in the church, but I would continue to warn you away from the further conclusion that confession is necessary for salvation. But the establishment of a test for membership is sufficient cause to have the GOTU.
I, on the other hand, do not feel that such a confession should be required for full membership. This is because I feel that a confession that one hope's that grace will lead one to have faith is sufficient (and here again I will come across as Calvinist). But this is a much lower test, and I have no expectation that it would be acceptable to all Moravians. If you could quote the problematic passage, however, this might be helpful.
Thank you for these excellent qeustions, and I exhort you to put them into some formal shape!
on Wednesday, May 12th, Little Fly said
Polana, I absolutely agree with you that my words are harsh, and I take full responsibility for the pain you might feel by reading them. But I have been called by implication terrible things by a minister of my denomination, and do not know how to convince him to stop except to convince him that this mutual hurt is not worth it, and that we should both stop and repent. Polona, if I have offended you, I ask for your forgiveness. But I also ask that you hold everyone who visits and writes here to the same standard.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Reepicheep said
LF, Since the homosexual debate is a bit far afield from the topic of this thread, I am not going to respond to that (I am not ignoring your comments... I just want to stay marginally on the topic of Provincial concerns, Macedonia and the PEC).
You suggest I take my questions and concerns to the PEC . . . and I have . . . along with my congregations board of elders. We have met with the PEC no less than 5 occasions over the last two years. We have yet to receive an answer that addresses our concerns other than "we will just have to agree to disagree." That answer is NGE in my book (not good enough). It is my assumption that you have gotten better answers from the PEC because you are more of a like mind. The impression the PEC has given me (and many others) is that there is no place for conservative evangelicals in the Moravian Church.
ybiC,
I, for one, do appreciate your willingness to debate these issues here. I doubt we will convince each other to change our positions, but at least we (meaning most of those here at EI) can discuss without personal insults.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Athanasius said
LF: Slander? Name-calling? "Slither away"? I've gone back and re-read every comment I made in the previous Moravian thread, and I genuinely haven't got a clue what you're talking about. If you have a problem with language I've used in a post, please by all means say so. But I'd appreciate it if you not take personally what is not meant personally (e.g., comments about church leadership or public figures with whom you happen to agree). BTW, you've now said three times that I used the expression, "Up with God! Down with liberals!" or some variation thereof. I'd like very much if you could give the citation of where I've done so.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Littlr Fly said
Citation: www.ecumenicalinsanity.net. Last summer. You're quite right, I have misquoted you. June 30th, 2003 you said "So what's that say about the best way to fight them? TAKE AWAY THEIR PRIVILEGES! Deny them access to the means of power, the bully pulpits, and the money to fund their pet projects and causes. We can do it, people. It just takes the courage to say NO! to the liberals, and YES! to God."
I stand corrected. Clearly you consider me an equal member of the community of God, who deserves full partnership in the process of shaping the community of God. In light of this quotation, I feel my characterization of your attitudes toward me are apt.
Athanasius, every time you refer to a "libral" as if he has a mental disease, you refer to me, a member of the Moravian Church. Every time you suggest that liberals need to be said "no" to, you, as a minister, suggest that I should be separated from the life of the church. Simply put, you are driving people like me off in the same manner that you claim liberals are driving "real Christans" off.
If you do not see this as a problem, then explain to me how. If you do not feel remorse for the Christians you have injured, explain to me how.
If you have a good reason, I will respect it even if I don't agree with it. But you need to explain to me why I should not feel excluded from your love when you describe things I believe as if it were insane to do so, as if my doing so were evidence of my saying "say Yes! to the liberals, and No! to God." I promise you, I do not say no to God, and to suggest that I would or could is one of the most careless violations of the 8th Commandment I can imagine. It has the effect of slandering me before God, which is what you do every time you use words like "liberal" and "pluralist" as if they refered to some undifferentiated mass of intellectual, theological, and moral slobs.
Sorry Reep, I will get to you soon. I deeply regret what you have told me, and hope we can put our heads together to get the answers you need. Have patience, and please don't say "No!" to me.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Puzzled said
On Tues. May 11, Little Fly wrote: "I suspect Macedonia will prove similar to Mizpah, where a group of people will storm off in a huff, slowly trickle back to the church, and the congregation will be happier for it. Of course, not everyone will return, but they will be happier too. I guess, unfortunately, only one of these groups will have the comfort of knowing that they are true Christians. Some things are more important to congregations than their size. Some provinces are radical enough to think the same way."
An article in the Jan. 10, 2004 issue of the W-S Journal, "Split at Mizpah Unusual for Moravian Denomination" did not reflect the conditions you state. Did you make inquiry of anyone involved at Mizpah to verify this, or does "I suspect" qualify making public statements that Macedonians will "storm off in a huff and slowly trickle back to the church?" Do you know if Miapah people "stormed off in a huff?" Do you know if any of the Mizpah members who joined Christ Covenant Church have "slowly trickled back to the church"? If so, how many?
Or it might be that the newspaper is incorrect.
If either of these possibilities is the case, it should be corrected.
on Wednesday, May 12th, Phillipa said
Can you really get them to answer me? I'd like that very much. Here's a list. Are you ready?
Is Christ the only way to salvation? Are you (the PEC) ready to confirm that or repudiate it?
If you are going to confirm that, then why was Truman Dunn given a year to recant and why did you accept his mealy-mouthed recantation? Is there any other stand for a Moravian pastor to take except for Christ's salvation to be the only way to God?
On the homosexuality issue, I have to preface my questions with a few comments. As a parent, I find it a dangerous example for clergy to live in an openly sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage. Everyone says homosexuality is OK for consenting adults. However the church is not an adult-only zone. A Moravian is a full voting member of the congregation as soon as he or she is confirmed (my son was confirmed when he was 10). So how do I explain to my son that gay sex outside of marriage is OK but straight sex is not? Is approval of homosexual sex and relationships also approval of straight sex (outside of marriage)? Is it approval of teen sex? What about the issue of babies having babies? Every parent dreads having their adolescent son or daughter come home and tell them that he/she is going to be a parent. How do parents set down guidelines or rules about sexual activity when the pastor of the local Moravian Church flaunts those rules proudly? How do we deal with the issue of AIDS? There's another parental fear/nightmare. Since parents make up quite a large chunk of Moravian membership, how are you going to address these questions? If you don't, then don't expect parents to support the church if the church will not support them in the roles they have in family and society.
About money/accountability issues. How come my church had to ask more than twice for the PEC to meet with us regarding concerns we had about our budget and provincial fair share? We are not the only congregation that experienced this. Are you ready to publish a budget and defend all of the expenditures? If not, why not? Why are we still sending large amounts of money to the Board of World Missions when most of the staff has resigned and not been replaced?
There's about fifteen questions in this post. I would be happy to get answers to them, especially the sexuality questions, because preliminary questions have already come up in my house. I know that my questions do not come from and will not prompt educated theological discussion, which is the norm here. My problem is that I have been asking these questions for more than a year, and no one has answered me. Little Fly, would you like to take a crack at them? I will be watching this spot.
on Thursday, May 13th, Little Fly said
Phillipa,
Based on what you have told me, I don’t know if I can. And this is sad and very frustrating, for both of us. First of all, you should know that most of your questions are shared by conservative and liberal alike, regardless of our opinion of Dunn or Little or gay marriage or any of it.
I am not a bishop, so take my answers as one lay member to another, but maybe they will help you see how I size up some of these issues in the church. Maybe we will find some common ground. If not, at least we will be in a position to understand each other better.
1. Christ is the only way to salvation. The church has never denied this doctrine. However, the church does leave open the possibility that individuals have opportunity for salvation even if they do not confess the faith in this lifetime. How this possibility remains and how God makes it happen is not settled among Moravians. Some ministers will suggest that the unconverted are given a chance to accept Christ after death, while others will suggest that God can elect to save the unconverted without any input on their part. Basically, there is no agreement on how this doctrine plays out, but it is not alone among church mysteries.
Whether or not Rev. Dunn ever explicitly denied this doctrine is unclear to me because I have not read his lectures. However, I am willing to assume that he did in light of the response to his lectures. My understanding is that Dunn submitted to counseling, that he has recanted his errors both privately to his peers and publicly (if not entirely satisfactorily to yourself), and that his ministry and sermons are now being continuously monitored by the PEC. I also understand that Dunn’s congregation requested that Dunn be retained, and that the MC has historically respected the wishes of congregations to retain ministers, so long as those ministers and churches have been willing to provide continued support to the province and have sought to improve their relations with the province.
Now, I agree with you that a minister speaking contrary to church doctrine is a serious issue and that it demands a response by the church. To my mind, the church has responded, Dunn has submitted himself to this discipline, and he is continuing to be monitored to make sure that he has corrected his doctrinal errors. I also understand why you would find his public recantation insufficient. I don’t want to put things in your mouth, so I will let you tell me what you wanted to hear him say.
But here we come to the heart of the matter. I know that many Moravians would be much happier if the PEC had simply dismissed Dunn and had been done with it. With this I cannot agree because the Moravian Church holds to a process of ministerial discipline that provides for a minister to be reconciled to the church when errors are revealed. Dunn’s disciplining is entirely consistent with this process. To suggest that Dunn should have been removed without further ado simultaneously contravenes this process and elects another process of ministerial removal that has no precedent in Moravian church governance or polity. I personally am satisfied with this process because I know that Dunn continues to be monitored, and because I know that Moravians who continue to have concerns about his ministry have some access to this monitoring process. In addition, I am satisfied because Dunn’s congregants are satisfied. The MC is congregationalist to the extent that it respects the primacy of a sincere, loving relationship between minister and laity, and seeks to preserve this relationship so long as a) the minister submits to the discipline of the church (which, again, I assume Dunn is doing for above reasons) and b) the church continues to support the province.
To be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with Dunn’s recantation. However, I do not believe that I need to be to trust that the transparency of the disciplining process will reveal further doctrinal errors if they arise. I also am not enthusiastic about a church polity that summarily fires ministers because of doctrinal error. They are made of the same stuff as I am, and I expect them to make errors. My minister makes doctrinally questionable statements all the time, but I continue to accept him as my minister because I feel that, all the same, he points me in the direction of sincere discipleship and unity with Christ. Dunn’s congregants feel that he does this, and I see no evidence coming out of the church that would suggest otherwise. Also, I know that all of the mainline churches and the Catholic Church have similar processes of reconciliation for their ministers. Evidence of this process being unbiblical is lacking.
Here is my initial response to your first question. I know that it will not be completely satisfying, so I ask you to point out places where you would like me to clarify. I’ll do my best. I will also get to your other questions as I have time. In Christ.
on Thursday, May 13th, Reepicheep said
LF,
Regarding the Truman Dunn issue and his submission to the PEC's requirements. You may be interested to know that on this very site, last August (barely 4 months into his "restored" status), Truman began posting here at EI and proffered many comments that made it very clear that he still held the positions he espoused in the Hinge and Moses Lectures. In other words, he told the PEC one thing, made an about face and began preaching the same nonsense that got him in trouble to begin with. This is where my problem with the PEC really begins because they told us the first go round (in April-May '03) that Br. Dunn had recanted. When our BoE confronted the PEC in February of this year with his statements at EI, they told us once again that he had recanted. The PEC seemed largely unconcerned about Br. Dunn's subsequent statements. Unfortunately the EI archives do not go back that far, but I saved a text copy that I would be happy to email to you. I also have copies of Br. Dunn's statements from the Hinge and Moses Lectures... I am happy to mail you a copy if you wish. If so, I included my email address in this post.
on Thursday, May 13th, Athanasius said
LF: Since the quote you cite is from June 30th, barely a week after I started this blog, I suspect you and I have already had this discussion. But let me take another shot at dealing with your concerns.
First, the correct quote ("no to liberals," rather than "down with liberals") makes a big difference, and reflects my thinking as the misquotation doesn't. I occasionally use intemperate language about "liberals." I admit that, and I apologize for it. I have tried to be conscious of that, and to avoid it, but I sometimes fail to do so. For that I ask your forgiveness.
There's an important distinction to be made, and the quote/misquote illustrates it. I have no desire to run anyone out of the church. Liberals are just like conservatives in that both are sinners in need of forgiveness, and in that neither has a total monopoly on truth. Liberals and conservatives can and should co-exist in the church, both locally and denominationally, and I support our doing so.
That is not the same thing, however, as saying that two dramatically different approaches to the faith can and should be taught and officially subscribed to by the same denomination or its officials. An organization that constantly sends mixed messages to its membership as well as its target audiences is an organization that cannot successfully carry out its mission. The controversial issues in the Moravian Church illustrate that nicely. On the issue of salvation, there are those whose view is pluralist, that there are many roads to salvation. Some may say, abstractly, that everyone is saved by Christ, but the practical effect of their view is that the call to mission is undercut. Some of them spent years undermining support for the denomination's Asia Ministry, because they thought we had no business taking the gospel to those who already had a religion. Now, do I want those folks to leave the church, or be pushed out? Emphatically not. Do I want their view, which I believe is contrary to Scripture and the tradition of the church, rejected, so that it doesn't undermine the mission of the church? Emphatically yes. That's what I mean when I say we need to say "no" to liberals.
How to deal with homosexual behavior is the other issue plaguing the church, and it is, if anything, even more clear-cut. Despite all the rhetoric about inclusivity and tolerance, this is inevitably an either/or issue. Either sexually active gays are blessed in the church, or they aren't. Either they are ordained, or they aren't. Either the church approves of their behavior, or it doesn't. If we say, we are of many minds, so we leave it up to local option or each province to decide, we have in fact decided that it's ok with us, even if we wouldn't do it ourselves. Again, I don't want those who are of another mind about homosexual behavior to leave the church. I simply want their view rejected. Unfortunately, they frequently take that to be a rejection of them, personally. I can't help that, unless I say things that convey personal rejection. When I do the latter, I'm wrong, and in violation of my own principles. When I stick strictly to the issues, then I'm not responsible if someone else takes my rejection of their opinion for a rejection of them.
I should also note that this is hardly a one-way street. Over the years I have been called a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, Nazi, fundamentalist, and a host of other garden-variety names. Mostly this has been by people who have been apostles of tolerance, inclusivity, and diversity. The "voice so many evangelicals have chosen to adopt" is mirrored by those who treat evangelicals as stupid, backward, pre-scientific, anti-intellectual Elmer Gantrys just one step removed (if at all) from Klansman and lynch mobs. Our faith is denigrated as pre-modern and superstitious, and we are proclaimed "uneducated and easily led" (as the Washington Post so famously characterized us). I mention all this, not to justify any excesses of language on my part, but to make this point: hurtful rhetoric can be and is found on every side of the controversies that the mainline churches are engaged in. There are those who'd like to read me out of the church, there are those who'd like to read you out. I'm not one of them, and I'm sorry I gave you the idea that I am.
on Thursday, May 13th, CMM said
LF,
I respect your opinion on the Dunn issue. Saying he has changed or not changed is judgemental on our part. I disagree with you on where Dunn is today, but I can agree to disagree.
I wanted to say one thing about the differences in how the Macedonia affair was handled compared to the Messiah affair. Yes, the PEC allowed Dunn to stay after hearing from Messiah's boards and members. The denied the same request at Macedonia. The PEC wants everyone to think that they had already given Greg that grace period. Dunn was told what he would need to do to retain his position. Greg was dismissed with no words ever mentioned about his job being in jeopardy. As a matter of fact, Board members at Macedonia asked B. Salyer point blank if Greg's job was in jeopardy. B. Salyer answered, without a doubt, that it was not. This was within a week of Greg's dismissal. My point is this, you can not trust what the PEC is telling you, me, or anyone else. They tell you what you want to hear, or make their statements so open ended that you have to make gross assumptions as to what they really are trying to say. It's a sad world when the leaders within our Province can not be trusted as far as you could throw them.
on Friday, May 14th, Reepicheep said
CMM,
Unfortunately, we found the same to be true with the PEC. They would not give a simple yes or no answer to any question. In our last meeting one of our members confronted them with Matthew 5:37 and they became quite indignant... but their answers to our questions did not get any clearer.
I am angered to read that the week before Br. Little was dismissed that Bob Sawyer made the statement that Greg's job was not in jeopardy. Many might not know, but the PEC had considered removing Br. Little in December of '03. Clearly Br. Sawyer (and the PEC) knew that Greg was going to be removed when that statement was made.
It is a sad state of affairs when you cannot trust the words of your denominational leadership.
ybiC,
Reepicheep
on Friday, May 14th, STL said
Regardless of issues with the PEC, Synod, or whatever. I truly believe the split at Macedonia has as much to do with Br. Little wanting to do his own thing as it does taking a stand for Truth. Those staying behind at Macedonia also stand on Truth. They just have a less confrontational way of trying to express it. The division of Macedonia has been happening for the last several years. The dividing lines, if you choose to see them, are many and they are crystal clear. Unfortunately, the way it looks to the general outsider is that those leaving Macedonia are in the right, and those staying are somehow in the wrong. Brothers and Sisters I assure you that isn't the case. Macedonia will once again be a unified congregation full of love and support. Macedonia will continue to stand on the Truth and will continue to protest decisions by the PEC. From where I sit, it is a win, win, win situation. Jesus wins because He will have two spirit-filled bodies at work for His Kingdom. Macedonia wins because it will continue to thrive, programs will continue to be supported, old friends will return and be greeted with open arms, new members will join and our church will continue to be blessed. Greg and his followers will win because now they will get what they want; their own church free from authority and the abilty to do and spend as they wish.
on Friday, May 14th, WTNY said
LF and others,
The PEC has made many, many errors. Some are managerial, some are much more serious errors related to theology.
Dunn is a case study for them. After Dunn's comments in "The Hinge" and in the Moses lectures, the PEC spent time talking with him. They concluded that his heresy warranted removal from the pulpit.
The removed him but neglected to notify even the officers of Messiah's boards prior to doing this.
Then they backtracked and reinstated him because the boards at Messiah requested it. They then worked out a plan for a year of discussions, counseling, discipline - whatever word you want to use - with Bishop(s) and others.
Fine and dandy, except they LEFT HIM IN THE PULIPT! Here is someone that is preaching heresy and he remains?
After this yearlong process, he supposedly shares that his beliefs had changed. The PEC, in a split decision, decides to allow him to remain as pastor.
Now, move to May 2003. Dunn is speaking before the ministers of the SP. Rather than addressing the issue of his beliefs, he hides behind resolution 54 and speaks mainly as if this is a relationship issue. This fits very well with how the PEC has handled many issues. They have focused on "broken relationships" and sought "unity" rather than standing on Scripture and Moravian doctrine.
Back to Dunn: he has the floor. Here is his chance to make a public statement of belief. Remember, he very publically proclaimed things contrary to the Bible and Moravian doctrine in 2001. So, what does he say? "I have found that I indeed affirm the Ground of the Unity as the belief of our church, even as I seek to be a part of our continual search for sound doctrine."
I "affirm the Ground of the Unity as the belief of our church?" That's like me saying, "water is wet!"
Fast-forward to August 2003. As Reepicheep noted, Dunn posts in a public forum things that show his views haven't changed.
How does the PEC respond when asked if they are aware of his postings? Yes, they are aware of them. They say that the Dunn decision has been made and that it should be let go. Of the congregations of the SP the PEC says most have moved beyond the Dunn issue. It will not be revisited and only God can deal with it now.
I understand we are supposed to place everything in God's hands. But what is the purpose of the PEC?! I believe the Bible says a thing or two about those that allow false teaching!
on Friday, May 14th, Little Fly said
STL, I agree with you that this may become a win, win situation. I feel that both communities within Macedonia will potentially be better served by separating. That is not to dismiss or diminish the pain now, but now both communities will have the opportunity to grow and serve God. This, by the way gives me opportunity to segue to Athanasius' post.
Athanasius, I appreciate very much your response and feel that it helps clarify several differences between us. I would begin to summarize these differences in terms of
1) Although we both acknowledge that neither of us has a monopoly on truth, we tend to approach truth-claiming and the application of truth-candidates differently.
2) We disagree on the degree to which denominations can reasonably tolerate doctrinal and ritual differences across congregations, and we disagree on the extent to which such relative allowance constitutes a “mixed message.” Additionally, we disagree on the extent to which denominations can succeed at their mission in light of these relative allowances.
3) We disagree that pluralism undercuts and undermines the call to mission.
4) We disagree that the issue of homosexuality rises to a level of significance impressive enough to divide the church, and we disagree that relative allowance with regard to homosexuality is different in kind from other acceptable occasions of relative allowance.
5) Because we disagree on the nature of homosexuality and its proper place within the church, we disagree on whether a rejection of homosexuality constitutes a rejection of homosexuals.
Now, giving full characterization of these disagreements will take a very long time, so I won’t begin here. I feel we have made much progress just by laying out these five areas of disagreement, and that they may provide a nascent roadmap for further dialogue. If you wish to suggest edits, corrections, or expansions to these points, I welcome them.
Let me just say, I deeply regret your being called names by others. But you should also do yourself the favor of seeking out voices on the other side of the argument that deserve your intelligence and attention. It is far too easy for both of us to find regrettable and naïve comments to strike down because they were never worth saying in the first place. And when we do, we only skirt around the very complex issues that in fact inform our understanding of the situation. Responding to sound-bites will never change the minds of those we wish to reach. This is why shallow missions fail. With all due respect, right now liberal-leaning (and I use this term cautiously) readers of this blog with whom you might have some influence view this site as a shallow mission. In effect, the emphatic message that you communicate here fails to conform to any model of mission that can hope to achieve its desired outcome.
Now enough of me whining (quite presumptively I admit, and for which I apologize)) about how you do not conform to my expectations. Let me be open to conforming to your expectations. What can I do to make myself a worthy interlocutor? And how might we each have our Church, as we know it should exist and still live in unity in Christ?
on Friday, May 14th, Debbie said
STL, I totally agree with everything you said. We who are staying will be fine.
on Saturday, May 15th, CMM said
To STL
I agree with you that it can be a win-win-win situation. I agree with you that it is easy for those on the outside to assume the ones staying are in the wrong. I've seen previous posts from people who are staying stating that those who are leaving are trying to make those who are staying look like the 'bad' guys. This may have happened individually, but it's not the feeling of the church as a whole. However, I've seen many posts from those that are staying that have belittled those who are leaving and trying to make those look bad, just as you have in your post. This is not about Greg getting what he wants. This isn't about spending money how one wants it to be spent. This is why we have boards. Spiritual issues are decided by the Elders. How money is spent is decided by the Trustees. Now, at Macedonia, there will be one board making the decisions. The key element is what God wants. Yes, Greg felt that God was leading Macedonia to a second service, for two different reasons. One being space. We were running out of room for one service. Two being reaching lost souls. Both goals were met with the new service. Space hasn't been an issue since then. Souls have been won for Jesus. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't see how many souls are won, because we don't have a public ceremony to celebrate. Did it cost money to start the new service? Yes. Did Greg make the decision to spend it? No. Did Greg "hand pick" the boards? Impossible. The problem is that most have the following attitude: 'If I agree with it, God meant for it to happen. If I don't agree with it, man meant for it to happen. It is very difficult to submit to the authority of God. I challenge you and all others to submit to God. When decisions are made now and in the future, give the glory to God. Isn't it much better to hear in a conversation, "I don't agree with it, but I trust that God guided our boards to the proper decision." Instead of, "I don't agree with it. I'm not going to support it. And who would even make that kind of decision anyway." I can see where people feel that Greg got what he wanted, because he never publicly disagreed with decisions the boards made. Don't get me wrong, he did not agree with all the decisions. But he didn't make an issue of it. To sum it up, there are some individuals (both staying and leaving) who feel they, personally, are getting what they want. But, there are many more individuals who do not like the idea of splitting. There are many families that will choose two different churches. As are many friends. But we need to set aside our personal feelings and allow God to guide us in all that we do and the decisions that are made. Earnestly pray for decisions that have to be made and for Him to guide the ones making the decisions. You don't have to know the issues on the table to pray for them, because God does.
on Saturday, May 15th, Phillipa said
Little Fly didn't answer all of my questions. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
on Saturday, May 15th, Little Fly said
My, Phillipa, you're impatient. And judgemental. Some of us work for a living. Oh, is that judgemental? I just forgot why I cared to share with you my thoughts on these matters. I guess you don't trust me enough to listen or show patience, so forget it. Continue to not be surprised by my character, and wonder why I have complained that this blog is a shallow mission.
on Saturday, May 15th, STL said
CMM-
You just keep telling yourself all those things and you will keep believing it. That is fine. I'm not going to argue this with you because for every point you have, I would have a counter-point. And, according to previous postings that go 'against the grain' anything I say would be deleted.
on Saturday, May 15th, Phillipa said
AND YOU THINK I DON'T WORK FOR A LIVING!?!? I work hard for my money and that's why I want answers as to how the PEC spends it! Talk about judgemental! Little Fly, you said you were sad that you couldn't answer all of my questions. I'm not surprised because they are hard questions and it seems no one has good answers for them. Yes I'm impatient! As I said, I have been asking these questions for more almost a year, so how much longer do I have to wait? And trust is another matter. When I know people, I can make a judgement as to whether I trust them. Most people work this way. And you want to talk about shallow? Your brush off is just like the kind of brush off the ECUSA gave to their evangelical branch and the PEC gives to anyone who asks a question about anything! So why should I think you are any different? Prove to me I can trust you! Why not blow me out of the water with the weight of your answers? Unless you don't actually have any. If you go back to your library in a huff, that is exactly what I will think. Also, your attitude smacks of a fifth grader and needs some adjustment.
on Saturday, May 15th, Little Fly said
Reep has been kind enough to point me in the direction of the archive of posts Dunn made on this site last year. Of course, this will come as no surprise to Phillipa, but I found nothing there that I feel should disqualify Dunn from ministry in the Moravian Church.
At one piont Dunn says:
"The PEC, bishops and I found that we had "common ground" in
that I can affirm that, wherever God is saving in the world, it is
through the love of Christ and the redemptive act of his sacrifice. I
simply have no interest or need to "rank" the world religions and have
Christianity in "first place" on the charts. I like Paul's admonition
to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." Dunn is defining here what might be refered to as an inclusive definition of salvation, where the salvation of non-Christians may be won through Christ regardless of whether or not they ever know his name or confess faith in him. By extension, Dunn has denied the same use of "necessity" that I did earlier.
I find nothing in this statement that suggests error. Christ is the agent of our salvation even if the working out of our salvation never entails the knowledge or mention of his name (be it in this lifetime or another). As far as I see it, this understanding of salvation is perfectly acceptable, and is certainly within the limits of a relative allowance, which I have defined above.
Dunn's theology permits a higher degree of scepticism about human knowing and believing than would a position that would call for his removal. Ironically, it is because Dunn has so much respect for our profound fallenness that he cannot support the claim that salvation necessitates a particular expression of belief (emphasis falls squarely on "expression" here, which is all a confession is, and which may always prove to be false, even if you sincerely believe it is true). I agree with this treatment, and would suggest that any other treatment risks inverting the doctrine of grace.
on Saturday, May 15th, Little Fly said
Phillipa, I hope you can calm down. I am not promising you convincing answers, just my responses. If you were concerned about my completing my responses, you could have addressed me. I am not asking for your agreement, only your charity. You became very upset when I did not show you charity, which suggests that you understand how it hurts not to be given it. Maybe your hurt will teach you empathy, rather than to hit back like the school-yard rough you have now convicted me of being. My attitudes will be no different than yours if you continue to think of me this way. You are not the only one here who deserves Christian love.
on Saturday, May 15th, Jesus Freak said
LF, I bet you and Dunn will get to be good friends in Hell.
on Saturday, May 15th, Athanasius said
LF: I appreciate your post above, and I think you've done a good job pointing out the areas of disagreement. Let me give them some thought.
Philippa: Your contributions to this blog have been much appreciated. Please don't spoil them through name-calling and such, or you know what will happen.
JF: Who appointed you God?
on Saturday, May 15th, Reepicheep said
Totally out of line Jesus Freak. Totally.
on Saturday, May 15th, Phillipa said
The thing that should, but never will, disqualify Truman Dunn from ministry in any church is his total lack of enthusiasm for the saving grace of Christ. Now I've been told that there are evangelicals on the PEC along with people who think every subject needs "more study." It is no surprise that the board retained Dunn. He reflects personally what the PEC is collectively. They are both lukewarm. This angered Greg Little and some of his parishioners at Macedonia. They got tired of the rhetoric and starting doing something about it. They withheld funds. This is where Greg and I agree. If something bugs you, then you do something about it. This threatened the PEC and they fired him. We shouldn't be surprised. They didn't want too many other churches getting the same idea.
Now there are many intelligent and well-schooled people who seem to be fairly familiar with the workings of the Moravian Church and the Southern Province. We have heard many takes on Truman Dunn, what he seems to believe and whether it's right or wrong. Can anyone tell me why the province won't answer or deal with the concerns that have been expressed by many joint boards in this area?
And JF: Reep and Athanasius are right. Totally out of line. Maybe you could jump in and discuss the relative merits and shortcomings of Dunn's and LF's views.
on Sunday, May 16th, Little Fly said
Phillipa, I can understand your feeling that Dunn's ministry is, as you say, unenthusiastic or "lukewarm," but this seems to be a question of the minister's fitness to his or her congregation, not a question of his or her fitness to serve the church. I rejoice that the Moravian Church has "hot" ministers, "warm" ministers, "lukewarm" ministers, and "cold" ministers, because I believe that Christendom has believers that fit appropriately to each style of ministry. Also, I would disagree with you that the position I have attempted to set out lacks enthusiasm for Christ's saving grace. I couldn't be more excited about this fact, and enjoy sharing it with others. But this does not interfere with my feeling that Dunn is displaying a significant degree of intellectual and theological honesty by not using the term "necessity" in the way you or others might like him to. And again, I do not think that his use (or not-use) of the term violates the Ground of the Unity.
So, maybe you don't like Dunn's style. Fine, I don't much enjoy Little's. But if relative "heat" is the only problem, then there should be room for both. Not every Christian will benefit from a "hot" minister, just as not every Christian will benefit from a "cold" one. But I would like to have a church where hot and cold can serve together as brothers and sisters in Christ. And I am not yet convinced that Dunn has violated the Ground, as difficult as his words may be to some to understand or sympathize with.
I feel that if Dunn were to be removed, we would need to demonstrate something more significant than a difference of ministerial style, or at least an issue of greater theological import than contributors to this site have so far identified. Again, this is not to deny these contributors' confusion over what Dunn has said, but merely points up the fact that sometimes theological statements can be very opaque, even when they are sound. Just because a Christian says something that sounds profoundly foreign to our prefered manner of speaking does not mean that he or she is spaeking unsoundly. Recognizing this challenging truth is part of developing charity in thought, word, and deed. It also has something to do with why brothers and sisters like Dunn and myself might come across as lukewarm with regard to terms like "necessity." It is hard for Christians like us to know what to do with a word like "necessary" when we acknowledge to being sufficiently not like God to not have his will all figured out. But this does not entail that we are lukewarm with regard to Christ's saving grace.
on Sunday, May 16th, Little Fly said
Phillipa,
Now to the homosexuality issue. Must you tell your child that sex out of wedlock is okay because a minister is having sex out of wedlock? No. Absolutely not. No minister, straight or gay, should be doing this. If a minister, straight or gay, admits to having sex outside of wedlock then he or she requires discipline and counselling. Should anyone, gay or straight, be appointed bishop if he or she admits that he or she is having sex out of wedlock? No. I have no argument with you here. However, just as I would allow a single straight seminary student who is in a relationship with someone to become a minister, I would allow a homosexual seminary student who is in a relationship with someone to become a minister. Also, just as I would allow a straight minister who is in a relationship with someone to become a bishop, I would allow a homosexual minister who is in a relationship with someone to become a minister. This is because I do not assume that either couple is having sex. If either flaunts the fact that he or she is having sex, then he or she should not be promoted to either position. Now, maybe you feel that church leadership should be questioned about their sexual activity prior to appointment or promotion. I really don't have any argument with this either, although I suspect this would prove very unpopular with the clergy, liberal and conservative alike.
I believe that celibate but otherwise committed homosexuals have just as much authority to lead the church as celibate but otherwise committed straights do. By extension, I extend to homosexual church leadership the same courtesy I extend to straight church leadership. If you feel that we should not extend this courtesy to the clergy, I cannot really disagree, but I do not think either of us would be entirely happy with the outcome. If such indescretions were discovered, I would prefer a disciplining process rather than summary expulsion.
Where I think we are likely to find less overlap is on the possibility of homosexual marriage. This, after all, is the real issue that needs to be taken on. But I do not disagree with you on sex out of wedlock.
on Monday, May 17th, Greg S said
LF, as a Northerner, I tend to stay out of Truman Dunn discussions. But sometimes I'll try (and usually fail) to facilitate between 2 viewpoints. Here it goes...
What I find interesting in this thread are you comments regarding style and confusion.
Is it your perception (and perhaps that of other folks in the liberal camp) that the conservative camp simply doesn't understand Bro. Dunn's viewpoint?
on Monday, May 17th, Little Fly said
I have tried to make the argument that Dunn has not violated the Ground by what he has said, but that it is very easy to think that he has. I admit that I have suggested that this has led to confusion on the part of many who are concerned about Dunn's retaining his pastorate. I have in no way suggested that all people in the "conservative camp," whatever that may be, do not understand Dunn, and I in no way speak for anything called "the liberal camp." What I am interested in hearing is whether or not people who post here feel that the position I have set out is compatible with the Ground and whether or not it should disqualify a minister from service. My reason for responding to Phillipa's comment in terms of style is because, if this adequately characterizes the concern she is expressing here, then I do not think Dunn's "lack of enthusiasm" or "lukewarm" theology disqualifies him. In fact, I don't think the characterization is accurate, but I am willing to allow that some Christians will feel this way because they prefer "hotter" ministers. But feeling this way is not sufficient cause for either of us to start dismissing ministers. I am sure this is not the whole story for Phillipa, and I trust that she will further clarify her concerns if she feels I have misunderstood them.
I hope that I have not projected a perception that the "conservative camp" is confused. If I have, then I apologize. I just don't think it is accurate to say that Dunn has in any way rejected Christ's saving grace, or that he has said anything that merits his removal.
Greg, may I ask how you came to the conclusion that it was my perception that people in the "conservative camp" are confused? If I were feeling less charitable I would think that you were suggesting that I am an intellectual snob, a very "liberal" thing to be apparently. Otherwise I do not know why convicting me of thinking that conservatives are confused would merit mentioning. For the sake of the good conversation we are having here, I will not jump to this conclusion.
I admit that I can be confused about peoples' meanings. Maybe this is one of the reasons I land in your "liberal camp." But, since you too have just suggeted that I am confused, I guess we are in the same boat, insofar as both of us believes that something called confusion exists and that people who disagree with us may sometimes do so because there is confusion about meaning. My God, we are all too human.
I promise you, Athanasius knows no less about theology and philosophy than I do. In fact, I am quite convinced he knows considerably more than I do. Everyone here is intelligent and thoughtful, and I feel like you are people I can talk to, even if we disagree. But allowing me to talk means that I get to have a hand in shaping the terms of the discussion. I feel that I am making a good-faith effort to empathize with people with whom I disagree here. I can see that several of these people are making a good-faith effort to hear me out and frame their responses in a manner that respects our disagreements. If I am going to be thought a snob every time I open my mouth, then this will make it very difficult for dialogue to continue. I hope you will choose to contribute to this dialogue. Rather than convicting me of wrongly thinking that the "conservative camp" is confused, continue to explain to me why this "camp" is not confused, and remains justified in its call for Dunn's removal. This, I think, would be far more productive.
on Monday, May 17th, Puzzled said
Little Fly - Pls answer my questions of May 12, re your post of May 11, about the splits of Mizpah and Macedonia. Thanks
on Monday, May 17th, Little Fly said
Puzzled, Sorry to neglect your questions. I did not read the Journal article, but I do know that similar to what is now happening at Macedonia, members of Mizpah elected to leave the church with the pastor when he chose to remove himself from the pulpit over Dunn and related issues. I also know that a number of those who left have returned over the past year, however I do not have numbers. I would be suprised if Mizpah has numbers. Regardless, this trend of separation and return is not particularly unique, and hence my suggestion that it will likely happen. My "I suspect" was meant to communicate that I was (and am) speculating, and that my evidence for or against this speculation is limited. I am prepared for history to prove me wrong, as it has so many times. But the fact that members are now leaving Macedonia with Little certainly sets the stage for my hypothesis. I take full responsibility for the term "huff." I imagine some of these members are in a huff. This is a term I use to describe anger and indignation I do not feel is completely justified. It has already been shown that not everyone agrees with me that Macedonians' anger and indignation is not completely jusified. This debate will go on. However, you should know that I think the Journal's suggestion that the Mizpah split is unusual is true, or at least it was until certain trends began expressing themselves within the Moravian Church, not all of which I think are good.
Yes, I have contact with members of Mizpah, and I know that members who left during the split have returned. I do not have numbers, but like I say I doubt any numbers exist. I made no suggestion about whether members who have come back to Mizpah chose to associate themselves with the CCC, and I am not now. My speculation does not pivot on whether exiting members continue to associate themselves with the exiting pastor. Hope this helps.
on Tuesday, May 18th, Puzzled said
Yes, Little Fly, you made it clear that your statements were speculation without evidence. Thank you.
on Tuesday, May 18th, Mizpah member said
LF- Please come and worship with us at Mizpah next Sun. Perhaps this would help bring closure to some of your "speculations". We have a fine new pastor and we're moving ahead.
on Tuesday, May 18th, Little Fly said
Puzzled, you're welcome. I hope that my response shows that I haven't spoken without any evidence, and I would like very much to understand why my speculation has caused you offense. I do consider my relationship with Mizpah members to count as evidence, although you may feel they have mischaracterized to me what happened with some members. If so, I exhort you to share with us the 'true story.'
MM, thank you for the invitation! I have heard that the new pastor has been well recieved and that the church is really enjoying his leadership! I hope I did not give the impression that I thought Mizpah continued to be in turmoil. I have enjoyed every visit I've made to Mizpah and have always been welcomed with love. I most certainly intend to return!
