Posting Date 8/20/03

This posting is a response to Rev Timothy Byerly's letter.  He labels as simply untrue the statement on this website that leaders scurried to prevent the original version of resolution 54 from coming to the floor of Synod.

This revealing account of events surrounding the document that ultimately became Resolution 54, was  written with the help of  individuals who were witness to the various events reported here.  This account begins with  the authoring of a  pre-resolution document to be presented to the 2002 Southern Synod, and records details of its evolution through committee to the floor of the synod, where final amendments were accepted and passed by floor vote.. 

Careful study of this account, along with the versions of the  resolution as it evolved, will reveal the transformation of a Document  intended to reaffirm the authority of Scripture and its message of Salvation through Christ alone. It is apparent that leaders of our denomination  were influential, to a large degree, in redirecting the Resolution. The final fatal blow came from an amendment on the floor by Bishop Graham Rights that removed  all remaining statements that called for reaffirmation of our doctrinal statements of belief. 

Resolution 54 went from calling for affirming our faith to a call for preserving relationships.

In light of the fact that some church leaders  used their position to teach that Christ is not the only way to salvation, this effort by our leaders might be seen as  self serving,  keeping  leadership intact at the expense of our mission to witness the message of  Scripture.   - Lee Sprinkle

Birth and Death of a Resolution 

To understand the significance of Pre-Resolution 54, it is important to understand the environment and activity surrounding it during its pre-synod inception, to its total transformation on the floor of  the 2002 Southern Synod  with its final amendment and passage.

Early in the summer of 2002 Moravians, along with other  readers of the Winston Salem Journal, ( read editorial ),  first read that our denomination was dealing with controversy over such basic tenets of Christian faith as the source of  "salvation".  A member of the Provincial Elders' Conference later recounted that they ( PEC ) had actually tried to get the Journal reporter (John Railey) to convince the Editors of the newspaper not to print the editorial. They knew it would not make their job in the coming months any easier. It was reported by a PEC member that the President of the PEC ( Rev. Bob Sawyer ) spent a good deal of time on the phone with  John Railey helping to shape the wording and content of the editorial.

A number of church pastors and laity already knew of  a "visioning event"¹ that officially began a few months earlier.  The PEC had called for a search to find ways to state God's Vision  as we answer the questions: "Who are we? What do we believe?"  Some were preparing to take their defense of the authority of scripture to the 2002 Provincial Synod in April. One  pastor, in consultation with  concerned colleagues, drafted the first version of a document that was later referred to by some as Pre-Resolution-54 seen below.

     Concern and emotion surrounding the "Truman Dunn issue" was a major thought on the minds of  leaders of our denomination as they made their journey to Black Mountain, North Carolina. Leaders were anticipating that this issue would come up at Synod. The description of  the  mood of  PEC officials  by many who had conversations with them prior to arriving at Synod was that they were "scared to death"  about resolutions  they knew would be offered that would be seen as very destructive and divisive, intended, they thought, to be a personal attack on the Rev. Truman Dunn and his supporters.

     Even though this account indicates that leaders were fearful of problematic resolutions, very few voting delegates to the the Synod had any idea of either the existence of the Resolution or the circumstances surrounding its creation.

     The pastor who authored  the original resolution  explains that he, and those whom he consulted, felt that an essential element of the faith had been challenged publicly in such a way as to raise questions about what the denomination believes and teaches. The author pointed out that history often records times when denominations needed to step back and refocus on the central theology that is the basis of its existence, as well as to correct false teaching.  It was the intent of this resolution to refocus our attention away from the unclear, ambiguous and, in some cases, false language being used  in public lectures and articles, to a clear, affirmation of the authority of Scripture and the message of salvation through Christ alone.

     The original resolution made no  reference to  Truman Dunn (though it was his Moses Lectures and synopsis of those lectures in the Hinge that had touched off the current controversy), and  offered no suggestions on what actions the Bishops and PEC should take in that matter. (See review of the Moses lectures)

     It is significant to note that the document was not even submitted by committee as a response to the Truman Dunn issue.  It has been reported that as the World Outreach Ministry Group (WOMG) was in committee, they were struggling with wording for a resolution that they felt would be a grounding statement in which our mission work must be rooted. One delegate on the WOMG committee had a copy of the document that had not yet been submitted to Synod as a resolution. This delegate, and most of the other committee members, felt that the wording of this document served well as the statement that missions needed to re-affirm the authority of Scripture and the message of salvation through Christ alone.

     Due to illness,  the author of the document  was not present for the first 24 hours of Synod.  A member of the WOMG committee called the author to get his permission for the WOMG to submit his work as their Resolution to preserve the theological integrity of Moravian Missions. 

     Here in lies the irony: Language of the Pre-Resolution 54 was  biblically and theologically accurate in its focus, calling only for a reaffirmation of what Scripture says, as well as what the Moravian Church has professed for centuries.   The WOMG could not have dreamed that its language could have been so feared by leaders, who  reacted  as though it were intended as a  weapon against  liberals.

     This document was first submitted by the  WOMG, a committee that applauded  the arrival  of its author to the Group's Thursday afternoon meeting. While this resolution was being discussed in committee,  there was also much discussion of this resolution going on outside  the WOMC.  In addition, even heated debate was going on privately among leaders who knew of its existence. Leaders were under the impression that this resolution was being offered as a response to the Truman Dunn issue.  One minister who was  told that the resolution would not pass on the floor of Synod, if it should get that far, felt that he might be able to save it from demise if  its scope could be broadened.  He, along with a few others, went to the WOMG  to attempt to broaden the language, in order  to call for a search for "sound doctrine". It was this combined group's intention not to take away, or change, the words of the original document, but to offer a  more general flavor that might not be so easily misunderstood by others as a response to the Truman Dunn issue.   The review of the resolution by this combined group left the original version intact with a unanimous vote of  approval,  and sent the document to the secretary for duplication and distribution to the delegates for  floor vote.

     If not out of order, it is described by some as a bit unusual, that the Resolution ended up in PEC President Bob Sawyer's hands before it actually got to the Synod floor. Deeply disturbed by what he perceived to be the intent of the resolution, he took the document to the Listening and Caring Committee (LCC) to express his concerns and seek their help. He revealed to the LCC his belief that conservatives in the province saw the PEC's actions on the Truman Dunn issue as having, in a sense, "established a beachhead," and that the resolution from the WOMG represented an attempt to "push forward and rout out the enemy." By enemy, he apparently meant those who believed, like Truman Dunn, that there are no essential truths that we as Christians are given to proclaim. Rev. Sawyer's views concerning the resolution were so strong,  he proclaimed that if this document came to the floor of the Synod, as is, he would personally take the microphone and attempt to stop the vote!

     One may argue that Bob Sawyer's denunciation of the resolution, with an ultimatum  to stop the vote, was over-extending his authority. It must be remembered that the majority of delegates did not know what was behind this resolution, as many delegates were not even aware of the Truman Dunn controversy when they arrived at Synod. It would not have seemed  unusual for the President of the PEC to rise and take the microphone and suggest that more work is needed to clarify something in this document, and that would have been it.

     All the members of the LCC group were moved by Rev. Sawyer's deep feelings and passionate speech. Some, who themselves held theologically conservative views, were saddened that conservatives in the province were viewed in such a negative way, especially by the President of the PEC.

     In  response, a delegation from the LCC group took the original resolution back to the WOMG,  where they tried to work out changes that would address the concerns of Rev. Sawyer.  The combined Group worked long and hard to preserve the integrity of the original Resolution, while incorporating changes that would soften and broaden the language. Feelings ran deep and members of both committees found that the resulting version was not  completely satisfying, but did agree to submit the heavily revised version below for floor vote.

     When this revised version of the resolution came to the floor for discussion, the minister who had tried to save the original version took the microphone to discuss his belief that now was the time for our synod to make a clear statement of our theology, and call for a search for sound doctrine.  He still held out hope that this Resolution, now called Resolution 54, could be the vehicle for making this statement. His remarks were cut short by Bishop Graham Rights, who took the floor and  offered amendments to the Resolution below that completely removed any theological purpose, completely hiding the intent of the original resolution that the WOMG had struggled to preserve.  

     The language of the Resolution had now changed:

 from: "RESOLVED, THAT this Synod of the Southern Province reaffirms that the Ground of the Unity in its fullness is and continues to express the doctrine and faith of the Moravian Church and is, therefore, the document with which this process starts". 

 to: "RESOLVED, THAT this process include attention to the Ground of the Unity and other expressions of the faith and order of the Moravian Church".

     Those who authored the final changes were unwilling to allow the resolution to state that synod continues to affirm that the Ground of the Unity expresses  the doctrine and faith of the Moravian Church. 

     For those delegates who knew the importance of resolution 54, emotions were high. A prayer calling for a healing and preservation of relationships was offered before the vote was taken, and the new Resolution 54 was then passed by floor vote.  Those who saw the need for a Vision Statement to reaffirm  our faith, recognized  the implications of what may have seemed to be minor language changes, and left Synod deeply saddened. Many other delegates left unaware of the significance of resolution 54. Some delegates who were questioned afterwards about R-54 had no recollection of it.

Observations by the writer

     A characterization is  made on this web site that leaders "scurried" to prevent the original resolution from coming to the floor for a vote.  (See R-54 Posting)

     There has been a challenge to this characterization, but after review of accounts given by those who were involved with the actions related above, it seems that an unusually large  effort was expended by some leaders to monitor and influence the outcome of this one resolution. Rules of Synod² do not call for a resolution review after it has been sent for duplication and distribution to the delegates.  If there is a question of leaders using inappropriate influence to try to bend the authority and intent of  Synod to their desired outcomes, then careful attention should be given to  assure that future Synods take measures to preserve the integrity and authority of Synods to set the policy for our leaders, not the other way around.

     If the issue is that voting delegates lack the information they need to effectively communicate their views or ask questions, then maybe we should develop a  plan to prepare delegates for the important task they will face at Synod.  Classes on parliamentary procedures, order of authority at synod, review and study of important documents that express Moravian doctrine and faith, and even study of past history of Synods would all be helpful.

     If documents are presented to a committee for review and submission as a resolution, the original resolution, along with any revisions recommended by that committee, should be presented to delegates.  Ample time must be provided to allow voting delegates to review and discuss both the original and the revisions, so that they can understand the intent of the original and the purpose of any revisions in the final version.

     Finally, leaders of our church, both provincial and congregational levels, should have an obligation to fully inform potential delegates of relevant issues expected to come before Synod.  Potential delegates should collect input from their respective congregations concerning the issues to be decided by Synod.  Well-prepared delegates would greatly facilitate the proceedings on the floor of synod. 

     Reports that Leaders were discussing and preparing reaction to a potential resolution, even before it was submitted by committee, seems inconsistent with synod request that delegates come to synod floor without a preconceived voting plan.

     Laity must be willing to exert its authority at Synod  to make those tough decisions that  leaders might find difficult to make on their own. 

Lee Sprinkle
member Olivet Moravian Church
Aug 20, 2003

^{1 ( PEC had organized a search for appropriate statements of our  identity and beliefs in the Southern Province. Attention to these, Vision Statements would be given at the 2002 Southern Synod)
 Visit the following links on the Southern Province Web Site for more information:} 

^{Vision Discernment  www.mcsp.org/new_future.htm 
Vision Discernment in the Southern Province www.mcsp.org/new_future_vision_discernment.htm 
About Visioning www.mcsp.org/new_future_about_vision.htm} 

^{2 (}Standing Rules of Synod  Paragraph 4      All resolutions coming from the synod committees shall be referred to the Steering Committee. This committee does not have the power to alter or reject resolutions, but to see that resolutions are duplicated and distributed to delegates before they are presented for action.)