32
The 2011 Moses Lectures: Instructions for Body & Soul
Faull devotes much of her second lecture to the “instructions” given to the choir helpers who, in turn, instructed the members of the choirs on the proper method for sexual relations. These instructions are very explicit, even specifying the positions permitted. Faull notes that the explanation given in the Instructions as to why the Moravians went to “such great length to order marital relations” was the very “naturalness” of the action. It is difficult to feel “natural” during sexual relations when you are worried about the proper position and whether you are “thinking of God” during the act. The specificity of the instructions and the authority given to the choir helpers to examine and exclude choir members from communion demonstrates an extremely controlling and very hierarchal understanding of community. I am certain that, lost in their earnest desire to sanctify the entirety of life including the marriage bed, Zinzendorf, the choir helpers and the room overseers did not think of themselves as exercising extreme authoritarian control. They were serving Christ. There is certainly merit in Faull’s assertion that the speakings, which fostered self-examination and self-discovery, are rooted in the pietist movement. She also suggests that pietism could be seen as a precursor to the Enlightenment. These assertions are more complex than space allows, but they are, perhaps, the best face which can be put on the speakings. Yet, surprisingly, Faull does not seemed concerned with the highly patriarchal nature of this practice. Nor does she note that “sexual practice” is almost exclusively defined by men. Obviously, 18th century Europe was extremely patriarchal. However, Faull’s lectures would have been more balanced, in my view, had she spent more time answering the question she poses in the very last paragraph of the lectures: “And what, if anything, can we learn from this today?” In addition to the positive values Faull offers from this now forgotten practice in 18th century Moravian communities, there are surely lessons to be learned in asking why the speakings are no longer in use. Here in the North American Moravian Church we have certainly never been as accepting of hierarchy and control as in Europe. As Faull observes, there was great resistance to the intrusiveness of the speakings in North American congregations as early as 1818 when their request that the speakings be abolished was refused. But we might ask ourselves if there are still areas of hierarchy, control and even patriarchy here in our own North American context which need to be looked at critically. Another lesson I believe we can learn from Dr. Faull’s study is the significance of the choir system, which is no longer a part of what it means to be a Moravian other than how we organize our graveyards. Beginning with my years as editor of The Hinge and in the 2001 Moses Lectures, I have long urged us to revive the choir system in our congregations, albeit without the authoritarian control of the 18th century choirs. Moravians were doing “small groups” long before present-day mega-churches introduced their cell groups. We have always understood that care of the self is a social act—that spiritual growth happens most fully in shared community. This is at the heart of who we are as Moravians!