To: PEC From: Craig Atwood Re: Definition of Conferential Government Date: Dec. 20, 2006 Here is my draft of a statement on conferential government as requested by Synod 2006. I decided that historical and biblical support should be given although that information may be not be included in the Book of Order statement. Conferential Government in the Moravian Church Conferential government has been a central aspect of Moravian ecclesiology since the founding of the Unity in the 15 th century. One of the distinguishing features of the Moravian Church for 550 years has been the commitment to making decisions through a process of conversation and discernment rather than decree. The founders of our church rejected the autocratic rule of Catholic bishops and endorsed the NT idea of conferential leadership. Though our church has had strong leaders, such as Luke of Prague and Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf, they always relied on the wisdom of a conference of elders and were subject to the decisions of synods. All major decisions in the church are made through a process of consultation and conversation in accordance with the will of Christ as understood by Synod. The hope is that a consensus will be reached that is in accord with the Book of Order. Moreover, bishops of the Moravian Church have always been elected by the pastors and (in recent years) lay representatives of the congregations. All leaders in the Moravian Church should view themselves as servants of Christ and of the church, and all of their actions should build up the body of Christ and reflect the teachings of Christ. As such, all leaders in the church are held accountable to the body of Christ through the conferential system. Principles of a Conferential System of Church Government 1. Christ is the only head of the church, and the elected leaders of the church must seek his guidance through study of Scripture, prayer, and thoughtful reflection. 2. Since humans are flawed, biased, and sinful, such a process of discernment is most effective when it includes serious discussion with other Christians who can point out errors or point to unrecognized possibilities. 3. Mutual discernment is most effective when it is organized and intentionally includes elders recognized by the community of faith as wise, devout, and knowledgeable about things of the spirit and the world. 4. A community of faith serves Christ best when it is healthy and its members trust one another and are committed to the common goal of serving Christ. 5. The best way to establish trust in a community of faith is to have a system of governance that is transparent, respectful, and builds consensus among the membership. 6. Those who make decisions that affect the community as a whole or individuals in the community should be accountable to the community for their decisions. 7. Such accountability is most effective when it is structured and when rules are clearly written to guide decision-making. 1
Biblical Background for the Conferential System Though the Moravian Church does not judge the practices of other churches, we believe that a conferential system is the best biblical model for church government. The conferential process of the early church had its roots in Jewish practice and in the OT. In ancient days, the elders of a village sat by the gate to make decisions that affected the village and the individuals in it, as we see in the Book of Ruth when Boaz declares his intention to marry Ruth. The Book of Proverbs instructs the wise in the art of discussion and deliberation. There we read that without counsel plans go wrong (Pr. 15:22) and that in the abundance of counselors there is safety (Pr. 11:14). In the days of Jesus, synagogues were governed by bodies of elders, and the rabbis discussed matters of law and observance. Those discussions were the basis of the Jewish Talmud, and we know that Jesus participated in such learned discussions, as we see in the gospels (e.g. Luke 11:37-45). All Christians agree that the only head of the church is Jesus Christ, who is the Lord. The biblical passages that support this claim are too numerous to list (e.g. Col. 1:18). The lordship of Jesus is unique, and we believe that the model he established for the church was collegial rather than hierarchical. From the beginning of his ministry, Jesus gathered disciples and appointed a body of twelve to be the leaders of the community. After his resurrection, these twelve were among those sent into the world as apostles. As apostles, they had great authority in the world-wide but church, but their authority depended on their obedience to the risen Christ. This remains true of the church today. The doctrine of Christ as Chief Elder reminds Moravians that the risen Lord is Lord of the church, and that he works with the elders of the church to guide the church in the way it should go. The letters of Paul, John, and Peter attest to the fact that the apostles remained in contact with their churches and engaged in discussion over issues of faith and practice. It is clear that many issues that about which Jesus had not given clear instruction had to be resolved by the apostles through a process of prayer, thought, discernment, and discussion. Issues such as Sabbath observances, circumcision, and eating meat sacrificed to idols were decided through a conferential process in the NT church (e.g. I Corinthians 7). We know from the NT that congregations had elders that guided the church (Acts 20:17) and that women were included among the leaders of congregations (Romans 16:1-15). Even though the apostles were obedient to Christ and sincere in their efforts to do the will of Christ, the Letter to the Galatians demonstrates that even they disagreed on some issues. Apostles, bishops, presbyters and deacons and had to work toward common understanding and consensus on the fundamental teachings of the church. The Book of Acts records that the apostles met in council and sought guidance from one another. It was such a council that determined that Gentiles could be welcomed into the church through baptism without circumcision (Acts 15). We know from non-canonical texts that the early church continued to be governed through a conferential process. Bishops met regularly with the pastors of congregations to discuss matters of concern and to instruct them in proper doctrine and practice. Bishops consulted with other bishops and wise teachers in the church on controversial issues. The practice of writing letters of instruction to congregations continued for centuries. 2
As the church spread throughout the known world, it became necessary to hold large synods and councils to establish doctrine and discipline. The most famous of these conferences was the Council of Nicea in 325 when the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized. This vibrant conferential system of visitation, correspondence, discussion, and meeting in councils fell into disuse in the Middle Ages as the papacy asserted autocratic authority over the church. One of the primary reasons that the Hussites broke with the Catholic Church was the desire to return to a more biblical ecclesiology of shared leadership. It was out of this concern of the Hussite Reformation that our conferential system emerged. Moravian Historical Background At the famous Synod of Lhotka in 1467 the Brethren of the Law of Christ made a decisive break with the Catholic Church by selecting and ordaining their own bishop and priests. The selection process was conferential. There was a long period of careful deliberation by the synod and much prayer by all. The final decision was made by lot so that God could have the final voice in the selection. This idea that important decisions are made by the community of faith through a process of discussion and prayer was incorporated into the structure of the Unity. Though bishops (or Seniors) were the governing authority of the Unity of the Brethren, they were not autocrats. There was one bishop who acted as the chief executive, but he met with the other bishops and certain lay leaders in as part of an Inner Council on a frequent basis. The Inner Council had the authority to remove a bishop from office if he was not performing his duties properly. When the only living bishop of the Unity, Jan Augusta, was imprisoned in the mid-16 th century, the Inner Council assumed the responsibility for consecrating a new bishop. The Inner Council also called for synods to whenever the church faced major decisions or encountered new obstacles. Synods elected the members of the Inner Council, elected bishops, and discussed the doctrine and discipline of the Unity. On the congregational level, pastors in the Unity were servants of the people rather than lords. Pastors were assisted by lay persons, known as Judges, who provided counsel and advice for the pastors, held the pastors accountable for their own actions, and assisted in church discipline. Women as well as men were appointed as congregational judges to insure that women in the congregation were properly cared for and that the pastor was aware of women s concerns. Each congregation also had officers who were in charge of finances. The pastor was answerable to one of the bishops who made regular visits to the parish. The Inner Council had the authority to move a pastor to a different congregation or even remove him from office, if necessary. Bishop John Amos Comenius described the ecclesiology of the Unity of the Brethren as a nearly perfect combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Like the Catholic and Anglican churches, the Unity had bishops who served as the rulers of the church as a whole, but they were subject to the Inner Council. Like the Presbyterians, the Unity had a governing council that included priests and laity, but the daily governance of the church was in the hands of the bishops. Like the Congregationalists, the Unity had congregational councils in which many things were decided on a local level, but the final authority in the church was the Inner Council. 3
What Comenius describes is an intricate network of conferences designed to involve bishops, pastors, and laity in a process of deliberation and consensus-building. Though it takes longer to reach consensus than to simply give a decree such a process means that the community is better prepared to act on decisions. The wisdom of many is preferred to the wisdom of one. Thus, the Unity was able to fundamentally change is doctrine and practice in the 1490s and again during the reformation of Luther. The conferential system may appear cumbersome, but it can make change more effective and less disruptive. The celebrated resurrection of the Unity of the Brethren in 1727 in Herrnhut was not as miraculous as it is sometimes portrayed. The Moravians who found refuge on Zinzendorf s estate remembered the conferential nature of their church s governance. The autocratic style of the Lutheran Bethelsdorf pastor, Rothe, offended the Moravian refugees. Plus, the influx of people from other Protestant churches with different ecclesiologies led to conflicts over doctrine. Zinzendorf could have responded as a feudal lord and decreed a solution to the problems in Herrnhut, but instead he initiated a conferential process in which he met with the heads of every household. Through a long and deliberate program of conversation and prayer, the Count gradually reconciled members of the community. He used what he learned in those conversations to craf the first Brotherly Agreement. The Brotherly Agreement was adopted by the people of Herrnhut in May 1727, and this mutual statement of purpose and discipline guided the governance of their community. The Brotherly Agreement itself is a form of conferential governance since it was approved through a democratic process and could be changed through a democratic process. By August 1727, the spirit of the community had changed so noticeably that a confirmation service on August 13 became a time of intense spiritual renewal. This experience of spiritual renewal and reconciliation was seen as a validation of the principles of the old Unity of the Brethren, the Herrnhut community furthered refined their conferential approach to governance. Comenius writings on the Unity offered guidance for crafting the conferential polity of the renewed Moravian Church. Clergy and laity alike were elected to important offices in the church, and there were regularly consultation about difficult matters (and difficult people). From the beginning, women served on the governing and advisory councils of the Herrnhut church. The succession of bishops of the Unity was continued with the consecrations of David Nitschmann and Zinzendorf. But authority was vested in a number of committees who were responsible for different areas of the church s life rather than in the bishops. During Zinzendorf s life, synods were held frequently, and there was a lively and informative correspondence among the church s administrators. After 1736, Zinzendorf traveled with a Pilgrim Congregation that included representatives of the different groups in the church (e.g. the head of the Single Sisters). Local congregations also had many working committees to oversee the practical and spiritual affairs of the church. It should be emphasized that during the 18 th century, women were very active participants in the conferential system of government and were represented at all levels of decisionmaking, although their authority was curtailed after the death of Zinzendorf. Many decisions were confirmed by the lot, but the lot was only consulted after a long process of 4
deliberation and discussion. This acted as a check on the authority of the elders but also gave certain decision an aura of divine mandate. After the death of Zinzendorf, the governance of the church became more conservative and rather rigid. This was in part a reaction to the turmoil of the American and French Revolutions, and the rise of the Enlightenment. The democratic aspect of the conferential system declined and there was less interest in achieving consensus for decisions. The leaders of the church decided that the Moravians should simply sit out the Second Great Awakening during which other Christian groups experimented with new methods of worship and evangelism (and grew exponentially). Increasingly, American Moravians chaffed under German authority and began agitating for independence. In the mid-19 th century two American Provinces were formed, and both the Northern and Southern provinces kept many aspects of the conferential system. But the ending of the choir system meant that women no longer had an official presence on church committees. The number of governing bodies in both provinces was reduced and more decisions rested in the hands of the Provincial Elders Conference. In actual practice, the President of the PEC (who was often a bishop) exercised great executive authority. Each province wrote their own Brotherly Agreements (based on the original statements from Bethlehem and Salem), but they were no longer binding. Instead each province s Book of Order served as the constitution. In the 20 th century, there would be shifts in the relative power and authority of the PECs, synods, and congregations. Each province would also imitate the Methodist Church in establishing provincial boards and agencies authorized to work on behalf on the province. In short, since the middle of the 19 th century there have been many major changes in the governing structure of the Moravian Church in America, but the fundamental principles of conferential government remained. The church retains the blending of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy described by Comenius, and the Book of Order functions as the constitution of our conferential government. The PEC, provincial boards and agencies, pastors under call, and congregational boards are bound by the rules of the Book of Order. The fundamental principles of the conferential system have remained relatively unchanged. 5