Aaron Spencer Fogleman. Jesus Is Female: Moravians and the Challenge of Radical Religion in Early America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. x + 330 pp. $49.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8122-3992-8.
Reviewed by Paul Peucker
Published on H-German (November, 2007)
In the 1740s, a group of Moravians built their the reasons for this violence is not fully convinc‐ main settlement, Bethlehem, on Pennsylvania's ing. I agree with him that the Philadelphian ideals Lehigh River. The Moravian Church or Brüderge‐ of the Moravians were misleading to many and meine had emerged two decades earlier, when Bo‐ constituted a justifcation for the transatlantic hemian and Moravian Protestants settled in Her‐ campaign against the Moravians. Readers like me, rnhut, Saxony, under the leadership of Nikolaus however, will take exception to the author's inter‐ von Zinzendorf, developing into a dynamic com‐ pretation of Moravian ideas on gender. munity that attracted people from throughout Eu‐ Most studies on the Moravians in North rope. A 1727 revival convinced the Herrnhuters America focus either on their work among Native that God had renewed the church of the Bohemi‐ Americans or on the internal life of their commu‐ an Brethren (Unitas Fratrum) in their midst. With‐ nities. Fogleman is mainly interested in the oppo‐ in a few years, Moravians had founded communi‐ sition Moravians encountered from other ties and mission stations all over the world. Mora‐ colonists, which in some instances led to physical vians came to Pennsylvania to spread Christianity violence. The author identifes the main oppo‐ to the native populations and to minister to the nents of the Moravians as the Halle Pietists, the European settlers, who they believed lacked ap‐ Amsterdam classis of the Reformed Church in the propriate pastoral care. Itinerant ministers sent Netherlands (which had the oversight over the from Bethlehem preached and administered the Dutch and German Reformed immigrants in the sacraments to Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed colonies), and the Lutheran Church in Sweden. To settlers. The Moravians had not been persecuted his credit, Fogleman has utilized the extensive in Europe, but in North America, they became the anti-Moravian literature in English, German, and object of violent attack. While the topic of Fogle‐ Dutch; these sources have been mostly ignored by man's book--interactions between Moravians and scholars in the past. local settlers and religious leaders--has not been sufciently studied in the past, his explanation of H-Net Reviews
Fogleman sees the main sources of violence complex of ideas, it was neither unbiblical to at‐ against Moravians as lying in their "violations of tribute female qualities to God (as in Isaiah 66:13) orthodox gender order" (p. 9) and their ecumeni‐ nor was it unheard of in Lutheran hymnody (as in cal beliefs. The signifcance of the frst of these Paul Gerhardt's Nun lasst uns gehn und treten themes is developed in the frst half of the book. [1653]). It would have been helpful had Fogleman Moravians supposedly violated the existing gen‐ explained why Moravians stressed feminine as‐ der order by allowing women to preach and pects in their theology, why they had diferent through their belief "in a largely female Christian views on gender, and why they allowed women to deity" (p. 103). While it is true to note that Zinzen‐ preach. Zinzendorf, at any rate, did not teach that dorf attributed female qualities to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit was born from Jesus' side. More‐ whom he characterized as a mother, Fogleman over, it is incorrect to claim that eighteenth-centu‐ goes a few steps further to claim that not only did ry Moravians believed in a "female Jesus." Mid- Moravians "disempower" God the Father, by re‐ eighteenth-century Moravians did refer to Jesus ferring to Christ as the Creator, they also believed as their "Man" or the "Husband" of their souls. that Jesus was female. Although the author has Both women and men expressed their longing for used the provocative title of this book twice in the Christ in the sensuous language of bridal mysti‐ past,[1] this book does not satisfactorily prove his cism, in which Christ was the bridegroom and the claim and indeed is surprisingly brief on this top‐ believer was the bride. Accordingly, Zinzendorf ic. While he claims that "many of their protocols, taught that all souls (animae) are female and that poems, hymns, and much of their iconography every human would eventually return to his or suggested female qualities of Christ," the book her female state. Fogleman does mention this does not provide any documentation in support of claim on page 79, but he does not give it much at‐ this claim (p. 77). The author does quote a hymn tention. It may be feminization, but not a femi‐ that speaks of Jesus leading "with motherly love" nization of the divine, as Fogleman repeatedly (p. 78) and argues that Moravians referred to the claims; instead, it is a feminization of the believer. wound in Jesus' side as a "womb" from which the A fnal problematic moment in Fogleman's argu‐ Holy Spirit and believers were born, but these mentation about gender is his claim that local set‐ mentions are insufcient to prove the larger the‐ tlers reacted strongly against Moravian female sis. Even when Moravians did refer to the Holy preachers when, as he himself notes, in British Spirit as Mother, it is unclear that they believed North America during the Great Awakening "fe‐ "in a largely female Christian deity" (p. 103). At male preaching became the most prominent in most, these references suggest that Moravians the Protestant Atlantic world during the eigh‐ sometimes attributed female qualities to Jesus. teenth century" (p. 46). Fogleman, however, does not make any distinc‐ Fogleman does realize that alleged violations tion between "female qualities of Jesus" and "the of gender order are not alone sufcient as an ex‐ female Jesus" (p. 83). Nor is it clear what he means planation for opposition to the Moravians. He of‐ when he claims that "the gender of Jesus ... has fers a better explanation in what he identifes as not been constant historically" (p. 83). "the ecumenical challenge" in chapter 4. Zinzen‐ Moravian piety drew upon many diferent dorf and other leading Moravians were infu‐ sources including Lutheranism, German Pietism, enced by the ideas of the Philadelphian move‐ medieval mysticism, and the traditions of the an‐ ment. Ever since his encounter with Philadelphi‐ cient Unitas Fratrum. Central to it was a personal an ideas in the early 1720s, Zinzendorf sought to surrender to Christ due to the emotional impact of bring together the true children of God, and much his sufering and death on the cross. Within this of his life's work must be examined in light of
2 H-Net Reviews these ecumenical ideals. Zinzendorf conceived of a solid campaign against the Moravians by reli‐ the Brüdergemeine during its formative years as a gious leaders in Europe. community of members of diferent denomina‐ In some cases, confrontations led to violence. tions, including the ancient Unitas Fratrum, Re‐ Although Fogleman implies that the number of formed, and Lutherans. The Brüdergemeine was cases of violent incidents against Moravians was not meant to be a new church, but rather a real‐ quite high--he refers to an "extraordinary level of ization of Christ's true church on earth, assembled popular religious violence" (p. 4), or "widespread from the "children of God" of various churches. To religious violence" (p. 185)--he does not substanti‐ the Moravians, the American colonies promised a ate his claim. The number of actually violent con‐ fertile testing ground for these ideas. Although frontations presented by the author is limited to Zinzendorf's 1742 Pennsylvania Synods with rep‐ only a few. Furthermore, these incidents seem to resentatives from diferent religious groups have occurred relatively early in the 1740s, before failed, Moravians still sent itinerant preachers to Moravians developed some of their more unusual Lutheran and Reformed communities in the practices and beliefs and, most signifcantly, be‐ American colonies. Moravians were deeply wor‐ fore anti-Moravian writers were able to write ried about the lack of ministers and ecclesiastical about them. organization in the colonies and hoped to provide A problematic aspect of the book is its sugges‐ pastoral care as a service to the settlers. From the tive language. Like its title, the terminology of the perspective of the Moravians' Philadelphian book does not attempt to take the neutral tone ideals, a contradiction did not exist in sending out usually preferred by historians. Fogleman uses itinerant preachers as "Lutherans" or "Reformed," terms such as "dangerous" (p. 64), "enemy" (p. 65), even when they were members of the Moravian "Moravian expansion" (p. 66), "Moravian victory" congregation, too. (p. 218), "Moravian assault" (p. 217), "onslaught" The established churches, however, saw (p. 111), "fagrant transgressions of gender and Moravian activity quite diferently; they feared confessional order" (p. 133), "sexual orgies" (p. serious encroachment on their religious territory. 90), or "Catholic-like perversities" (p. 90), appar‐ Fogleman demonstrates the numerical strength of ently without irony. At some crucial points foot‐ Moravian preachers in comparison to other reli‐ notes are missing: for example, as proof of the as‐ gious groups. Itinerant preaching--Moravians sertion that in the early modern era "many" be‐ called it "diaspora work"--was one of Bethlehem's lieved that giving life was "a male function" (p. main missions. Moravians ofered free preaching, 77). Readers whose interest is aroused by this infant baptisms, medical assistance, education, statement will not fnd any references. and at times, fnancial aid for raising church In the end, although Fogleman claims to buildings. Some--including Fogleman--thought present an image of the Moravians as found in that Moravians tried "to win over Lutheran, Re‐ anti-Moravian writings, the resulting reduction of formed, and other settlers" (p. 125); in fact, Mora‐ Moravian theology to "views on the Trinity and ... vians were very reluctant to receive people into radical practices regarding gender" (p. 86) is not their community, but considered itinerant preach‐ very helpful in enhancing our understanding of ing a religious service to others and a mission this group. Indeed, those texts show more nuance from God. The Moravian connections of some of description than Fogleman's repetitive asser‐ "Lutheran" or "Reformed" itinerant preachers tions about Moravian feminization of the deity made them suspect to representatives of those and challenges to the existing denominational or‐ churches. This suspicion led to the coordination of der. While Fogleman considers the Moravians
3 H-Net Reviews
"radicals," he does not seem to follow the usual use of this term in relation to radical Pietism, but instead defnes the Moravians as "radicals" in con‐ trast with other colonists, who are portrayed as having "held orthodox Protestant beliefs." Mora‐ vians were radicals because they "deviated" from "traditional, core beliefs in fundamental, contro‐ versial ways" (p. 2). Unfortunately, he does not ex‐ plain what these orthodox, traditional beliefs were. The author himself admits that his "view that confessional and especially gender issues motivat‐ ed colonists of the 'lower sort' to attack Moravians and their supporters cannot be proven with hard data" (p.10), but asserts nonetheless that "this seems to have been the case" (p. 215). A lack of sources to prove this supposition generates the comment that "[p]erhaps some people did not want to publish unpleasantries regarding gender, marriage and sex practices in the local newspa‐ per," and the conclusion that the role of gender is‐ sues "must be inferred" (p. 211). Fogleman's pic‐ ture of the Moravians is a caricature that does not help us understand the conficts they were en‐ gaged in. Nor does it give us a better understand‐ ing of religious life in the American colonies. Note [1]. Aaron S. Fogleman, "Jesus ist weiblich. Die herrnhutische Herausforderung in den deutschen Gemeinden Nordamerikas im 18. Jahrhundert," Historische Anthropologie 9 (2001): 167-194, and "Jesus is Female: The Moravian Challenge in the German Communities of British North America," William and Mary Quarterly 60 (2003): 295-332.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-german
Citation: Paul Peucker. Review of Fogleman, Aaron Spencer. Jesus Is Female: Moravians and the Challenge of Radical Religion in Early America. H-German, H-Net Reviews. November, 2007.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13909
4 H-Net Reviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
5