Sex Rites of the Christian Missionaries

Count von Zinzendorf receiving light rays from the side wound,
oil painting by Johann V. Haidt (1700-1780) dated 1747

I suppose I first sensed something odd was going on years ago. I was testing the limits of my German comprehension, reading one of the oldest essays ever written by a non-Tibetan about the Tibetan Bon religion. August Hermann Francke (1870-1930), published several pieces on that subject during the last three decades of his life. Most famously he started translating the Gzer-myig, the medium-sized biography of Bon’s founder, Lord Shenrab.

In his 1927 essay entitled “Die Zufluchtsformel der Bon-Religion der Tibeter” [‘The Refuge Formula of the Tibetan Bon Religion’], Francke, a Moravian missionary in Lahul, takes the Bon Refuge formula, as found in the Gzer-myig scripture, and compares it with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He pays particular attention to the Bon goddess Sa-trig-er-sang, as adding a female aspect to divinity. This emphasis on female or feminized aspects of the godhead begins to make more sense the more you learn about the Moravians.

The goddess Sa-trig-er-sang bears a Zhang-zhung language name that may be Tibetanized as Shes-rab-byams-ma. This may then be Anglicized as “Insight (or Wisdom as many prefer) Loving Mother.” No doubt, if viewed from outside by a Christian missionary, it might be expectable to see something of Sophia (Wisdom) and Mary the Mother of God (the Theotokos) in that Bon goddess’s name. Both Sophia and Theotokos are icons for veneration in eastern Christianities for whom Holy Wisdom with her female appearance is none other than Jesus. I believe this is at least in general outline the kind of connection Francke meant to draw. Still more germane to our story, Sophia, as the feminine aspect of godhead, has special meanings in the theology of the Moravians, although their tendency is to identify her with the Holy Spirit, unlike the Greek Orthodox, who identify her with Jesus...*

(*See Fogelman’s book, chapter 3: ‘The Challenge to Gender Order.’ Moravians also tended to feminize Jesus; see Rimius.)

I once took a university course about communalistic religious movements in early New England,* but after a few decades my knowledge has worn thin as fine muslin, and what I think I know about Moravian history in Europe and North America comes from recent readings of books and essays of the kind you see listed below. I will try not to torture you with my own ideas too much. You will do so much better if I send you to hear from real experts in the field.

(*I just searched online for the teacher of that class and found that he died earlier this year, age 81. His name is Stephen Stein.)

If you don’t have much time, go directly to the video linked just below with a lecture by Paul Peucker entitled “Opening the Blue Cabinet,” or read his 2011 article if you prefer. If your spirits guide you, go read some of the other items. If you want a well-balanced discussion of historical influences and contexts, definitely read Atwood’s 2004 book. He foregrounds Moravian pietism as a product of its times, with considerable background information, before going on to speak of their unusual marital practices and views on gender, which is as it should be. Contrast Fogleman’s 2007 book, recommended if you have less (yet some) patience for historical detail and theology and would prefer the sexy bits more up front and center.

One thing to bear in mind, the time of Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) and the so-called “Sifting Time,” when the most remarkable ritualized sex observances and theological enthusiasms took place, were by most accounts not only long over but gone by the time the Herrnhut Brethren entered Tibetan cultural realms of northern India in the 1850’s. There had even been an attempt to scrub the archives clean (Peucker 2012). Yet some of the early ideas had carrying power. If the missionaries in Lahul were not making use of The Blue Cabinet, and I do not believe they were, still their marriages were arranged for them (often planned out in detail) by the church. Earlier Moravians regarded the marriage bed as a religious sacrament (which is not the same as Catholics who regard the institution of marriage, the rite itself, as a sacrament). Moravians had to submit to the church in general, and accepting the church’s choice of spouse was just another instance of submission. 

And in those earlier days the church was very closely and intimately involved in their followers’ marital lives. In truth the physical union was then treated as a religious ritual with promise of spiritual benefits, done in combination with prayers. That means not only prayers and hymns done by themselves, but also by the church elders sitting just outside the door absorbed in hymn singing and fervid praying. But don’t take my word for it.

I wouldn’t want to leave anyone with the impression that the Moravian Brethren were just a pack of randy rascals. I don’t have time or inclination to grant them complete justice, what anthropologists call adequate representation, here in this place. I’ll only say it again, read Atwood’s book. Still, let me say a thing or two to close with. 

The Moravians were quite influential, and not only controversial, particularly in the early times. We should review some of their accomplishments briefly:

They didn’t make the first hymnals, but they did make the first hymnals intended for congregational singing, like those you find today in every Protestant church. 

They published the first Bible in Czech language. 

They were the original “world missionaries” even if this isn’t often recognized. (For an exception, see Ward’s book.) Zinzendorf himself visited the New World to do missionary work. In North America they proselytized and invited to worship with them both native-born populations and slaves, disregarding race, accepting everyone. They converted those who were willing, without pressuring them to renounce their cultures. 

They not only recognized a female aspect in the godhead in their theology, in practice they gave a much greater role to women than was common in other churches — a feminist impulse was in evidence. 

There was also what we may see as an ecumenical impulse, even if it was largely about how intense devotion and piety could overcome the credal boundaries drawn by contending theological convictions.

 

But when we limit ourselves to our Tibeto-centric perspective their biggest contributions were in the works of Francke, Jäschke and others who were doing more for the field of Tibetan studies than anyone else in their day. They may have had missionary interests, but at least they had the good sense to take an interest.

The Moravian Mission in Keylong, from Missions Archive

§  §  §

The Video

• Paul Peucker, Opening the Blue Cabinet 

from Moravian Seminary on Vimeo 

(https://vimeo.com/31960203)

Relevant literature 

(Items I most recommend are marked by a red bullet: • )

• Craig D. Atwood, “Adoring the Wounded Savior.” Go to this webpage (and don’t neglect to download the Powerpoint that goes with it; it ought to appear if you just tap on the words “Adoring the Wounded Savior Slideshow” at the very top of the essay).

• Craig D. Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem, Pennsylvania State University Press (University Park 2004). Try here. 

Craig D. Atwood, “Little Side Holes: Devotional Cards of the Mid-Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Moravian History, no. 6 (Spring 2009), pp. 61-75. He argues against Fogleman’s tendency to view all the devotional wound imagery as necessarily erotic. All the same he accepts that it is heavily laden with womb symbolism.

Craig D. Atwood, “Mother of God’s People: The Adoration of the Holy Spirit in the Eighteenth-Century Brüdergemeine,” Church History, vol. 68, no. 4 (December 1999), pp. 886-909.

Craig D. Atwood, “Sleeping in the Arms of Christ: Sanctifying Sexuality in the Eighteenth-Century Moravian Church,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 8, no. 1 (July 1997), pp. 25-51.

Craig D. Atwood, “The Union of Masculine and Feminine in Zinzendorfian Piety,” contained in: Katherine M. Faull, ed., Masculinity, Sense, Spirit, Bucknell University Press (Lewisburg 2011), pp. 11-37

Craig D. Atwood, “Understanding Zinzendorf’s Blood and Wounds Theology,” Journal of Moravian History, no. 1 (2006) pp. 31-46.

Rafal Beszterda, The Moravian Brethren and Himalayan Cultures: Evangelisation, Society, Industry, Munshiram Manoharlal (New Delhi 2014).  PDF.

John Bray, “A.H. Francke’s Last Visit to Ladakh: History, Archaeology and the First World War,” Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 44 (2015), pp. 147-178. The author has a very extensive body of writings on the Moravian missionaries in the Himalayas, and only a few of these will be listed here.

John Bray, “Heinrich August Jaeschke: Pioneer Tibetan Scholar,” The Tibet Journal, vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 1983), pp. 50-55. Interesting information about Jaeschke’s ancestor being one of the founding members of Herrnhut.

• John Bray, “Ladakhi Knowledge and Western Learning: A.H. Francke’s Teachers, Guides and Friends in the Western Himalaya,” Revue d'Etudes Tibetaines, vol. 51 (2019), pp. 39-70. With interesting photographs.

John Bray, “Recalling the Life of Ladakh Scholar A.H. Francke on His 150th Birthday Anniversary,” a blog posted at Ladakhstudies.org on November 4, 2020.

R.K.C., A Strategy for Bringing Contextualized Gospel into the Tibetan Buddhist World, master’s thesis, School of Divinity, Regent University (Virginia Beach 2020). 

A work of practical mission-ology. I checked and found that this Regent University is nondenominational Christian — yet obviously evangelical, believing in the global missionary imperative, scriptural inerrancy, literal interpretation etc.* — with half their students not residing in Virginia Beach (yes, Bible-believing Boomers can be Zoomers). I have to say I’m not impressed at the depth of insight this thesis demonstrates, and think I could have made a lot better suggestions, for example, how to appropriate tulku ideas by integrating them into Christian incarnation theology. The faculty advisers sign their names, but the student fears to do so for reasons we can only imagine to our horror.

(*In case you wonder, yes, these would be some of the very people who voted for Donald Trump. See this story about one of his rallies held there on campus in 2016, addressed by Pat Robertson, naturally, since he’s its founder, chancellor and CEO. God told him Trump would win that latest presidential election, and no, he didn’t. The evangelicals knew for certain that Trump was not a good person, but nevertheless chose to see him as an instrument of divine will (as his Vice President, Pence spoke in just those terms when addressing evangelical audiences). Serving as an instrument in this case could very well mean hastening the end of the world, something they greatly anticipate, at times displaying an eagerness that can only be described as perverse. If you haven’t heard about their Cyrus arguments, about the usefulness of flawed vessels, you really ought to look into it. Well, if everybody is imperfect, then everyone should get to be head of state, if you will allow me to give a little push to their tortured logic. Trump was always forced to respect them, given their voting power, even when he would mock them as losers and demonstrate his disbelief beyond all possibility of doubt. Remember that photo op of him holding up a Bible in front of a church? Remember how much trouble was taken to put on this display? A calculated ploy to boost his falling approval ratings... To quote The Who, We won’t be fooled again... 

H.M. Cushman, “Handling Knowledge: Holy Bodies in the Middle English Mystery Plays,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, vol. 47, no. 2 (2017), pp. 279-304, at p. 279:

“In the climax of the N-Town and Chester Nativity plays, the midwife Salome puts her hand inside the Virgin Mary...  In the plays featuring Thomas the Apostle, Thomas’s fingers penetrate the resurrected Jesus’s wounded side and hands. Both the midwife and the apostle are searching for something. Salome is seeking evidence that supports or disproves the Virgin Mary’s claim that, although she has just given birth, she retains the anatomical features of a ‘clene mayde and pure virgyn.’...

“...  They conduct manual experiments, or what the plays sometimes call ‘assayes,’ in order to acquire new knowledge to which these bodies bear witness.”

Keri Davies, “Bridal Mysticism and ‘Sifting Time’: The Lost Moravian History of William Blake’s Family.”  Digital document from internet.  

• Katherine Faull and Jeannette Norfleet, “The Married Choir Instructions (1785),” Journal of Moravian History, no. 10 (2011), pp. 69-110.

J. Kestell Floyer, “The Emblem of the Five Wounds of Christ,” Theology, vol. 4, no. 22 (1922), pp. 194-200.

• Aaron Spencer Fogleman, Jesus is Female: Moravians and the Challenge of Radical Religion in Early America, University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia 2007).

Aaron Spencer Fogleman, “Jesus is Female: The Moravian Challenge in the German Communities of British North America,” William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 2 (April 2003), pp. 295-332.

• August Hermann Francke, “Die Zufluchtsformel der Bon-Religion der Tibeter,” Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, vol. 4 (1927), pp. 150-158.  

You will have to go to the link to locate this one. Most printed copies of the journal will have crumbled to dust by now. And the online catalog of the Library of Congress doesn’t record its existence anywhere. For a more detailed summary, see D. Martin, Unearthing Bon Treasures, Brill (Leiden 2001), pp. 333-334.

August Hermann Francke, “gZer-myig, A Book of the Tibetan Bon-pos,” Asia Major, vol. 1 (1924), pp. 243-346; vol. 3 (1926), pp. 321-339; vol. 4 (1927), pp. 161-239, 481-540; vol. 5 (1928), pp. 7-40; vol. 6 (1930), pp. 299-314; new series vol. 7 (1949), pp. 163-188.

John Gill, The Banished Count: The Life of Nicholas Louis Zinzendorf, “from the French of M. Felix Bovet,” James Nisbet (London 1865).  PDF.

H[einrich] A[ugust] Jäschke, A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Special Reference to the Prevailing Dialects, Routledge & Kegan Paul (London 1972), first English edition was dated 1881, while the original German edition appeared in lithographic form, almost entirely in handwriting, between the years 1871 and 1876.

George Fenwick Jones, “Count von Zinzendorf’s Letter to King Tomochichi,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, vol. 86, no. 4 (Winter 2002), pp. 617-619. About a failed effort to colonize Georgia (the Georgia the New World, not the Old) with Moravians and convert the local populations.

Dan Martin, Bon Bibliography,  posted for free download in 2020.

Rich Miller, “Zinzendorf and the Unitas Fratrum: Mutual Edification, Powerful Strategies,” a course paper for the Regent School of Divinity (Virginia Beach 2010).  Document from internet. For more on Regent University, look above under “R.K.C.”

Seth Moglen, “Excess and Utopia: Meditations on Moravian Bethlehem,” History of the Present, vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall 2012), pp. 122-147. The same author has written a book I haven’t seen, Bethlehem: American Utopia, American Tragedy.

Cameron Partridge, “Side Wound, Virgin Birth, Transfiguration,” Theology & Sexuality, vol. 18, no. 2 (2012), pp. 127-132.

Paul Peucker, A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century, Pennsylvania State University Press, (University Park 2015).  Reviewed by Tom Schwanda in Spiritus, vol. 16 (Spring 2016), pp. 123-125. At this point I’ve read the review, but not the book.

• Paul Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet: Moravians, Marriage & Sex,” Journal of Moravian History, vol 12 (2011), pp. 7-37. Particularly recommended.

Paul Peucker, “Inspired by Flames of Love: Homosexuality, Mysticism and Moravian Brothers around 1750,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 15, no. 1 (2006).  PDF (by subscription only).

Paul Peucker, “Selection and Destruction in Moravian Archives Between 1760 and 1810,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 12, no. 2 (2012) pp. 170-215. On attempts to purge the  church archives of historical records pertaining to the so-called Sifting Time.

Paul Peucker, “The Songs of the Sifting: Understanding the Role of Bridal Mysticism in Moravian Piety during the Late 1740’s,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 3 (2007), pp. 51-87.

Paul Peucker, “Wives of the Lamb: Moravian Brothers and Gender around 1750,” contained in: Katherine M. Faull, ed., Masculinity, Sense, Spirit, Bucknell University Press (Lewisburg 2011), pp. 39-54.

Oskar Pfister, Die Frommigkeit des Grafen Ludwig von Zinzendorf [‘The Piety of Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf’], Schriften zur angewandten Seelenkunde, no. 8  (Leipzig and Vienna 1910). 

I don’t pretend to have read it, it’s just interesting to know that this was the book that brought Count Zinzendorf to the attention of the Viennese psychoanalytical circle with their evolving ideas about sexual repression (see Silberer’s book listed just below). Actually, Pfister although a Lutheran minister in Switzerland, was enthusiastically involved in the Viennese circle, exchanging letters with Freud and so on. To quote a line from Freud’s 1914 essay, ‘History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement’:

“Dr. Pfister, a pastor in Zurich, has traced back the origin of religious fanaticism to perverse eroticism in his book on the piety of Count von Zinzendorf, as well as in other contributions. In the latest works of the Zurich school, however, we find analysis permeated with religious ideas rather than the opposite outcome that had been in view.”

My note: By Zurich school, he means Pfister’s own circle of followers. Freud could never express his appreciation for another member of his circle without also chiding them for something or another. He does a similar thing every time he mentions Silberer’s dream theories. Perhaps compensating for un-admitted inadequacies, he always made himself look a little better than the rest, more knowledgable, more analytical, more scientific, even. Maybe that’s why he came out at the head of the pack?

Henry Rimius,  A Candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Herrnhuters, Commonly Call'd Moravians, or, Unitas Fratrum; with a Short Account of Their Doctrines Drawn from Their Own Writings, 2nd ed., A. Linde (London 1753), pp. 40-41:

“The Holy Ghost is called by the Herrnhuters, the eternal Wife of  God, the Mother of Christ, the Mother of the Faithful, the Mother of the Church...”

[Jesus] “is called the Lamb, their little Lamb, their little Jesus. They make his Name of the feminine gender, calling him their Mother, their Mama Jesua.” 

Herbert Silberer (1882-1923), Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts, Dover Publications (New York 1971). This English translation was first published under the [better] title Problems of Mysticism and its Symbolism in 1917 (Probleme der Mystik und ihrer Symbolik, in 1914). At pp. 264-266, his discussion on Count Zinzendorf includes these words: 

“Thus the pious man indulges his phantasy with a marked predilection for voluptuousness in the ‘Seitenhölchen’ (Wound in the Side) in Jesus’ body and with an unmistakable identification of this ‘cleft’ with the vulva.”

Kristof Smeyers, “Making Sense of Stigmata: How Victorians Explained the Wounds of Christ,” Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 24, no. 2 (2019), pp. 227-240.

August Gottlieb Spangenberg (1704-1792), The Life of Nicholas Lewis Count Zinzendorf: Bishop and Ordinary of the Church of the United (or Moravian) Brethren, Samuel Holdsworth (Ann Arbor 1838). Try archive.org/.

Peter Vogt, “Honor to the Side: The Adoration of the Side Wound of Jesus in Eighteenth-Century Moravian Piety,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 7 (Autumn 2009), pp. 83-106.

Peter Vogt, “Zinzendorf’s ‘Seventeen Points of Matrimony’: A Fundamental Document on the Moravian Understanding of Marriage and Sexuality,” Journal of Moravian History, vol. 10 (2011), pp. 39-67.

W.R. Ward, Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History, 1670-1789, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 2006).

John R. Weinlick, Count Zinzendorf, Abingdon Press (New York 1956).

Karl Wilhelm Westmeier, “Zinzendorf at Esopus: The Apocalyptical Missiology of Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf — A Debut to America.” Missiology, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 1994), pp.  419-436.  I haven’t seen this yet (because of the pay wall).

Yashoda, “50 Stars of Christmas:  Moravian Church, Leh, Highest Church in the World.” Posted November 24, 2017.  Look here, particularly for the photo of the Moravian church in Leh, Ladakh, made to resemble local style architecture.

PS: Looking at the frontispiece, it is difficult to avoid the thought that it was inspired and informed by earlier paintings of St. Francis of Assissi receiving the Stigmata. See for a ca. 1300 example Giotto’s.

Whether Moravian wound devotion was an unnatural aberration or an expectable development of trends within the broader Christian world (see especially Vogt) is something you may have to sort out for yourself, if that’s the sort of thing that interests you. In the British Isles one may detect a longterm development between the 15th century when a cult of Five Wounds reached its peak (Floyer), until the 19th when a anomalously Protestant rash of stigmata took place (Smeyers).

But if you closely inspect and contrast Haidt’s and Giotto’s paintings you will observe the differences in the places the light rays lead to and from, and then some of you will want to conclude that Haidt was influenced by Tibetan Buddhism.

For Paul Peucker’s hour-long exploration of Haidt’s life and artistry, we have this interesting video, posted April 16, 2021. An odd detail: Haidt’s painting of a manger scene shows what apparently is Mary’s midwife, known only in extra-canonical scriptures. Her name was Salome, and a cave-tomb that was once a cult center for Christians in her memory was only made public earlier today (December 21, 2022). There is one decisive clue that the 2nd woman is the midwife: We see in the painting how her one hand holds the other. Part of the story is that her hand was paralyzed when she temporarily doubted the Virgin’s virginity. The tomb had been known for sometime, but newly identified thanks to the recent discovery of an inscription that reads something like, “Salome who was Mary’s midwife.” That the story was released shortly before Christmas was not an accident. 

PPS (still Dec. 21): If you would like to unravel the mystery of why Salome is holding her hands in that way, you shouldn’t trust the news stories, or my own account of it just given, and go directly to the “Infancy Gospel of James,” chapters 19-20. We can all use some fact checking sometimes. Salome was not exactly the midwife, and her hand wasn’t exactly paralyzed (in fact, her “hand was on fire, and falling away from her’). As a “doubting Thomas” type of figure she has to perform her empirical test by inserting her finger somewhere else besides the side wound.

Another thing: The burial cave and its inscription with the name of Salome has been known for years now. For proof, see this 2019 blog by a Holy Land tour guide. Today’s news releases are more than a little disingenuous about this, using weasel words like “recently.”

-  -  -

“O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs,* let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice ; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.” 

—    Song of Solomon 2:14 [King James version]

(*Crag or overhang, in the singular, would have been better translation choices.  Or maybe alcove, a word of Semitic origins.)

 

Rock of ages, cleft for me,

let me hide myself in thee;

let the water and the blood,

from thy wounded side which flowed,

be of sin the double cure;

save from wrath and make me pure.

—    Rock of Ages, the hymn by Augustus Toplady (1763) 

Note: For a typically allegorical Christian interpretation (not something that should ever be done by people like Calvinists, professing a belief in the inerrancy of scripture taken literally) of the Bible verse by John Gill, a teacher of the just-mentioned Toplady, look here. These were Calvinists, not Moravians, although they did belong to the same century as Zinzendorf. Rock of Ages was written soon after Zinzendorf’s death. It is today among the top most-sung hymns in North American evangelical hymnbooks. It might come in at second place after Amazing Grace.