Mary Magdalene revisited

A new look at Mary Magdalene. The BBC article is rather populist, but that's what one has come to expect even of mainstream media these days, but much of what it contains is not really new or earth-shattering.

Think you know Mary Magdalene? Think again

We have to remember that the baseline of background knowledge has changed. I went to a school with no faith affiliation, where the religious studies teacher was an atheist. But the religious studies curriculum was based around Christianity (treated as a cultural phenomenon, rather than a religious truth). One year on OT, one on NT, one on denominational differences, then another on "other world religions", with a final year on "philosophy and ethics".

Now the emphasis has changed; the curriculum is broader, but that means that it is also shallower. There is little space for debate i.e. tackling topics that are controversial, or on which views have changed over the centuries. For depth, one has to rely on church preaching. So, given that the majority of Britons do not attend church regularly, the level of background knowledge that can be assumed is minimal. And many churches have an orientation towards the application of the gospel message to the present day, with little interest in the history of the church.

Without commenting on the level of interest in religious matters, the level of background knowledge has declined markedly. Anyone with a religious background that emphasises history is atypical.

Who the first Christians actually were, as people, rather than as types in the Gospel story, therefore keeps being rediscovered.

That Christians know so little about their own faith is sad. I had 12 years of parochial school, so 12 years of Bible and Church history. Even though it was slanted towards one denomination (as having the fullest revelation of Truth -- with a capital T) it gave me a good foundation.

Sadly, my own children know little of their faith because there wasn't much of an opportunity to get immersed in it in Sunday School and none at all at American public schools, and most regretfully, I didn't do enough to teach them. I'm teaching a Middle/High School Sunday School class and very few of my students have any real grounding other than what they pick up in Church.

So, I'm not surprised that the general public knows so little of Mary Magdalene and the early Church.

I put my son into an after school Protestant religious ed class once. Mostly because he needed to be supervised between the end of school and another activity. This caused a total redo of the class 'curriculum' The teacher had just been reading the children Bible stories. But my son knew them.

>4 MarthaJeanne: Well done!

>5 pmackey: I was actually rather horrified that the other children didn't.

Same boy, several years later, the bishop was coming and was going to confirm three candidates. One needed Anglican confirmation before heading off to seminary. I also wanted to make the C of E my official home. And my 16 or 17 year old son. The priest wasn't sure he could prepare the three of us together. So he started out with a separate session with my son. As my husband was attending the Methodist church with the younger boys, the two oldest had started one upmanship at Sunday dinner. (Isn't it great that most churches are on the same lectionary now?)

"Well, our pastor said 'bleep' about the Gospel reading!"
"But our priest said 'bloop', and that you shouldn't confuse it with 'blubber'."

And off they went. It helped that both clergy were good preachers, so the boys' efforts to outdo each other meant that they really concentrated on understanding well thought out sermons every week. F had also had a unit on Byzantine history at school, which meant he could discuss the inconocast controversies intelligently. I got credit for giving him a very good upbringing, and after that all three of us were prepared for confirmation together.

But as is clear from that, if the boys got a better grounding in Christian basics than some, it wasn't through special efforts. Just regular church attendance, and their participation in family discussions from our church activities. I certainly never pushed theology books on them.

>6 MarthaJeanne: I'm Episcopalian, so yea, CoE! Yes, using the same lectionary is wonderful because my coworker and I are at least on the same page when we talk about church (he's Lutheran). It's interesting to see what his preacher gets out of it compared to my priest. Neither is better or worse; it's just good to have another perspective.

I'm happy that your children are grounded in scripture. They'll be able to make informed decisions later in life.

Of my three adult children, none are current church goers. Two believe in God, the third is agnostic. I blame myself. When they were young I was very involved in the church to the point where I burned out. That, combined with some other issues, resulted in a 12 year lapse in regular church attendance. During that time, I left it up to my then teens to attend or not. So, they didn't. I regret this because they're missing crucial information to make up their minds. My agnostic son came to his conclusion (I think) based on the information he had from infrequent church attendance and what's available in the media.

So, knowing how challenging it is to raise followers of Christ, I think you've done very well.

>7 pmackey: I'm not sure that any of the three are attending church regularly now.

Probably not, but it helps reinforce. As a kid, my Mom was an avid Christian in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) denomination that was a cross between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. So, she we went to church regularly and HAD to go until I was 18. Parochial school for 12 years as I said earlier. One of our favorite activities was my Mom would read to us, usually some sort of Bible story or denomination published fiction. All seven of her children got more or less the same upbringing from my Mom, and of those two or three of us are active churchgoers.

Attending church, though, included Sabbath School, which was pretty good at teaching the Bible to us (whether we were receptive is another matter altogether). When I taught Sunday School to primary and early elementary school classes, the curriculum was good but definitely not as structured.

I'm teaching teens this year and it's mostly focused on gaining adult skills and social justice. Good stuff, but not systematic. I was surprised by how our class of 13 students or so had SO much trouble finding a verse in the Bible. For the remainder of this year, and next year, we're committed to using the "Journey to Adulthood" (J2A) curriculum. If I continue teaching Sunday School after the two years, I'd prefer to teach basic and intermediate Christian skills. Things that answer the interrogatives: Who, What, Why and How.