MI 520: MISSIONS PERSPECTIVES
Moreau, Corwin, and McGee: Introducing World Mission: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey
Luther Rice Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
Masters of Divinity
Justin Z. DuBose
152 Sherwood St.
Toccoa, GA 30577
I.D.# GC6831 / Phone: (678) 707-1491
December 4, 2011
Professor: Dr. Coleman
Hours Completed: 12 -- Hours Remaining: 60
LUDWIG VON ZINZENDORF: HIS MISSIONS WORK AND LEGACY
Presented to Dr. Derek Coleman
Luther Rice Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
MI 520: MISSIONS PERSPECTIVES
Justin Z. DuBose
II. LUDWIG VON ZINZENDORF: HIS MISSIONS WORK AND LEGACY
III. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ludwig Von Zinzendorf was born into a royal family and destined to live a life of ease and comfort. However, he felt called of the Lord to purchase property and begin a community for religious outcasts. In doing so, he would become the founder of the Moravian Church and one of the most impactful missions organizations ever. Much can be learned from modern Christians about connecting theology with implementation.
Ludwig Von Zinzendorf was born to a royal family in Dresden, Austria on May 26, 1700. He attended law school at the University of Wittenburg in pursuance of a career as a diplomat, as was custom for his family. Zinzendorf’s dreams were realized in October 1721 when he was appointed the king’s judicial counselor at Dresden. 1 Zinzendorf would only remain in this role for less than one year before he purchased the estate of Berthelsdorf in Saxony from his grandmother. It was his intention to use Berthelsdorf to create a haven for oppressed Christian minorities. 2 Within a couple of months, Herrnhut, the name of the community, had ten tenants. In less than five years, the settlement had climbed to ninety and, by the end of their sixth year, their number had climbed to three hundred. 3
A seminal moment for the community occurred on August 13, 1727 when a special service was held where Zinzendorf revealed to them a most exciting discovery. Zinzendorf had discovered a copy of the constitution of a fifteenth century Moravian movement, which predated even Lutheranism. 4 Even more amazing, this document contained great parallels between a recent
agreement all entered into by those at Herrnhut. At this
meeting, according to Zinzendorf, “Now the Holy Spirit Himself took full control of everything and everybody.” 5 From this moment on, the community became one of love, with a focus on the heart, rather than theology, with a focus on doctrine. From this meeting was formed what would come to be known as the Moravian Church. 6 The motto of both Zinzendorf as well as Herrnhut became “There can be no Christianity without community.” 7 The community continued to function this way until 1731 when Zinzendorf met Anthony Ulrich, a converted slave from the West Indies. Upon hearing of the condition and treatment of slaves in the West Indies, Wernnhut began sending missionaries there in 1732. In the meantime, Zinzendorf and his followers were exiled from their property in Saxony in 1736. They picked up and resettled in Marienborn. Zinzendorf would travel to the West Indies himself in 1739, to St. Thomas, where he would stay for two years. The missions work in St. Thomas flourished as a result of his ministry there. From here, he traveled to Philadelphia. He would secure the future freedom of the Moravian church to do ministry in North America. In 1749 he traveled to England where he would settle for the next six years
and, in 1760, he would pass away at his beloved Herrnhut. 8 By
7 Lewis, A. J. (1962). Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer. London: SCM Press. pp. 82–83.
the time of his death the Moravian church, stemming from the small community Zinzendorf began at Herrnhut, had missionary communities in modern-day Germany, Denmark, Russia, England, West Indies, Greenland, among North American Indian communities, South Carolina, the Baltic region, Suriname, South America, the East Indies, Egypt, the Inuit of Labrador, and South Africa. 9
Zinzendorf’s Moravian movement went largely against the theologically-driven emphasis of the Lutheran church. Zinzendorf’s movement emphasized community broken down into life stages. 10 The thought process was that not all people need the same spiritual care. Their care needs are determined largely by the stage of life they are in. These “choirs”, as they came to be known, were determined by age, sex, and marital status. 11
The community aspect of Zinzendorf was nothing new to Christendom. However, it was his missional aspect that added something very new and very threatening to the established
Christian institutions of the time – even Lutheranism had been around for more than two centuries by this point. This communal aspect of Christianity was largely based on the early church model found in Acts 2:42-47. Zinzendorf saw this as something
that the church had lost, or missed altogether, and determined
that Christianity and community could not be separated. This theology was obviously very effective as the fruit harvested from this theology was effective all over the globe in a very short period of time.
The greatest contribution that Zinzendorf left to the field of missions was firstly the community aspect. Churches, in theory, are supposed to be this community. Yet, then as now, this aspect which is so central to Christianity is often absent. Historically, the more institutionalized a church becomes, the less of the community aspect is evident therein. Zinzendorf’s Moravian movement revolutionized this aspect of the church. His second major contribution, which is perhaps a byproduct of his major contribution, is the relational aspect of God to man demonstrated to unbelievers and experienced tangibly by believers. Christian theology advocates this, but the implementation of this is often lacking, leaving many skeptical or critical. Often there seems to be a disconnect between theology and application, yet the missional-community focus of Zinzendorf incorporates all of this very well. Christians communities today could learn much from Zinzendorf’s practical theology. Perhaps if the church returned to such a simple trust in the work of the Holy Spirit, Christianity would be revolutionized to the same extent that it was in Zinzendorf’s lifetime.
Lewis, A. J. Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer. London: SCM Press (1962), pp. 82–83.
The Professional Ethic of the US Army Officer
The US Army officer must conduct his affairs as well as live his life under a professional and established code of ethics. Other professions certainly have their own code of ethics, but the code of ethics for the Army officer is far more demanding on the individual. For the civilian, the code of ethics effectively stays in the office. Once they have “clocked out”, their time is their own – they are free to do whatever they wish without worrying about their subordinates or superiors. For the Army officer, however, their code of ethics must be carried on into their personal lives as well. As Don Snider writes, “an officer of character is more concerned with being the kind of person who does the right thing, at the right time, in the right way”. 1 He also describes the officer as someone who conducts themselves as not only as professionals in the working environment, but as “being a certain kind of person”. 2 This, however, is not the only challenge that the officer faces in his professional code of ethics. The greatest challenge is described by Samuel Huntington as the “management of violence”. 3
Huntington cites this as the single factor that separates all Army officers from all civilians. The Army, as an organization, is primarily responsible for inflicting violence upon other countries. Officers, as the management and overseers of the Army, are responsible for managing that violence. This, of course, requires a much stronger commitment to ethics than anything in the civilian world. Add to this that the nature of warfare and the means by which it is carried out are constantly changing, and that the nature of warfare and the means by which it is carried out are constantly changing, and you not only have a strict ethical code which must be maintained, but also a fixed code which must be maintained in the midst of an environment
1 Snider, Don M. “The Multiple Identities of the Professional Army Officer”, pg. 155
3 Huntington, Samuel P. “The Soldier and the State”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957, pg. 11
which requires constant adaptation. To do this, as Huntington writes, the Army officer must be a lifelong learner. He says that the Army officer has “probably a higher ratio of educational time to practice time than in any other profession”. 4 This concept is immensely helpful in understanding the substantial ethical code under which the Army officer operates.
“The first virtue of officership is subordination”. 5 This single statement represents another aspect of the ethical standard which officers are to conduct themselves under. US Army officers are called upon to lead the greatest military in the world, and yet their first virtue is subordination. In fact, officers are to subordinate themselves more so than they are to lead. An explanation may be necessary to explain this. If you read a copy of DA Form 71, you will find that, upon commissioning as officers, they subordinate themselves to the Constitution of the USA (DA Form 71, JUL 1999). In doing so, they subordinate themselves to the government and all of the elected officials therein. In doing this, they also subordinate themselves to the citizens of the United States. In reality, Army officers are voluntary servants to the people and the government of the USA. It is for this reason that the Army officer must be a person of character, in and out of uniform, because they represent the Army to the civilian world. This may be the most complicated part of the ethical code of the Army officer: that they are called upon to lead troops, to cause and yet manage violence, and yet in leading the most powerful force in the world, they are mandated to subordinate themselves to the people and leaders of the USA. For this reason, the professional ethic of the US Army officer is the most demanding in the world, which is why “the professional man commands more respect” 6 than any other trade in the world.
4 Huntington, Samuel P. “The Soldier and the State”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957, pg. 13
5 Swain, Richard. “Reflection on an Ethic of Officership”, pg. 9
6 Huntington, Samuel P. “The Soldier and the State”, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957, pg. 7
The Professional Ethic of the Army Chaplain
Based on our readings for this paper, the primary piece of knowledge which I gleamed regarding the professional ethics of the Army Chaplain is that, since the earliest origins of military chaplaincy here in America, the ethic has always been, and will continue to be, unchanged. The Chaplain must always be almost inconceivably flexible. This is unchanged from the American Revolution all the way down to the article about Desert Storm. The Chaplain must be inexhaustibly compassionate toward his soldiers. They must never cease to care for them, spend time with them, and place the safety and goodwill of their soldiers above their own. The final thing I gleamed from the reading was that the Chaplain must be invariably present with their soldiers. With these three characters, the Chaplain can expect to retire from this unique ministry with much spiritual fruit to show for it.
The first characteristic of the chaplain is that they must be inconceivably flexible. The reason I chose this word “inconceivable” is because, in reading about these chaplains, it is something totally and completely foreign to civilian ministry. The chaplain must be prepared both to perform ministry on a dime, as well as completely abandon ministry on a dime. In one of our articles, the author describes the chapel service by saying that “it could be suddenly interrupted by a surprise attack, or hasty preparation for battle” (Vol 2, pg. 97). This quality is one that is unique to the setting of the military chaplaincy setting. How does this translate into an “ethic”? To me, this entails that the Army chaplain must understand, even more so than the civilian clergyman, that the ministry is not at all about himself. This ministry is strictly for God and for soldiers. This humility is a key ethic of the Army chaplain which, if he does not have, he will never see fruitful ministry take place.
The second characteristic of the Army chaplain, and, in my opinion, the most important, is that they must be inexhaustibly compassionate toward those soldiers. This will certainly deplete them of most of their spiritual resources and energy – and this is exactly why their compassion must be inexhaustible. The readings provided plenty of examples. Chaplains must continuously be making rounds among the sick and wounded (Vol 1, pg. 172), they must accommodate even the smallest minority to ensure that their spiritual needs are met (Vol. 3, pg. 189), and they must place the lives and welfare of their men before their own (Vol. 4, pgs. 128-130; 148). The best example of this characteristic can be found in the “four chaplains”. These men gave up their life preservers, gloves, and various items so that others might survive. All the while that they were doing this, they were encouraging men and women who were screaming with terror – such is a fantastic example of inexhaustible compassion. How does this translate into ethics? Often times, this compassion translates into leadership. Moral courage lays the most solid foundation for inspirational leadership. The best example of this comes from Chaplain Haney, a Medal of Honor winner from the Civil War. Haney, on the road to Vicksburg, notices that many wounded men are left completely neglected because of a drunk doctor! Haney then not only treats their wounds as best he can, but he also confronts General Sherman about the problem. Sherman initially responds in anger, but Haney, compelled by his inexhaustible compassion, persists and the men end up receiving treatment (Haney, pg. 11).
The final characteristic of chaplains is that they must be invariably present with their soldiers. Absentee chaplains have soldiers who are dry spiritually, whereas chaplains who practice a ministry of presence have soldiers who know that they can continually be replenished. The most powerful example of this characteristic is embodied in Emil Kapaun. Chaplain Kapaun, in the early days of the Korean War, lost his jeep. This, however, was not going to slow down this man. He soon found a bicycle and, as one soldier put it, “covered our units as few other Chaplain I know” (Vol. 5, pg. 82). When Kapaun was later imprisoned with his men, his ministry of presence continued. For six months in prison, Kapaun was invariably present with his men when they needed him most. Men were dying of starvation, and Kapaun would steal food for them. Men were in desperate need of comfort, and Kapaun was there to provide it for them (Vol. 5, pg. 83). Former prisoners said of Kapaun that “he was able to inspire others so that they could go on living – when it would have been easier for them to die” (Vol. 5, pg. 83). This characteristic translates to the ethic of loyalty. In my mind, the Chaplain should be the most loyal soldier in all of the Army, and, as a byproduct, inspire that loyalty in others. This loyalty to both God and man is impossible, however, if a Chaplain is not invariably present with his men.
NG, LR, NCU, USAR
My collection of personal papers written over the years