13AR18-05

Apologia Report 18:5 (1,141)

January 30, 2013

Subject: Radical feminist christology deifies Mary Magdalene

In this issue:

FREAK FILE - conjuring the deification of Mary Magdalene to "capture the public imagination"

ISLAM - "discussions of textbooks, academics’ various roles, and the changes to the study of Islam over the past thirty years"

NEOPAGANISM - a critical analysis of Pagan Studies

UNIFICATION CHURCH - a social-science overview of its leadership transition turmoil since the death of Sun Myung Moon

------

Editor's note: I've often felt that it takes at least four editions of AR to give someone an idea of what to expect from our publication. If you're one of our new readers, don't let the strongly academic focus of this issue scare you away. We cover many items from the popular press as well. Keep reading. You'll see. - RP

------

FREAK FILE

"The Deification of Mary Magdalene" by Mary Ann Beavis -- from the abstract: "The past 25 years have seen an upsurge of interest in the figure of Mary Magdalene, whose image has been transformed through feminist scholarship from penitent prostitute to prominent disciple of Jesus. This article documents another, non-academic, interpretation of Mary Magdalene - the image of Mary as goddess or embodiment of the female divine. The most influential proponent of this view is Margaret Starbird [margaretstarbird.net], who hypothesizes that Mary was both Jesus' wife and his divine feminine counterpart. The author suggests that feminist theologians/thealogians should (a) be aware of this popular understanding of Mary; and (b) consider what it is about Mary Magdalene as the sacred feminine/Bride of Jesus/Sophia that captures the public imagination in a way that other feminist christologies do not." (Yep. Does that fer SURE. - RP) Feminist Theology, 21:2 - 2012, pp145-154. <www.ow.ly/h9OfL>

---

ISLAM

The academic journal Method & Theory in the Study of Religion closed out 2012 with an issue (24:4-5) that commissioned Aaron Hughes (Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, Islam, Method and Theory of Religion at the University of Rochester) to assess the current state of academic Islamic studies. MTSR also commissioned a set of papers for that edition which respond to Hughes.

In his opening summary of the issue (pp408-417), "Provocation and Its Responses," Andrew Rippin writes: "The discussions of textbooks, academics' various roles, and the changes to the study of Islam over the past thirty years found in the essays in this special issue display the full range of concerns common to Religious Studies and also bring a welcome dialogue on the issues, a phenomenon that is not common within Islamic Studies."

Hughes' paper, "The Study of Islam Before and After September 11: A Provocation," features this abstract: "In the aftermath of September 11, the academic study of Islam has been one of the most sought-after areas of academic expertise throughout North America. The result is that many departments of Religious Studies have been eager either to develop or increase existing offerings in all things Islamic and Arabic. This strikes me as as good a time as any to reflect upon the nature of the relationship between Religious Studies and Islamic Studies. This article assumes that the integration of the latter into the former has not been easy or even successful. It provocatively argues that some of the manifold reasons behind such tensions emerge from the apologetics - found among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars - inherent to the study of Islam. This confessionalism is the result of a complex amalgam of academic and non-academic forces." Hughes begins the paper: "What follows provides an historical overview of the convoluted relationship between Religious Studies and the academic study of Islam."

Richard C. Martin, "The Uses and Abuses of Criticism in the Study of Islam: A Response to Aaron Hughes," writes in his abstract: "Aaron Hughes offers a challenging critique of contemporary Islamic Studies scholarship, particularly among members of the Study of Islam Section (SIS) of the American Academy of Religion (AAR). A call for a more rigorous scholarship based on historical and textual criticism is issued as 'provocation' to the group. In my reply, I suggest that his essay is indeed a provocation, although not always helpfully or accurately, despite an attempt to end on a non-polemical, constructive note in the last couple of pages, where there is not enough substance on which to build a useful dialogue. Hughes argues that contemporary Islamicists have tended to become defensive of Islam in the face of growing Islamophobia in the public sphere. This essay in reply accepts some of Hughes's critique, disagrees with some of the substance of it, including the pugnacious tone, and suggests ways to improve the chances of a meaningful dialogue." Lots more to be found at <www.ow.ly/h9PxV>.

(Would that we could find such comprehensive treatments for all the subjects covered in Apologia Report!)

---

NEOPAGANISM

"What Is Wrong with Pagan Studies?" by Markus Altena Davidsen -- the abstract reads: "This review essay takes a critical look at the new field of 'pagan studies' by examining the Handbook of Contemporary Paganism [1]. It demonstrates that pagan studies is dominated by the methodological principles of essentialism, exclusivism, loyalism and supernaturalism, and shows how these principles promote normative constructions of 'pure' paganism, insider interpretations of the data, and theological speculations about gods, powers, and a special 'magical consciousness.' It seems thus that the methodological discussions in MTSR have little effect on pagan scholars. In the concluding discussion, I raise the questions why this is so, and how we might do better in promoting a naturalist and theoretically oriented approach to studying religion." Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 24:2 - 2012, pp183-199. <www.ow.ly/h9Q7T>

---

UNIFICATION CHURCH

"From the Unification Church to the Unification Movement and Back Again" by David G. Bromley and Alexa Blonner -- from the abstract: "Two widely observed patterns in the development of new religious movements are a gradual organizational and theological settling of the movement and a transition in leadership from the founder/leader(s) to their successors. We report here on the confluence of these two developments in Unificationism over the last several years. This report is based on personal interviews over the last two years with a number of Unificationist leaders and members involved in managing organizational changes. Information also has been drawn from public and members-only websites where internal conversations and new policies are available. Two principal changes in Unificationist organization have occurred. First, longstanding tensions between established church and social movement forms of organization are being resolved in favor of the former. Second, Reverend Sun Myung Moon had begun passing organizational leadership to several of his children before his death in September 2012. Both these processes have involved considerable turmoil, overlapping and interacting with one another, and they offer a unique opportunity to observe and record the process of simultaneous transformations of organization and leadership." Nova Religio, 16:2 - 2012, pp86-95. <www.ow.ly/h9NOh>

For more insights on Unification transitions, see "Schism in the Unification Movement: The Theological Dimensions (an insider’s view)" by veteran UC leader Dan Fefferman <www.ow.ly/hfmCL>, a paper first presented at the annual conference of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), Sept 20-22, 2012.

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - Handbook of Contemporary Paganism (Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion), by Murphy Pizza and James R. Lewis (Brill, 2009, hardcover, 649 pages) <www.ow.ly/h9Qhj>

------

( - next issue - )