in recently reading several books about william carey, the father of modern missions, i once again, surprisingly found reference in passing to the moravians and so was attracted to try to learn more about them. the following is taken from 'history of the moravian church' by hutton (1909).
i had always wondered if there was any connection between the waldensians, who i believe mainly lived in northern italy and the moravians who, i learned, started out in czechoslovakia and this author did say that a number of them came to czechoslovakia when the moravian church started and that they had their first bishops ordained by stephen a bishop among the waldenses.
the key waldensian scriptures at the beginning were: matt. 18.19-20;jer. 3.15; jn. 20.23; rev. 18.4-5; lk. 6.12-6; acts 4.32
they followed the sermon on the mount. their early writings, filled with scripture references, were very centered on Christ and the writings of john rather than on those of paul. they were more focused on a life of obedience rather than on doctrinal correctness. this was eye-opening to me and fruitful for personal spiritual growth perhaps.
czechoslovakia (bohemia) was surrounded by germany on 3 sides and at the end of the 14th century germans were infiltrating czech society and were very unwelcome in spite of their inroads. this book pointed out influential men in the formation of the moravian church:
1. conrad of waldhausen (1364-9) a german augustinian friar who denounced corruption among the clergy.
2. milic of kremsir (1363-74), a bohemian who left the orders to minister to the poor and denounce the evil in the church.
3. thomas of stitny (1370-1401), a writer who denounced the immorality among the monks.
4. matthew of janow (1381-93) who, at this period of the papal schism where there were 2, and for a period 3, popes vying for ecclesiastical authority, criticized the church. the former 3 men were loyal to the church of rome.
5. around this time the writings of john wycliffe of england made there way here and made quite an impact emanating out from the university of prague. he taught: a. that the bible not the pope was the final authority, b. that transubstantiation - the elements of the communion are literally the body and blood of Christ - was not true and therefore denied the priests' power 'to make the body of Christ', c. that men do not have to come to God thru a priest but that all have direct access thru the shed blood of Jesus.
6. john hus took these ideas and attacked the church of rome. he was burned at the stake on july 6, 1415 at the council of constance.
7. hussite wars (1415-34) was the result of the national chaos following hus' burning..all kinds of wierd splinter groups warring against each other.
8. peter of chelcic (1419-50) an influential writer whose ideas further removed the people from the church of rome.
9. gregory the patriarch (1457-73) during this time gregory became the first actual leader of the moravians/bohemian brethren/church of the brethren (they called themselves jednota (literally, union) bratrska). they established their first society at knuwald and they followed the teachings of peter.
10.luke of prague (1473-1530) church decided to not follow peter or gregory's teachings but only the bible (1495).
11. by 1500 there were reported to be over 100,000 brethren in bohemia. on feb. 4 a papal bull was issued pursuant to their destruction. they were greatly persecuted until 1516 when other conflicts drew the malignant attention away from them.
12. john augusta (1531-48), the bohemian luther, sought to move the brethren into the mainstream of the reformation. he desired: a. friendly relations with protestants in other countries, b. legal recognition of the brethren in bohemia, c. union of all bohemian protestants.
as the brethren, for the first time, got out and talked with others they were universally believed to be superior because of their church discipline and focus on good works. in time they were to experience the folly of this course of action. the smalkald war went against the german lutherans and the negative fallout came back on the brethren who had begun to associate with the various protestant groups.
various observations about the brethren at their beginning:
the MINISTER was chosen for Christlike character rather than for his education..'we despise the learning of tongues'. he was to earn his bread by manual labor. celibacy was considered spiritually superior for the minister. his title was servant of the church ...all true believers were priests and another could fulfill ministry functions in his absence. he heard confessions, expelled sinners, welcomed penitents, preached on the previously determined scripture of the day, visited everyone once a quarter, undertook any journey at the command of the elders, was not allowed to visit unmarried women (this was done by the committee of women), lived at the brethren's house where he trained young men under his charge (all were taught a useful trade)
the DEACON was to supply outpreaching stations, repeat the pastor's sermon to those who were not present, assist in holy communion, occasionally preach in the village church to give the pastor the opportunity to criticize/correct/encourage them, managed the domestic affairs of the brethren's house, assisted in the distributions of alms and..in their spare time, study the bible.
the ACOLUTH was a boy trained by the pastor to be a deacon who took turns in conducting household worship, gave an occasional short address in the village church and when accepted by the synod of acoluths generally received some biblical name intended to express some character feature.
the BRETHREN'S HOUSE was governed by rules. they rose at the bell, had united prayer and scripture reading. an hour later they had a service then morning study. the afternoons were reserved for manual labor, the mind not being quite as sharp, where they did weaving, gardening, tailoring and other trades. the evening was reserved for sacred music and singing (the moravian hymnal in 1501 was the first in europe). at meals the acolutes recited passages of scripture, read discourses and took part in theological discussions. no one could leave the house without permission. the pastor could not leave the parish without the bishop's permission. when traveling the pastor would stay at other brethren's houses.
although the brethren hated higher education they were universally literate, being able to all read and write they were the most enlightened segment of a mostly illiterate population. they also taught others to read. why? so that they would be able to read the bible. this led to persecution as being able to read was considered almost miraculous (demonic?). the common thot was that if a person joined the brethren the devil taught him the art of reading and if he departed the devil promptly robbed him of the power.
PICARD was the common term for anyone who disagreed with the church of rome.
bishop luke of prague wrote the 'catechism for children' commonly called 'the children's questions'. this was found in every brethren home and was used to teach children to read and write.
CHURCH was composed of 1. beginners (who were learning the first elements of religion). these, usually children, were prepared for confirmation by their parents and friends. 2. proficients, who were steady members of the church. 3. the perfect, those who were so established in faith, hope and love so as to be enabled to enlighten others. all 3 had their own catechism. the elders were elected from the perfect, who then assisted the pastor in parish duties. they acted as poor-law guardians, lawyers, magistrates and umpires working to keep people at peace and prevent them from going to law against one another. every quarter the elders visited the members' homes and inquired whether their business was being conducted honestly, whether family worship was being held daily and the status of the children's training. ie. talking with the children about the message at church etc. they were able to assess for themselves what was happening by questioning the children.
WORK was all considered sacred. determination about every occupation of the fathers, etc. was made on the basis of: is your trade according to the law of Christ and of direct service to His holy cause. if 'no' this had to be changed or the family (?) had to leave the church. there was a contempt for art, music, letters and pleasure occupations.
ALMS fund was called korbona. it was managed by 3 officials. 1 kept the box, 1 the key and 1 the account book.
PUNISHMENT for the 1st offense was a private admonition. the 2nd offense was rebuked before the elders and the person was excluded from communion until repentance. the 3rd was denounced in the church before the whole congregation and the loud 'amen' of the assembled members proclaimed banishment from the church.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT's center was the synod. the synod elected the inner council and these bishops had ultimate authority. however, in case of dispute, final appeal was to the synod. the synod also settled all questions on doctrine and policy.
the DOCTRINE was simple and broad. the brethren never had a formal creed and never used their confessions of faith as tests..the catechism had 76 questions. the answers are remarkably full..it has no distinct and definite reference to paul's doctrine of justification by faith. it is johannine rather than pauline in tone. it contains a great deal of the teaching of Christ and very little of paul. less dogmatic and theological and less concerned with accurate definition. theological terms are used in a broader and freer way.
for example, take their definition of faith. luther had said, 'there are two kinds of believing: first, a believing about God which means that i believe that what is said of god is true. this faith is rather a form of knowledge than a faith. there is, secondly, a believing in god which means that i put my trust in him, give myself up to thinking that i can have dealings with Him, and believe without any doubt that He will be and do to me according to the things said of Him. such faith, which throws itself upon god, whether in life or in death, alone makes a christian man.' but the brethren gave faith a richer meaning. they made it signify more than thrust in God. they made it include both hope and love. they made it include obedience to the Law of Christ.
'what is faith in the Lord God? ' was one question. 'it is to know God, to know His word; above all, to love Him, to do His commandments and to submit to His will'. 'what is faith in Christ?' 'it is to listen to His word, to know Him, to honour Him, to love Him and to join the company of His followers.'
and this is the tone through the catechism and in all the early writings of the brethren. as a ship, said luke, is not made of one plank, so a christian cannot live on one religious doctrine. the brethren had no pet doctrines whatever. they had none of the distinctive marks of a sect. they taught their children the apostles' creed, the 10 commandments, the Lord's prayer, the 8 beatitudes and the 6 commandments of the sermon on the mount.
1. thou shalt not be angry with thy brother matt. 5.22
2. thou shalt not look upon a woman to lust after her. v.28
3. thou shalt not commit adultery or divorce thy wife. v.32
4. thou shalt not take an oath. v.34
5. thou shalt not go to law. v.39-40
6. thou shalt love thy enemy v.44
they taught the orthodox catholic doctrines of the holy trinity and the virgin birth. they held, they said , the universal christian faith. they enjoined the children to honour, but not worship, the virgin mary and the saints, and they warned them against the adoration of pictures. if the brethren had any peculiarity at all, it was not any distinctive doctrine, but rather their insistence on the practical duties of the believer. with luther, paul's theology was foremost; with the brethren (though not denied) it fell into the background. with luther the favorite court of appeal was paul's epistle to the galatians; with the brethren it was rather the sermon on the mout and the tender epistles of john.
again the brethern differed from luther in their doctrine of the Lord's supper...at firs they endeavoured to avoid the issue by siding with neither of the 2 great parties and falling back on the simple words of scripture. 'some say, they said, it is only a memorial feast, that Christ simply gave the bread as a memorial. others say that the bread is really the body of Christ, who is seated at the right hand of God. we reject both these views; they were not taught by Christ Himself. and if anyone asks us to say in what way Christ is present in the sacrament , we reply that we have nothing to say on the subject. we simply believe what he Himself said, and enjoy what He has given'.
*compare our queen elizabeth's view (the author is english)
Christ was the Word that spake it
He took the bread and brake it
and what that Word did make it
that i believe, and take it.
so they did not believe transubstantiation (bread and wine = Jesus) or consubstantiation (bread and wine coexist with Christ's flesh and blood); they denied that the words in john about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ had any reference to the Lord's supper...that it was purely spiritual. if those words, said bishop luke, referred to the sacrament, then all catholics, except the priests, would be lost for catholics only ate the flesh and did not drink the blood and therefore could not possess eternal life. they denied that communion had any value apart from the faith of the believer...the Lord Christ, they said, had existed in 3 modes of existence. He was present bodily at the right hand of God; He was present spiritually in the heart of every believer; He was present sacramentally, but not personally, in the bread and wine; and therefore, when the believer knelt in prayer he must kneel, not to the bread and wine, but only to the exalted Lord in heaven.
again, the brethren differed from luther in their doctrine of infant baptism. if a child, said luther, was prayed for by the church, he was thereby cleansed from his unbelief, delivered from the power of the devil, and endowed with faith; and therefore the child was baptised as a believer. the brethren rejected this..calling it romish.they held that no child could be a believer until he had been instructed in the faith. they had no belief in baptismal regeneration..with them baptism was the outward and visible sign of admission to the church. as soon as the child was baptised he belonged to the class of the beginners and when he was 12 years old he was taken by his godfather to the minister examined in his 'questions' and asked if he would hold true to the faith he had been taught. if he said yes, the minister struck him in the face to teach him that he would have to suffer for Christ. then after further instruction he was confirmed by the minister, admitted to the communion and entered the ranks of the proficient.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment