Skip to content

Lecture Notes: Hans Boersma on Embodiment and Gender in Gregory of Nyssa

April 18, 2013

Less than a fortnight ago at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C.,I was able to attend a reading from Hans Boersma‘s most recent book, published by Oxford University Press, called Embodiment and Virtue in Gregory of Nyssa: An Anagogical Approach. The reading given was from chapter three of the book, “Gendered Body,” and was called “Putting on Clothes: Body, Sex & Gender in Gregory of Nyssa.” It included an intro from John Stackhouse, Jr., responses from James Houston and Craig Allen, and a final rejoinder from Boersma.

There were a few interesting nuggets, not the least of which being Boersma’s (admirable) admission that the book he set out to write did not materialize because Gregory of Nyssa did not quite say what Boersma figured (or hoped) he would say. It seems Boersma was set to find Gregory a more solid ally in what he calls the “embrace of time-bound embodiment as sacrament,” only to have the fourth century Cappadocian fit the Neoplatonic mould more than expected.

Turns out that Gregory’s is something of a “theology of ascent,” wherein embodiment (including gender) is penultimate—i.e., a means to an end (that end being virtue). (In his response, it should be noted, retired professor James Houston suggested that Gregory did some subverting of Neoplatonism from within, and Boersma seemed to agree).

The upshot of all this was a very intriguing (if sometimes odd) account of gender and sexuality in Gregory’s work, which includes a (fairly typical) allegorical reading of Song of Songs and a (rather less than typical) reading of Genesis 3 wherein the “tunics of skin” provided to cover Adam and Eve after their sin are not animal skins but the gendered bodies we have come to know today. (Boersma indicated that Gregory had to do some exegetical footwork to get this to work with Genesis 1-2, but left it at that, which I suppose makes for a bit of a teaser).

What stuck out to me most in this lecture was the “penultimacy of gender” in Gregory’s account, as well as the high esteem which he assigned to virginity. (Seriously: at one point he says that “virginity’s praiseworthiness eliminates the need for praise”). The latter has a bit of a gnostic ring to it, of course, but together these impulses in the early church father’s theology do place a sharp question mark on contemporary evangelicalism’s oft-assumed combo of gender essentialism and marriage-primacy. As Boersma put it, Gregory “seems intent on destabilizing gender.” (And here we thought the twenty-first century was being so novel).

Lastly, I really enjoyed Boersma’s recounting of Gregory’s admiration for his sister Macrina. Reflecting on her untimely death Gregory wrote his Dialogue on the Soul and Resurrection, wherein he reportedly says she was twice the man he was, and waxes eloquent about her quality. I was rather captivated by the story, so I’m going to have to follow that one up. Which reminds me: we don’t hear enough about the early church “mothers”.

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. April 18, 2013 4:53 am

    Thanks for the write-up. Not surprisingly, Coakley has also utilized Gregory of Nyssa for her own theological work to “destabilize” gender. Of course, I reject both Nyssa’s platonic urges and Coakley’s revisionist account of gender identity, in favor of an essentialism grounded in christology (a la Barth) as scripture testifies. Anyway, I’ll have to get our seminary library to purchase this book when it is released.

  2. April 18, 2013 5:25 pm

    Hmm, yes, I’m not sure I want to go with Coakley (haven’t read her on this) but I’d have to hear more about the essentialism grounded in christology. I’m not altogether happy with Barth on this either. Its something I wrestle with directly in another post on this blog actually.

  3. Kevin Davis permalink
    April 19, 2013 7:12 am

    Jon,

    If you google “gender theology barth,” the first link should be a blog article that I did on this topic. It is part of a larger series on Gender and Theology that I did in January. I still have more work to do in this area, but I am rather certain that Barth has been misjudged on this topic, thanks in large part to a dubious “apocalyptic” over-reading of Barth’s rejection of natural theology. It would not hurt to read or re-read CD III.1 on the covenant form of creation.

    Happy studying!

  4. April 19, 2013 12:11 pm

    Thanks Kevin, I will check that out.

    Jon

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Shored Fragments

Theology in the Far Country

Resident Theology

Theology in the Far Country

Storied Theology

Telling the story of the story-bound God

KYRIE ELEISON

Theology in the Far Country

The Fire and the Rose

Theology in the Far Country

Inhabitatio Dei

Jealous is the night when the Morning comes

Faith and Theology

Theology in the Far Country

DET

Theology in the Far Country

%d bloggers like this: