Saturday Book Review: Teresa Berger

Last updated on: May 18, 2013 at 3:07 am by Scot McKnight

Saturday Book Review: Teresa Berger 2013-05-16T05:20:38-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This review comes to us from one of our students at Northern Seminary, Jean Sharp. Book Review of Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy’s Past, Teresa Berger

In an overly sexualized North American context, it seems quite remarkable that our gendered-bodies could be overlooked. And yet, the disconnection, whether in theology, media, or liturgical historiography, is very present, as Teresa Berger points out in her recent publication: Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History. Her conclusion is, however, that such recognition has been missing not only from today, but also from the chronicling of our yesterdays. In uncovering, or “lifting the veil”, on the ways in which the church has historically always gendered liturgical practices, we can afford the eyes to see and appropriate more theologically integrated gendered lives. To accomplish such a task, Berger separates the book into three main parts: methodology and presuppositions, (four) case studies, and implications.

Methodologically, she draws and expounds on much of her previous work in Women’s studies. She utilizes extra-textual sources, offers potential for arguments from silence, and revisits old sources to submit new interpretations. The book records the historical trajectories of gender studies and its intersection with liturgical historiography, claiming to advance previous “add-gender-and-stir” methods to “historize, not essentialize, gender differences as these mark liturgy.”[1]

Her methodological task seems like the larger contribution to the study of gender attentive liturgical history. For the book itself, despite its case studies, seems to merely dabble in the depth and rich discussions available in each example. Simply her redefinition of gender beyond the “oppositional binary” of men and women, allow readers the capacity of imagination to recognize the “complex ways in which liturgy has always been shaped by changing gender constructions”.[2] Her demonstration of this methodology through the case studies, then, is the necessity of the tool, not necessarily radical discoveries of conclusions.

However, her cases studies are nevertheless revelatory. Her first case study offers a look at sacred space. Mediated through “porous” places and ways of practice, rather than the traditional dichotomy of public and private, she settles on “household” as an encompassing separate and the most formative religious space in opposition to public square and public ecclesial space, where gendered ritual was more rigidly and hierarchically coded. Berger opens the possibility that space was not only gendered within the confines of the church walls (where seating, proximity, and attendance limitations were present), but liturgically appropriated to different hierarchy of groups outside the church as well. Rituals of burial, clothing, day-to-day customs, relics, and leadership of house-churches are explored as thoroughly gender coded. She brings up the gender-specific regulations and separations of sanctuaries, and points out that conversely– women’s monastic spaces generally did not have restrictions on men.[3]

The second case study deals with Eucharistic imaging of gender—bread production, nursing, and consecrating as gendered tasks. Specifically, she explores breast milk as image of God nourishing humanity through the Eucharist of Christ’s body. There is plenty of textual evidence for these interpretations, including biblical precedent. However, the images themselves are recessively used in liturgical language. Exploring the integration of image and gendering, she makes an interesting divergence, which sets the stage for the next case study, whereby she distinguishes breastfeeding from a ‘female’-act, to a ‘maternal’ or ‘nourishing’ act. Gendered identity is here correctly attributed to “maternal”, as all females will not participate in this act.[4] However, while the metaphor can certainly draw on the nourishing act of the God/Mary/priest in nursing, the distinction that nursing can be separated from the maternal gendered identity is counter-intuitive to her argument. While nursing does not have to be “starkly female”, it must be female in some sense—for it cannot be void of its female identity, even in its mere description of “maternal” identity. This play between categories is precisely the discussions and complexities Berger is trying to draw out. She points out that humanity is never disembodied, whether the body is that of the bread of life, or the body approaching the table.

In the third case study, Berger explores bodily flows, finally crossing the boundaries of her gender study through women’s issues, and exploring the complex gender identities she speaks of throughout the book. She brings to light the controversial discussions of church fathers over bodily flows—menstrual, lochial, nocturnal-emissions, and post-coital. Each referring to differing gendered categories of people, she investigates how ritual impurity is debated and viewed in each case. At various points throughout history and cultures, Berger shows how the debates sometimes use the same texts to support opposite conclusions, or how theological decisions were made, but not necessarily enforced. A discussion otherwise hidden from the church, the ambiguity of sinfulness, ritual uncleanliness, and holiness of priest, presider, lay, or ascetic, is brought to the light. This seems to culminate the beauty of Berger’s methodology—it may not provide answers for a “right” history, or even a “right” theology, but instead it opens otherwise closed eyes to the way gender has inherently been participative in the narrative of liturgical history. Gender here has prohibitions tied to (sometimes) its very nature.

In the final case study of Liturgical Presidency, Berger explores how the development of leadership in the church has and has not been tied to gender. Sequentially, she describes the structuring of leadership first through the Spirit-inspired gifts, then the household host or patron, and finally through the “selecting and authorizing appropriate leadership for the community”.[5] The third option is most potently developed as a particularized understanding of maleness. This, in part, would contribute to the development of the priesthood. Marital continence and Eunuchs are furthermore developed as gendered identities tied with the liturgical presidency. The section distinguishing the variety by which one would become a Eunuch, and the role that change had to play in limiting or expounding the possibilities of leadership and liturgical participation is very clarifying and helpful. And finally, Berger expounds on the development of the particular version of masculinity of priests, as it interacted with female imagery. Again, the case studies seem to open up multiple conversations at once, leaving the reader wishing Berger took time to delve into each issue on its own.

The final part of the book allows Berger to push into the life and culture of the histories she uncovers, and modern implications by asking the reader to continue to where she left off. What are the theological implications of gendering liturgy? How is active participation measured when voices are gendered, and therefore categorized? Overall, Berger begins by playing to her wheelhouse of women’s studies. She leaves, however, with a strong methodological ethic of seeking gender differences in liturgical history. On a basic level, Berger has asked her readers to dethrone tidy boxes of assumptive and generalized categories of gender when looking at history and liturgy. She asks to replace the stereotype with the multifaceted. She asks to honor our gendered bodies, “not least because the story [liturgical history] seeks to tell is at heart a story of human beings who gather in worship before God, and these human beings come, always and only, embodied – and that means living within some version of a gendering process.”[6]

[1] Teresa Berger, Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy’s Past (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2011), 23, 31.

[2] Ibid, 33.

[3] Ibid, 65.

[4] Ibid, 85-6.

[5] Ibid, 130.

[6] Ibid, 29.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 18, 2013

Weekly Meanderings, May 18, 2013

Next Post

May 18, 2013 Image of Solar Corona around the Moon

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Samuel" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Heard by God God is King Chosen One Gift from God