M
MADHYAMAKA. Madhyamaka (Sanskrit, “of the middle”) is a widely held philosophical school within Buddhism that was originally propounded during the second and third centuries AD in India by the Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna (ca. 150–250). Nagarjuna contended that each and every phenomenon of human experience is devoid of a “self-nature” (svabhava); that is, these phenomena do not have an ontological ground in themselves but arise only interdependently with all other phenomena. Moreover, he maintained that the very concept of an enduring essence is incoherent. Madhyamaka doctrine thus includes the concepts of the emptiness (sunyata) and non-self-existence (nihsvabhavavada) of all things. Madhyamaka rejects two “extreme” views: on the one hand, that all things exist eternally and never undergo change, and on the other, that all things have been annihilated. Nagarjuna believed that the erroneous convictions that stem from such extreme views are the fundamental reason that people are unable to attain enlightenment.
See also BUDDHISM
Bibliography. J. L. Garfield, trans., The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika; T. R. V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System, repr. ed.; R. C. Pandeya, Nagarjuna’s Philosophy of No-Identity.
R. L. Drouhard
MAHADEVA. See SHIVA
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1918–2008) was born to a Kayastha (scribal) caste family and earned a degree in physics from Allahabad University. In 1953 he became the disciple of Guru Dev. Two years later, he began traveling around India spreading the message of Transcendental Meditation (TM), which he had learned from his guru. In 1958 he decided to undertake a worldwide tour to introduce the West to Transcendental Meditation. He traveled first to Hawaii, then to California, and later to Europe and Africa. During the 1960s, Maharishi’s popularity surged. Celebrities such as the Beach Boys, Andy Kaufman, and later Clint Eastwood, David Lynch, and Deepak Chopra embraced the Transcendental Meditation techniques of Maharishi.
However, it was Maharishi’s association with the Beatles that caused his fame to skyrocket. The Beatles joined him in 1968, with a great deal of publicity. Much of their “White” album was written while studying TM, with references to Maharishi. A short time later, the Beatles and their entourage left a TM seminar amid charges of sexual impropriety by Maharishi. Although Maharishi denied anything improper had taken place and the charges were never proven, he refused to discuss the matter later in his life.
Also during this time, he began to conduct seminars for training TM teachers. Critics in the media labeled him the “Giggling Guru” due to his constant laughing, and they dismissed him as a hippie mystic. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi announced that his public ministry was concluded in January 2008, and he died in February of that year in Norway.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s contribution to the hippie, yoga, and New Age movements cannot be overstated. It is estimated that forty thousand people have been trained as teachers and that he gained five million adherents. He also founded thousands of schools, colleges, and universities. In the US alone, Maharishi’s organization is estimated to be worth $300 million and includes Global Financial Capital, located in Manhattan.
See also GURU DEV; HINDUISM; YOGA
Bibliography. Global Good News, “Maharishi’s Achievements, 1957–2008,” http://www.maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/achievements/Maharishi-Achievements/02.html; L. Koppel, “Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Spiritual Leader, Dies,” New York Times.
R. L. Drouhard
MAHAVIRA. In Sanskrit Mahavira literally means “great hero” and is the popular name of the founder of Jainism, which takes its name from another title of the founder, jina (conqueror). He was born Vardhamana into a ruling caste in northern India around 550 BC. At the age of thirty, he renounced his privileged life, and he spent the remainder of his days in severe renunciation and deep meditation, eventually reaching nirvana. He established an order of monks as his followers. Jainism split into two sects after his death. The Jain scriptures or sermons attributed to Mahavira—the Agamas (precepts)—and his biography did not appear until one thousand years after his death, around AD 500.
See also JAINISM; TIRTHANKARA
Bibliography. B. S. Shah, An Introduction to Jainism.
E. Pement
MAHAYANA BUDDHISM. Mahayana, which in Sanskrit means the “greater vehicle,” refers to one of the three major Buddhist traditions, the other two being Hinayana (a pejorative term meaning “lesser vehicle”; Theravada is the sole remaining representative of this branch) and Vajrayana (diamond vehicle; Tibetan Buddhism is one example of this branch, though some include Vajrayana within Mahayana). Mahayana is predominant in northern Asia—namely, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia, Buriatia, and Tuva, although it is also influential in Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Tibetan diaspora. Mahayana Buddhism has become widespread and influential in the West, particularly in the traditions of Zen and Tibetan sects.
Theories about the rise of Mahayana are varied: it may have started as a lay movement after enthusiastic promulgation of the Buddhist dharma by King Ashoka (d. 232 BC) or after intersectarian maneuvering within Buddhist schools. Whatever the reasons, Mahayana emerged around the first century AD (approximately four hundred years after the Buddha’s death) among Buddhists who embraced a collection of new noncanonical texts (sutras). Mahayanists believe these sutras contain further authoritative words of the Buddha, and they base their practice on them.
Many of the Mahayana sutras depict themselves as correctives to developments found in the earlier traditions, and these texts represent the transition of oral to written traditions: the Hinayana Tripitaka canon (a complete version was preserved in Pali and the Sanskrit version was preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translations) was probably closed around the end of the second century BC. This is regarded as a textual collection honored by all Buddhists. However, the innovative Mahayana texts were written in Sanskrit and include (among others) the popular Lotus Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, and Pure Land Sutras. In embracing these latter sutras, Mahayanists moved to an innovative and liberal interpretation of Buddhism, away from the conservative tradition they called the Hinayana.
Mahayanists have core Buddhist teachings in common with Hinayanists: the Four Noble Truths, karma, rebirth, enlightenment, nirvana, refuge in the Three Jewels. However, the rise of Mahayana gave Buddhism new vigor: innovations centered on the nature of the Buddha and the ideal goal of a Buddhist practitioner, coupled with darshanic allegiance and speculative cosmology. Narratives about Sakyamuni Buddha (the founder of Buddhism) are much enhanced, and he is frequently joined by bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara (Chenresig in Tibet, Kwan Yin in China) or other Buddhas like Amitabha in the collection of texts. This new cosmic framework for the Buddha can be understood in terms of the doctrine of the Triple Body: the body of transformation was the physical body that the Buddha had on earth; the body of communal enjoyment is a nonmaterial body that teaches out of compassion and is accessible to humans through advance practice in visionary experiences; and the body of truth is the nondifferentiated reality in itself, and the very mind of the Buddha.
The Hinayana/Theravadan ideal of the arhat, or perfected saint, is replaced with the bodhisattva; Mahayanists considered the arhat path too self-consumed, whereas the bodhisattva ideal introduces the notion of compassion (karuna) in that the bodhisattva postpones his nirvana in order to work toward—or transfer his karmic credit toward—the liberation of all sentient beings. Hence compassion is elevated to equal value with wisdom; in fact, compassion is the active force of wisdom, with wisdom the mental attribute of compassion. The bodhisattva ideal is recognized in two examples: His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet is regarded as a bodhisattva; and—frequently in art, for example—the cosmic Buddha Amitabha, popular in Pure Land Buddhism (the tradition followed in the Buddhist Churches of America), is flanked by two bodhisattvas.
Thus Mahayana offers the lay practitioner the possibility of enlightenment, contrary to the Hinayana/Theravadan doctrine, wherein this was open only to the monk through the denial of the world and practice of various austerities. Possibilities of enlightenment are now based on the notion that the historical Buddha had said he was concerned not only with his own enlightenment but, out of compassion, postponed his entrance into nirvana to teach the dharma to his disciples. Thus the sangha (the community of disciples) was now to engage with samsara (the cycle of being) rather than seek release from it, in order to practice compassion to others to aid in their release from samsara. Practicing compassion within samsara then became enlightenment in and of itself, and this notion, within Tibetan schools especially, is symbolized by the construction of mandalas, stupas, and other material objects. In other words, all sentient beings now have the possibility of becoming Buddha in this lifetime due to the large amount of merit being generated by compassionate bodhisattvas. Various levels in a darshanic relationship to a number of bodhisattvas and cosmic buddhas are characteristic of Mahayana, contrasted with the more conservative expressions of Hinayana/Theravada Buddhism.
It is tempting to identify bridging points between Mahayana and Christian doctrines (as theologian Marcus Borg has argued), but these are superficial. Mahayana Buddhism is essentially monistic: anatta (nonself) means that no being or thing exists in, of, or by itself, but they exist only as an ever-changing interrelationship of skandhas (aggregates), which are transitory and only give the allusion of existing phenomena, which may or may not have consciousness. “Compassion,” then, does not appear to be altruistic in the Christian sense, as there is no metaphysical distinction between the one showing and the one receiving acts, prayers, or thoughts of compassion: self/ego only gives the illusion of existing. In a similar way, the doctrine of the Three Bodies cannot be equated in any sense to the doctrine of the Trinity. Defining terms becomes crucial in Christian-Mahayana conversations.
Major schools of Mahayana Buddhism include Zen Buddhism (Ch’an in China), Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai, Pure Land, and Tibetan (although some would classify Tibetan as Vajrayana due to its strong tantric roots). Mahayana texts also have had some influence in the Theosophical Society.
See also ARHAT; BODHISATTVA; BUDDHISM; DHARMA; HINAYANA; NIRVANA; SAMSARA; THERAVADA BUDDHISM; TIBETAN BUDDHISM
Bibliography. M. Baumann and C. Prebish, “Introduction: Paying Homage to the Buddha in the West,” in Westward Dharma, edited by M. Baumann and C. Prebish; M. Borg, “Jesus and Buddhism: A Christian View,” in Buddhists Talk about Jesus, Christians Talk about the Buddha, edited by R. M. Gross and T. C. Muck; D. Burnett, The Spirit of Buddhism: A Christian Perspective on Buddhist Thought; D. S. Lopez Jr., Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide.
H. P. Kemp
MAHIKARI. Mahikari (the name means “true light”) is a Japanese religion founded in 1960 by Kotama Okada (1901–74) and now existing as two rival branches.
Okada had previously been a follower of the Church of World Messianity, a Japanese religion that provided much of the worldview later to become Mahikari. In 1959 Okada had a revelation that the earth was in danger of imminent destruction from the kami (divine spirits or forces of nature that flow through all of life), who would cleanse the world with fire. However, the kami also provided a way of escape through the effusion of the “true light,” which was dispensed through the palm of Okada’s hand. This light could be conveyed to his followers, who would retain it in a pendant worn around their neck. They, in turn, would learn how to dispense the light to other people. Okada’s disciples referred to him as Sukuinushisama (Lord Savior).
After Okada’s death in 1974, the movement split over succession in leadership and control of the group’s property. A very powerful leader in place before Okada’s death was Sekiguchi Sakae; his rival was Okada’s adopted daughter, Keishu Okada. Following a lawsuit, the court awarded Sakae the headquarters property. He founded Sekai Mahikari Bunmei Kyodan, which today has about seventy-five thousand followers. Keishu reorganized as Sukyo Mahikari, and today this branch claims about two hundred thousand followers. Together, both groups claim to have about two dozen centers in the US.
Bibliography. C. M. Cornille, “Mahikari,” in Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, edited by P. B. Clarke; J. G. Melton, “Mahikari of America,” in Encyclopedia of American Religions, 6th ed.; D. Reid, “Mahikari Organizations,” in A New Dictionary of Religions, rev. ed., edited by John R. Hinnells.
E. Pement
MAITREYA. Maitreya is the future Buddha who is to appear at the beginning of the fifth cosmic age and revive the dharma when the teachings of the Buddha of this age (Siddhartha Gautama) will have decayed. Maitreya is honored in all schools of Buddhism as a bodhisattva. Hence Maitreya’s images are found throughout Asia. He is usually depicted sitting on a chair, attempting to convey a sense of expectancy and hope. The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT), plans to build a 152-meter (500-foot), $195 million image of Maitreya Buddha at Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India, the site where Gautama Buddha is thought to have died.
In Western esoteric traditions, especially in Share International and the Tara Network, Maitreya is known as the World Teacher and is presented as the manifestation of Christ, Maitreya-Buddha, Messiah, Imam Mahdi, or another “master of wisdom.” Benjamin Creme (b. 1922) is the protagonist of this movement; he is well schooled in Theosophy, having been influenced by Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. According to Creme, Maitreya the World Teacher first appeared in 1977, from his ancient Himalayan retreat and lives incognito among the Indian-Pakistani community of London. Choosing to reveal himself gradually to the world, Maitreya manifests himself periodically at different times and in different places (the most publicized being in Nairobi in 1988); empowered water for healing is often associated with his manifestations. According to Creme, Maitreya the World Teacher is accompanied by a group of wise teachers that has guided humanity from behind the scenes, inspiring us to create a “New Age of Synthesis and Brotherhood” based on sharing and justice. Creme travels internationally, teaching on Maitreya the World Teacher.
Various New Age groups, informed by Buddhism, use Maitreya as a title for their leader or for an expected messiah figure who fulfills messianic prophesies of all religions and will bring unity and utopia. Prophecies in Buddhist sutras and literature regarding the coming of Maitreya have been appropriated by some Christians messianically within a fulfillment eschatology paradigm and viewed as an antichrist with iconography drawn from the book of Revelation.
See also BODHISATTVA; BUDDHISM
Bibliography. D. S. Lopez Jr., Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide; Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition home page, http://www.fpmt.org; Share International home page, http://www.shareintl.org/.
H. P. Kemp
MANDALA DIAGRAM. In general terms, a mandala (Sanskrit, “circle”) is any drawing, chart, map, figure, or geometric pattern intended to depict the universe in symbolic fashion, wherein the diagram functions as a microcosm of the whole of reality as interpreted by the advocate of a particular religion (often an Eastern one). Typically both intricate and colorful, mandalas are viewed as sacred objects that remind one of the true reality that permeates the mundane world of experience. Commonly, the center of the mandala focuses the minds of advocates while they meditate. The particulars of a mandala vary according to the religion in which it is employed. The mandala concept originated with Buddhists and Hindus. In Hinduism mandalas are frequently square, representing the four corners of the world in Hindu cosmology. The well-known Vastu Purusha Mandala is an example of such a diagram. In Buddhism mandalas often portray the Buddha as seen by enlightened persons, in conjunction with the geography of the pure lands in which he resides. In Tibetan Buddhism in particular, the famous Kalacakra mandala diagram is a highly detailed map of the cosmos (picturing hundreds of Vajrayana beings and multiple aspects of practice) that signifies the fleeting nature of existence. In many cases, the complex structure of Tibetan Buddhist mandalas incorporates the Five Wisdom Buddhas, known as Aksobhya, Amitabha, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasambhava, and Vairocana. The mandala used in Nichiren Shoshu is a paper scroll (sometimes a wooden tablet) called a moji-mandala. Written in Sanskrit and Chinese, it contains a message that speaks of the spiritual awakening of the Buddha, Buddhist doctrines, guardian deities, and certain Buddhist concepts. Mandalas are also found in Jainism.
See also BUDDHISM; HINDUISM; JAINISM; NICHIREN SHOSHU; TIBETAN BUDDHISM
Bibliography. B. Bryant, The Wheel of Time Sand Mandala: Visual Scripture of Tibetan Buddhism; G. Bühnemann, ed., Mandalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions.
J. Bjornstad
MANTRA. A sound deemed to possess mystical power. Repetition of a mantra may induce a deep state of meditation; hence it is a tool for visualization, empowerment, and enlightenment in Hinduism, Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhism, and New Age streams. Mantras are often given from teacher to disciple at initiation rites as personal tools for meditation. The Tibetan om mani padme hum (Hail to the jewel in the lotus) is the mantra of compassion, associated with the Buddhist Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (of whom the 14th Dalai Lama is said to be an incarnation). The word mantra has worked its way into the English language to mean something continuously repeated or any goal or value that needs constant reviewing.
See also BODHISATTVA; BUDDHISM; HINDUISM; TIBETAN BUDDHISM
Bibliography. D. S. Lopez Jr., Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide.
H. P. Kemp
MARIOLATRY. The word mariolatry is derived from “Mary” and latreia (Greek, “worship”); thus mariolatry is the worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mariolatry was a problem in the early church, eliciting warnings from both Eastern and Western church fathers. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) described the Collyridians who offered cakes (Greek, kolluris) to Mary, possibly as an unorthdox revision of the Eucharist rite. Epiphanius made this distinction: “Now the body of Mary was indeed holy, but it was not God; the Virgin was indeed a virgin and revered, but she was not given us for worship, but herself worshipped him who was born in the flesh from her” (Panarion 79, in Graef, 1:73). In the West, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) challenged devotees of the Great Mother (Latin, Magna Mater), who apparently had adopted Mary into their goddess worship. He wrote: “Without doubt the Holy Spirit too must be adored when we adore him who is born of the Spirit according to the flesh. But let none apply this to Mary: for Mary was the temple of God, not the God of the temple. And therefore he alone is to be adored, who worked in the temple” (On the Holy Spirit 3.80, in O’Carroll).
Theological interest in Mary began early. Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) sets her in parallel with Eve in one of the first known theological reflections concerning Mary (Dialogue 84, 100). However, the main theological use of Mary in the first three centuries of the church was in polemics against the gnostic docetists, who asserted that Christ only “seemed” to be human but was not really so. She is presented by the ante-Nicene fathers as proof of the genuine human nature of Christ. Simply put, he is truly human because he had a real human mother. This assertion is found already in Ignatius of Antioch, just after the year 100 (To the Ephesians 7.2; 18.1–2; 19.1; Trallians 9.1; To the Smyrnaeans 1.1). Later fathers followed the same line of argument: Irenaeus (d. ca. 202; Against Heresies 5.1.2; Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 37), Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215; Miscellanies 3.17.102), Tertullian (d. ca. 220; Against Marcion 3.11.2–3; 3.20.6–8; On the Flesh of Christ 17.2), Origen of Alexandria (d. 254; Homilies on Genesis 8.9; Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 33; Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.263; Homilies on Song of Songs 2.12).
The Infancy Gospel of James, written much later than the four canonical Gospels (ca. 150), is an early witness to a rising tide of popular piety centered on Mary. While the overriding purpose of this work was to describe her exceptional holiness and purity, it does not present her either as divine or as someone who intercedes for others. In fact, this aprocryphon depicts her as rather passive, hardly speaking or acting.
The title Theotokos (Greek, literally, “one who bears God”), in its original context, does not connote divinity. Mary was granted this honorific at the Council of Ephesus in 431 to safeguard the unity of Christ’s person by asserting that the child in the womb was fully God. Nestorius (d. 451), who objected to this title, fearing it could lead to Mary worship, was disciplined by the council. While the intention of the council in approving this title was to further define the identity of Christ, the people in the streets, upon hearing the news, responded with direct cries of praise to the Theotokos. This contrast between formal theological discourse and popular piety still persists. The Greek term Theotokos was widely understood as “Mother of God,” especially in the Latin title Mater Dei. This less accurate rendering of Theotokos may have aided some in moving from honor to worship.
Occasionally the idea appears that Mary commands obedience from God himself. In praise of Mary, Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople (d. ca. 733), writes, “But you, having maternal power with God, can obtain abundant forgiveness even for the greatest sinners. For he can never fail to hear you, because God obeys [Greek, peitharchei] you through and in all things, as his true Mother” (Homily 1 on the Dormition, in Graef, 1:146–47). Germanus cannot be dismissed as a dusty footnote since this same sermon is cited by recent official Roman Catholic Church documents on Mary, including the 1950 definition of Mary’s assumption by Pope Pius XII, and twice in one of the most significant works issued by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 56 and 59). Duns Scotus (d. 1308) rebuked such dangerous speculation: “The blessed Virgin has authority to intercede by prayer, not to command” (Graef, 1:302). But devotion to Mary continued to express itself in such terms, for instance, in Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (d. 1716), who made this claim for Mary: “The greatness of her power which she exercises even over God himself, is incomprehensible” (introduction to True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, in Graef, 2:59).
Praying to Mary is an important component of Catholic piety and is defended as being analogous to sharing prayer concerns with a friend. Mary is considered the most effective pray-er of all. No explanation is offered for how she would be able to hear the plethora of prayers, not possessing omniscience. Praying to her (and to other saints) is based on the Catholic doctrine of the communion of the saints, which assumes the dead in Christ can hear our prayers. Prayers to Mary, it is said, are not idolatrous per se unless the one praying places more trust in Mary than in God. A small portion of church tradition portrays Mary as more merciful than her son. Eadmer (d. ca. 1128) writes, “Sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name than if we invoke the name of the Lord Jesus.” He adds, “Her Son is the Lord and Judge of all men, discerning the merits of the individuals, hence he does not at once answer anyone who invokes him, but does it only after just judgement. But if the name of his Mother be invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invokes her do not deserve it” (Book on the Excellence of the Virgin Mary 4 and 6, in Graef, 1:216). When church teaching emphasized Christ as the harsh judge, many sought out Mary, including Bernard of Clarvaux (d. 1153), who states, “Man needs a mediator with that Mediator, and there is no-one more efficacious than Mary” (Sermon on the Twelve Stars 1, in Graef, 1:239). Peter Damian (d. 1072) exalted her even more: “By the dignity of her excellent merits she transcends the very nature of mankind” (sermon 46, in O’Carroll).
Excessive statements such as these and devotion to Mary that at times overshadowed that offered to Jesus became issues during the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin (d. 1564) acknowledged Mary’s unique role, writing: “It cannot be denied that by electing and destining Mary to be the mother of his Son, God gave her the highest honour” (Harmony of Gospels 1.27, in Graef, 2:13). Martin Luther (d. 1546), who affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity and allowed some measure of devotion to her, issued this caution: “When preaching [on the Annunciation] one should stick to the story, so that we may celebrate the incarnation of Christ, rejoice that we were made his brethren, and be glad that he who fills heaven and earth is in the womb of the maiden. . . . Bernard [of Clairvaux] filled a whole sermon with praise of the Virgin Mary and in so doing forgot to mention what happened; so highly did he and Anselm esteem Mary” (Luther’s Works 54.84–85, in Wright, 177). Calvin strongly rejected praying to any saint, including Mary. He dismissed the difference between honor (Latin, dulia; from Greek) and worship (Latin, latria; from Greek), saying that in practice the common people are actually engaging in idolatry: “In fact, the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with impunity to angels and the dead. For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God. Indeed, they worship both God and the saints indiscriminately, except that, when they are pressed, they wriggle out with the excuse that they keep unimpaired for God what is due him because they leave latria to him” (Institutes 1.12.2). The Council of Trent (1545–63) responded to Protestant criticism with a careful defense of the veneration of Mary and other saints (session 25). Yet despite such caution, excesses still occasionally arose, even in writings of leading theologians.
Lawrence (or Laurence) of Brindisi (d. 1619) said that Mary is “the woman . . . who is united [Latin, copulata] to God” in “a divine marriage” (sermons 1.7 and 2.4, in Graef, 2:27). Lawrence depicted Mary the bride using her beauty to seduce God into the incarnation: “Great is the might and power a beautiful woman has over a man who is in love with her. . . . She causes him to rave [insanire], and causes the lover to go out of his mind [amantem amentem reddit] even with the mere glance of her eyes. But the Virgin could do this with God himself, hence he says, ‘Avert thine eyes from me’ (Cant. 4.4). She has caused God in some way to rave so that, having left his majesty behind, He took on the form of a servant” (In Salut. Angel. 5.5, in Graef, 2:28). The Glories of Mary, by Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787), has appeared in numerous editions since 1750 and remains to this day a powerful influence on Catholic piety. While Liguori begins well, stating that Mary only possesses attributes given her by God (“Declaration of the Author”), he soon moves to less moderate views. He includes with approval a quote from Bonaventure: “Before Mary there was nobody who dared stay God’s hand. But now, whenever God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she restrains her son’s hand and withholds him from punishing” (Glories of Mary 1.3.2, p. 59). The significance is not whether this text is genuine to Bonaventure (d. 1274) but rather that Liguori cites it as correct doctrinal teaching on Mary. He relates a vision told to him portraying sinners attempting entry to heaven. They first climb the ladder leading to Jesus but soon fall back because of the difficulty. Then they turn to the ladder leading to Mary, who, as they ascend, extends her hand to help (Glories of Mary 1.8, p. 36).
Certain honorifics for Mary are sometimes misread as divine titles. “Queen of Heaven” is an expression of Mary’s status as the most exalted of all the saints in heaven. It is usually said to have been bestowed on her at her assumption. The title Co-Redeemer is not officially recognized for Mary and has attracted some opposition among Catholic theologians who realize its negative impact on ecumenical dialogues. Yet it appears often in much devotional literature, and there is an active movement promoting its official adoption. Protestants sometimes balk at a phrase found often in Catholic writing: “the cult of Mary.” From the Catholic perspective, this phrase refers to proper devotion to the greatest of saints, but it does not connote worship. Modern official Catholic teaching (the magisterium) clearly and repeatedly condemns worship of Mary. At the Second Vatican Council, adoration of Mary (Latin, hyperdulia) is differentiated from worship (latria) of God (Lumen Gentium 66–67). This is reiterated by the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 971).
While officially condemned, worship of Mary is a sad reality among some Catholics. A Latin American recently said, “In my country God is a woman.” An airport in the Philippines provides a place for preflight prayers with an ornately carved seven-foot-tall shrine to Mary. On the wall nearby hangs a simple, much smaller framed print of the face of Jesus. When Mary is depicted with her son, she is often the dominant, active figure, and Jesus is in her arms either as an infant or dead from the cross (the pietà form).
Appearances (apparitions) of Mary have generated much popular devotion to Mary, some of it extravagant. Catholic authorities have been very careful in granting official recognition to these visitations. Most of the appearances do not enjoy such official approval, but among those that do, the best known are Guadalupe in Mexico, Lourdes in France, and Fatima in Portugal.
The Catholic magisterium has found it difficult to restrain elevated expressions about Mary since such are found among the most revered teachers of the church. Peter Damian, Anselm (d. 1109), Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, and Alphonse de Liguori are all “doctors of the church,” a title that recognizes those with the deepest theological insight and that has been granted to only thirty-three individuals from two millennia of theology. It should be noted that some doctors are more restrained in their praises to Mary namely, Ambrose (d. 397), Augustine (d. 430), and Aquinas (d. 1274). Warnings against excessive Marian devotion in recent Catholic Church documents are a witness that this remains a perennial problem (Lumen Gentium 60, 66, 67; Catechism of the Catholic Church 971, 1676; United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, 297, 344, 347, 472).
See also CHRISTIANITY, PROTESTANT; ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Bibliography. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; H. Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, 2 vols., 1st ed.; A. M. de Liguori, The Glories of Mary: A New Translation from the Italian; M. O’Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus; Joseph Ratzinger et al., eds., Catechism of the Catholic Church, with Modifications from the Editio Typica; Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Catechism for Adults; University of Dayton, website of the International Marian Research Institute, https://udayton.edu/imri/; D. F. Wright, “Mary in the Reformers,” in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, edited by D. F. Wright.
E. B. Manges
MARONITE CHRISTIANS. Maronite Christians date back to the Syriac monk St. Maron (whose existence is denied by some) of the fifth century, who is said to have been a friend of St. John Chrysostom. Unlike most Eastern Christians, Maronites are in communion with the bishop of Rome. The Maronites are of Syrian origin but speak an Aramaic dialect. They inhabit Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and Egypt and number about 1.5 million people, with approximately 800,000 living in Lebanon, making up 25 percent of the population there. They hold considerable political power in Lebanon, to the extent that the constitution of Lebanon requires that the president of that country be a Maronite Christian. When the diaspora is included, they compose the majority of the Lebanese people. Though the country was conquered by Arab Muslims, the majority remained Christian, and the rites of the church are still in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. While many Syrian Christians rejected the creed of Chalcedon in AD 451, the Maronites embraced it. After the slaughter of 350 Maronite monks in 451 by the Monophysites of Antioch, the Maronites fled to Lebanon, where they have since remained.
Tensions that developed among various Christian groups in the East made Islamic conquest of the eastern Christian regions easier, and the Maronites came under Islamic rule. For this reason, they began to receive greater support from other eastern Christians, which helped them gain some independence from the Muslim conquerors. Only with the beginning of the Crusades in the tenth century did the Maronites come to the attention of the Roman Catholic Church. When the Maronites sided with the crusaders against Islam, they came under the protection of the Catholic Church, and they have remained in communion with the Roman Church since then. This connection gave them greater independence from Muslims in their area. Under Ottoman rule, they remained largely independent and exercised considerable political power, with many of them becoming aristocrats. In Lebanon their importance increased when the Syrian family of Benî Shibâb abandoned Islam to become Christian.
After the tenth-century Crusades, the Maronites came into conflict with a new Islamic sect, the Druze, whose members fled persecution by orthodox Muslims in Egypt and came to Lebanon. As the number of Druze in Lebanon increased, they oppressed the Maronite Christians. The country became divided, and two emirs were created in Lebanon, one Maronite and one Druze. Finally, in 1860 the Druze massacred Maronites at Damascus and then in Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire merely observing, France intervened and brought the persecution to an end. Since then the Maronites in Lebanon have maintained considerable independence, surrounded by Muslims on the east and the west.
In the mountain areas, Maronites are primarily involved in farming, cattle grazing, or work in the silk industry, and in urban communities they are involved in commerce. The Maronites have migrated to countries in regions such as Europe, France, and, most of all, to the US.
See also DRUZE, THE
Bibliography. BBC News, “Who Are the Maronites?,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6932786.stm; D. Belt, “The Forgotten Faithful,” National Geographic Magazine; P. Kenyon, “Maronite Christians Thrive in Lebanon,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=16067482; J. Labourt, “Maronites,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09683c.htm.
H. W. House
MARTIAL ARTS, EAST ASIAN. Martial arts are ancient Eastern forms of hand-to-hand combat that have become popular in the West and have come to be taught at health clubs, YMCAs, and privately owned martial arts studios. Early itinerant Buddhist monks, in order to protect themselves from highway robbers, marauding bandits, and thugs, mastered fighting techniques for defense. They developed hand-to-hand combat techniques—based on their religious understanding of reality—that employ both weapon and nonweapon forms.
Religious Basis of Martial Arts. The religious basis for all martial arts in Buddhism is the idea of emptiness, and in Taoism the basis is in the balance of yin and yang. Once people understand their true nature, they can learn to harness cosmic chi power (also referred to as ki or qi) and use it to advantage, including defeating foes. In Asia this is accomplished by aligning oneself with a dojo (a martial arts studio, originally a building in a Buddhist temple) and a sensei (a martial arts instructor), who teaches the philosophy and techniques of the art. A lifetime of self-discipline, obedience to the sensei, and meditation combine to turn the student into a master of the martial arts.
Some claim that by the power of chi (pronounced chee), they can crack five-hundred-pound blocks of ice in half with their bare hands. However, Bernie McPherson, the highest-ranking black belt in Texas, says, “I’ve whipped men who claim to have chi and some have whipped me, but there is no power of chi. It’s all kinetics and discipline.”
Various Types of Martial Arts. The five most popular martial arts traditions are the following:
1. Karate. The full name of karate is karate-do, a term that comes from three Japanese words: kara, “empty”; te, “hand”; and do, “way.” Hence, karate-do is “the way of the empty hand,” or simply empty-handed fighting. Karate involves quick and forceful hand and foot movements. Brought to America from Japan, karate may be the most popular of all the martial arts. Meditation, concentration, and a heightened self-awareness are the integral parts of the art. Zen Buddhism is the religious basis of karate. Movie star Chuck Norris, a world-class karate master, was a Zen disciple before professing faith in Jesus Christ.
2. Kung Fu. Kung fu (full name: shaolin kung fu) is the martial art tradition with the most diverse set of techniques, including weapon forms, bare-hand forms, wrestling, limb locks, and strikes at the vital points of the body that instantly kill the opponent. Many prominent people have hired kung fu specialists as bodyguards. Another school of kung fu is white eyebrow, a tradition known to very few. The term kung fu is a mispronunciation of the Chinese term gongfu, meaning “achievement through great effort.” Its Japanese counterpart is called shorinji kempo (kung fu of shaolin).
3. Aikido. Developed in 1942 by Master Moribei Uyeshiba, aikido is a combination of several martial arts and Zen Buddhism. Aikido is a compound word derived from ai, “union”; ki, “universe”; and do, “way.” Its etymology reveals its purpose: to be the road or way to experience oneness with the universe. Using circular motion and a series of acrobatic and tumbling moves, one can overcome an enemy. Movie star Steven Seagal is an aikido master.
4. Judo. Known as “the way of flexibility,” judo was the first martial art to become a recognized Olympic sport (1964). Based on quickness, timing, balance, and throwing and falling techniques, judo evolved out of jujitsu (“art of softness” or “way of yielding”), a military form of deadly hand-to-hand combat.
5. Tae Kwon Do. Tae kwon do, whose name, in Korean, means literally “the way of the foot and fist,” is a Korean form of karate, primarily involving high and sweeping kicks.
Western ingenuity has produced new forms of martial arts. Because of market competition, some instructors invent so-called superior techniques and offer students shortcuts to obtaining a desired black belt, the highest level of achievement.
Areas of Concern. Because most martial arts stress Eastern religious beliefs and practices, some Christians are concerned that learning martial arts might influence people with (if not lead them into) Eastern religion. They contend that the religious aspects of martial arts are inseparable from the physical skills and activities because they developed in conjunction. Some object to the violence inherent in martial arts, arguing that it is incompatible with Christian principles. Others counter that the physical skills can be separated from the spiritual because they are merely a form of physical training, like any other athletic activity. They say that Christians can practice their faith while learning and performing martial arts. Some, in fact, contend that martial arts can even be used in Christian ministry and evangelism (see the Gospel Martial Arts Union at http://www.gmau.org).
See also BUDDHISM; PANTHEISM; TAOISM/DAOISM; YIN AND YANG
Bibliography. Biblical Discernment Ministries, “Karate: Tool for Christian Evangelism or Zen Buddhism?,” http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/karate.htm; C. and D. Engelhardt, “Martial Arts Ministry as Small Group Ministry,” Grace Martial Arts Fellowship Newsletter; Gospel Martial Arts Union website, http://www.gmau.org; W. Williamson, Martial Arts: The Christian Way.
R. A. Streett and R. L. Drouhard
MASONRY (LDS). Freemasonry and the LDS Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormonism) exist independently of each other, but Mormonism has been influenced by Masonry. The origins of Freemasonry are vague and shrouded in mystery. Some historians believe it began with the brick masons who built the European cathedrals. The fraternity itself teaches that it began in the early twelfth century AD with an oath taken by a Burgundian knight named Hugh de Payens and eight of his fellow knights in Jerusalem. Mormonism, on the other hand, was formally established by Joseph Smith Jr. in 1830. The two organizations have no direct ties to each other in origin.
When Joseph Smith organized his church, many Americans opposed Freemasonry, partly because of an exposé of the order (Illustrations of Masonry, 1827) published by William Morgan and his subsequent disappearance. This prevailing sentiment even made its way into the Book of Mormon, which is considered to be scripture by the LDS Church. It contains many remarks hostile to Masonry scattered throughout its pages. By 1842 the anti-Masonic opinions of the general public had settled, and Joseph Smith had lost his own personal opposition to the order as well.
Several of Smith’s close associates and followers were Masons. His brother Hyrum Smith and his uncle John Smith were both members of the fraternity. After successfully settling the city of Nauvoo in Illinois, Joseph Smith was approached by a few of these Masons about petitioning for a lodge in the new city. Smith gave his consent, so a formal request was sent to the Deputy Grand Master of the Illinois Masonic Order, Judge James Adams. The lodge was formally installed on March 15, 1842, but was considered “Under Dispensation” rather than formally chartered. Joseph Smith received the Masonic first-degree initiation on that same night, and the next night was uncharacteristically raised to the third degree (Brodie, 280).
Smith apparently was greatly impressed with the ritual of the Masonic Lodge, and his enthusiasm for the order extended to the followers of his church. Within just five months, there were 286 candidates in the Nauvoo Lodge. At that time, there were only 227 Masons in all of Illinois, so, understandably, the leadership of the Illinois fraternity became concerned. The Grand Lodge felt that the Nauvoo Lodge was not being very selective in its admission of candidates to the order. More importantly, they feared that the Nauvoo Lodge would seize control over the Springfield Grand Lodge if something was not done about the problem soon. The Grand Lodge began demanding the Nauvoo Lodge records for inspection, anxious to find a way to suspend or control the actions of the new lodge.
Joseph Smith had previously built a temple in Kirtland, Ohio, but his temple ceremony, called the “Endowment Ceremony,” was never issued there. Rather, LDS members visiting that temple engaged in a largely emotional type of worship service closely resembling that of late twentieth-century Pentecostalism. Those present would swoon, speak in tongues, claim to see visions of angels, and even fall on the floor with fits of shaking. In 1841, when the original LDS Nauvoo temple was still under construction, Smith promised to reveal an elaborate ritual of ordinances that he claimed had been hidden for ages. Those permitted to receive these ordinances were told they would be endowed with power from on high. This new ceremony would be radically different from what his followers had previously understood as “temple worship.”
Just six weeks after Smith experienced the first three degrees of the Masonic ritual, this new LDS temple ceremony was begun. At first only men were admitted to Smith’s new temple ceremony. They were stripped, washed, and anointed, then dressed in a peculiar garment. The square and compass (obvious symbols borrowed from Freemasonry) were cut into the right and left breast of the garment, and a slash was cut into it just above the knee and even into the skin of the candidate, leaving a scar. As with the Masonic ritual, the men swore various oaths and had secret handshakes, secret words, new names, and even “executions of the penalties”—agreeing to keep the ritual secret or forfeit their lives in ghastly ways. Obviously, Smith borrowed many of these elements from the Masonic ritual, altered them, then instituted them into his own temple ritual. Brigham Young, second president of the Mormon Church, highlighted the similarities in the rituals, often referring to the Mormon temple ceremony as “Celestial Masonry” (Brodie, 280–81).
While several similarities do exist between the two rituals, there are important differences. The Masonic ritual centers on a story of the legendary Hiram Abiff, which was extrapolated from references to a minor Bible character who participated in the building of King Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Chron. 2:13; 4:16). The Mormon ritual, on the other hand, centers on peculiar LDS beliefs about the creation of the world, the fall of humanity, and the necessity of Mormon teachings to return to heaven and become a God.
Smith explained that similarities existed because the Masonic ritual had started with heavenly truths but had been corrupted by uninspired men. He simply restored the ceremony to its perfected state.
Rumors of the defilement of the Masonic rites eventually made their way to the Illinois Grand Lodge, which still feared the Mormon lodges. By 1844 the LDS Church controlled a total of five lodges—three in Nauvoo and two in Iowa. Meanwhile, it refused to send any of the lodge records for inspection, as requested. Finally, in the 1844 meeting of the Grand Lodge, the LDS lodge dispensations were revoked, and they were declared to be separate and renegade bodies.
Even after the permission to operate Mormon Masonic lodges was revoked, Masonic elements continued to be used in the new religion. Joseph Smith was killed in June 1844, but the surviving leaders continued to use the new and obviously Masonic components. The LDS temple ceremony kept the Masonic influence and also incorporated some Masonic symbolism into other religious aspects—particularly on LDS buildings (i.e., the symbols of the sun, the moon, stars, the handshake of fellowship, the all-seeing eye, Alpha and Omega, the beehive, the point within the circle, the square, the compass, the baphomet, and the inverted pentagram).
Due to the actions of Joseph Smith, a schism developed between the Freemasons and the LDS Church. Officially, Masonry lists the LDS concept of priesthood, polygamy, and the LDS condemnation of Masonry as their grounds for discord. The LDS Church holds that it alone possesses all truth, so involvement in Masonry is profitless for LDS Church members and would distract them from fulfilling church duties. Both bodies are antagonistic toward each other, and for a time each group refused to admit into membership anyone associated with the other group. These sentiments continued to exist in Utah in the late twentieth century, though not as dogmatically.
As time passed, the LDS temple ceremony was revised. The most notable revisions went into effect on April 10, 1990. Some of the more obvious Masonic elements (such as the executions of the penalties) were removed, while others remained—the garment markings, secret handshakes, arm signs, and token names. Masonic symbolism continues to be heavily used on LDS buildings, the most obvious examples being the Salt Lake City Temple and the rebuilt Nauvoo Temple.
See also BOOK OF MORMON; CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS; SMITH, JOSEPH, JR.
Bibliography. F. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, 2nd ed.; D. J. Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness; H. W. Coil, Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia; William Morgan, Illustrations of Masonry; Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, Illinois, from Its Organization in 1840 to 1850 Inclusive; J. C. Reynolds, History of the M. W. Grand Lodge of Illinois, Ancient, Free & Accepted Masons; Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols.
L. Thuet
MATERIALISM. Taken in the usual sense, materialism is the metaphysical doctrine that argues that whatever exists is properly studied by the hard sciences: all reality is material, that is, is composed only of (or is completely dependent on) matter. Thus, for materialists, the world can be exhaustively described in physical terms. This implies, for example, that all events are physical events. Materialists disagree on the status of abstract entities (e.g., numbers, sets, or universals). Philosophers have come to use the term physicalism interchangeably with materialism. The philosophical use of the term materialism has nothing to do with the desire for wealth, possessions, or the pleasures of the body.
Versions of materialism/physicalism typically arise in response to the question of just what constitutes a person. Here materialism stands in opposition to any form of substance dualism (the idea that there are two types of substances in the world: material and nonmaterial). Strictly speaking, substance dualists hold that a person is a nonmaterial thing that has and is closely related to (but is not identical with) a body. Materialism, on the other hand, clearly denies the existence of souls, spirits, or immaterial minds, insisting rather that humans are identical with their brain, central nervous system, and body. There are two main versions of materialism: reductive and nonreductive.
Reductive materialists argue that those properties commonly believed to be mental (i.e., nonmaterial/physical) properties—such as a belief or a desire—are in fact identical with physical properties. In other words, mental states/properties can be reduced to material states/properties. Reductive attempts have come primarily in the form of philosophical behaviorism and type identity theory. The former is more than anything an attempt to make sense of mental talk. Statements such as “Bob is in pain” or “Sue believes she is hungry” refer not to a state of some immaterial mind or soul but rather are shorthand expressions for observable physical behavior. For example, “Bob is in pain” means he is grabbing his toe and hopping around wincing. Similarly, “Sue believes she is hungry” means Sue is rummaging around the pantry for a snack. Hence these statements may be expanded—without any loss of meaning—into complex physical statements about what behavior would occur as a result of a given stimulus. Type identity theories make an even stronger claim: mental states / properties are just physical (more specifically, neurological) states / properties; the two are identical. So “Bob believes grass is green” is identical to some type of physical state (such as certain neurons firing).
Reductive materialist accounts face serious difficulties. First, it seems the mental state called “being in pain” can (and sometimes does) occur without any observable behavior like shouting or hopping around. For that matter, we routinely have mental states with no corresponding behavior at all (e.g., my belief that 2 + 2 = 4). People can also pretend to be in severe pain (thus exhibiting painful behavior) yet have no corresponding mental state. Thus one cannot always be expressed in terms of the other. Regarding type identity theories, mental states clearly are not identical with physical states because they have quite different properties. For example, mental states have the property of being a first-person (private) experience, while physical states have the property of being third-person observable. Moreover, there is simply no evidence that each mental state is identical to a physical (neural) state. For these reasons and others, reductive materialism is widely rejected today.
Nonreductive materialists maintain that a person is purely physical (i.e., has no nonphysical parts), while insisting that the mental is not reducible to or identifiable with the physical. Traditionally, the two main nonreductive accounts are eliminative materialism and functionalism. The former makes the quite radical claim that mental terms (i.e., terms referring to nonmaterial or nonphysical mental states) are simply useless and should be eliminated. Neurophysiology has moved us beyond them. Like the phlogiston theory of yesteryear, the incorrect folk psychology (the commonsense theory that refers to mental states—such as beliefs, desires, fears—in explaining human behavior) that promoted such terms is becoming obsolete, being progressively replaced by better and better neuroscience. Functionalists understand “the mind” in terms of physical inputs and outputs, that is, causal relationships. “Mental” states are causal functions of physical states. What makes something a mental state is solely a question of its function in a person’s cognitive system. This counts as a materialist/physicalist theory because functionalists agree that only neurophysiological states are needed to produce mental (functional) states.
Nonreductive materialists also face significant problems. First, we know from experience (e.g., first-person introspection) that we do have mental states. I am directly aware of my beliefs and desires, even when I’m not trying to explain some behavior. Such states, then, cannot simply be eliminated. Another problem for eliminativism is that it seems self-refuting. If one eliminates the mental states of folk psychology, such as beliefs, then on what grounds is eliminative materialism to be believed? If intentional stances are eliminated, then no one could even know if eliminative materialism were true! Functionalism is not without its own problems, including the problem of inverted qualia (qualia are specific experiential qualities, such as what it’s like to experience pain or redness). Imagine that Joe perceives red when everyone else perceives blue (his color perception is inverted), yet he functions in the same way as everyone else (who all correctly perceive reds and blues). If functionalism is true, then mental states are explained solely by their input-output causal functions. Since Joe’s function (output) is the same as everyone else’s, functionalists have to say that Joe has the same mental states as everyone else. But clearly seeing red and seeing blue are different mental states, so functionalism fails as an account of mental states. Another problem involving qualia is that according to functionalism, many nonhuman physical systems (e.g., robots) could achieve “mental states.” But this seems absurd, for even if a robot is programmed to yell and hop around on one foot (output) after kicking a brick (input), that robot is not genuinely experiencing the mental state of being in pain, but is simply performing a predetermined set of commands.
Bibliography. D. Armstrong, A Materialist Theory of the Mind; P. M. Churchland, Matter and Consciousness; A. Menuge, Agents under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science; P. K. Moser and J. D. Trout, Contemporary Materialism: A Reader.
R. K. Loftin
MAYA. In Hinduism maya (literally, “not that” in Sanskrit) is generally said to be the persistent illusion that things are ultimately real when in fact they are unreal (illusory). This illusion is endemic to the faculties of perception possessed by human beings. Depending on the school of Hinduism in question, maya can have many forms or aspects. In Advaita Vedanta, maya is the illusion that the world of persons and distinguishable entities is the sole existent realm, when in fact there are other dimensions of reality beyond that world. Most types of Hinduism agree that it is critical for devotees to realize that the distinction ordinarily made between oneself and the universe is an illusion imposed by one’s deceptive sense organs. Thus devotees may break free of maya.
In more polytheistic strains of Hinduism, maya is personified as several different deities, depending on the tradition, and each tradition gives its version different characteristics and names. Thus, Maya can be anything from the “magician-architect” of the Asuras (titans) to a goddess who both keeps and frees people from delusion (named Mahayama) to the Mother Maya (Devi Mahatmyam), who is said to have been given the power of all the gods to defeat a titan army and who now upholds the universe.
See also HINDUISM
Bibliography. A. Danélou, The Myths and Gods of India; H. Torwesten, Vedanta: Heart of Hinduism, trans. J. Phillips.
R. L. Drouhard
MEDITATION. Meditation is a religious discipline practiced in both Eastern and Western religious traditions. The purpose of meditation for all religions, generally speaking, is to separate oneself from the cares and pressures of the world and to experience peace, healing, and transcendence through communion with God; to focus on higher teachings; and sometimes both.
Eastern. Meditation as a practice in Eastern religion is associated with Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama, who would later be known as the Buddha, had become so disciplined in meditation that he mastered all possible levels of it. As part of his teaching on the Noble Eightfold Path, Gautama taught his followers to have “the right mindfulness—meditating properly” (Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 224) and to practice “right concentration”—that is, to attain deep meditational states. Zen Buddhism, of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, stresses meditation as one of the four ways to attain satori, which is the moment at which one accepts reality as it is rather than complicating it with trivial ideas that merely distract. The fifth- or sixth-century-AD founder of Zen Buddhism, Bodhidharma, according to legend, cut off his eyelids and meditated for three years in front of a bare wall. Zazen meditation, practiced in Zen Buddhism, is done sitting in a cross-legged, straight-backed position while one focuses on the breath.
Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism has two aspects of meditation: (1) the mastering of passion through its exercise and (2) becoming one with a buddha or bodhisattva. In this second aspect of meditation, one practices a discipline of repeating a mantra; the most famous mantra is Om mani padme hum, literally, “Om, the jewel is in the lotus, hum” (Corduan, Neighboring Faiths, 239).
Not all meditation arising from Eastern thought is alike, however. Transcendental meditation (TM) is practiced in order to relieve stress, improve health, foster creativity, and contribute to healthy relationships. Rather than being part of a particular religion or a philosophy, TM is done in order to bring health, balance, and serenity to an individual’s life. While there are certain techniques for TM, as a practice it is differentiated from Zazen meditation by the fact that it is not necessary to sit with legs crossed, nor is it necessary to practice it for hours on end. Fifteen or twenty minutes, twice a day, is what is recommended by the TM Program.
Hinduism, too, has many teachings about meditation. In general the idea is to free the soul from its constraints in the material world. This can be accomplished by meditating on a deity or a yantra/mandala or by more abstract meditations. The classical exposition, Patanjali’s yoga sutra, understands that morality, observances, positions, breath control, and withdrawing one’s senses support one’s meditation—often on a mantra, breath, or a concept—leading to deep contemplation. With repeated contemplations, one achieves oneness.
Western. Christian meditation is in contrast to Eastern forms of meditation. While the purpose of Tibetan Buddhist meditation is to rid oneself of distractions in order to attain nirvana (the breaking of the cycle of reincarnation and the achievement of nonexistence), meditation in the Christian experience is to commune with the personal God of the Bible. Brother Lawrence, Thomas à Kempis, Peter of Celles, St. John of the Cross, and a host of other medieval Christians, as well as many more modern authors such as Richard Foster and Watchman Nee, have written on meditation. According to Foster, for Christian meditation “detachment is not enough; we must go on to attachment” (21). Eastern forms of meditation stress the need for the individual to detach himself from the phenomenal world, which is illusory. Christian meditation seeks to detach from the world of fleshly pursuits but attach the person to Christ. Christ desires a relationship with the individual. As Christ tells the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” This word is directed to Christian people, and it emphasizes Christ’s desire to commune with his people intimately.
Christian meditation is done through a focus on the words of Scripture. This is to be differentiated from the preparation of a teaching lesson or a sermon, where exegesis of a text is the goal. Meditation on Scripture is meant not to analyze the text but merely to allow the text to sink into the heart. It is also practiced through focusing on repentance for specific sins and seeking God’s grace to overcome future temptation. Meditation on creation is also part of Christian meditation, as is meditation on the transcendent purposes of God in current events.
Thus Christian meditation is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is meant to draw the person away from the temptations that appeal to the flesh, but this is only the beginning. This is in contrast to Eastern forms of meditation, which focus mainly on detachment but do not point the person to God.
See also BODHIDHARMA; BUDDHA, HISTORICAL PERSON OF; BUDDHISM; MAHAYANA BUDDHISM; TIBETAN BUDDHISM; ZEN BUDDHISM
Bibliography. W. Corduan, A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads between Christianity and World Religions; Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions; R. J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, 20th anniv. ed.; National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, “Meditation: An Introduction,” http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation/overview.htm; Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, The Transcendental Meditation Program Home Page, http://www.tm.org/.
J. D. Wilsey
MEVLEVI ORDER. The Sufi order called the Mevlevi Order (mawlana in Arabic, mevlana in Turkish) was founded by Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (d. 1273), is widespread in Turkey, and is best known for its colorful dance (the Whirling Dervishes) ceremony.
Al-Rumi was a refugee from the Mongol invasions who fled Central Asia and sought shelter in the Turkish Sultanate of Rum (central Anatolia), in the city of Konya, by approximately 1228. His most abiding passion was for a wandering Sufi called Shams al-Din Tibrizi, who was with him between 1244 and 1248, when the latter was most likely murdered by Rumi’s followers. Most of Rumi’s later works celebrate his relationship with Shams and focus on a universalistic love exemplified by Shams (as a type of divine figure). Today Rumi’s mystical and sometimes romantic poems are gaining renewed popularity with Sufis and even the general public.
After his death, Rumi’s followers commemorated him by their characteristic dance, during the course of which they performed their dhikr (remembrance of God) ceremony in an ecstatic state. The Qur’an and Rumi’s “Mathnawi” poem are read, music is played, and then the actual dancing begins. Everything about the ceremony is symbolic, from each move of the dance to the type and color of their garments, to the colors and shape of their meeting halls, called tikiyyas (“hostels” in Persian).
The Mevlevis benefited from their close relationship with the Ottoman elite and spread throughout Anatolia and beyond. Eventually Mevlevis were found from the Balkans to Egypt. Since the establishment of the Turkish republic in 1925, they have frequently been banned there, but their whirling dance has been permitted for the sake of tourism. After the dance was outlawed in Turkey, the tikkiya in Cairo, Egypt, replaced Konya as the center of Mevlevi spiritual life. Until recent times, the tikkiya in Cairo was believed to be the only one that was fully functioning.
Bibliography. Z. Abul-Gheit, “Dance of the Soul: The Mevlavi Tikiyya Espouses Poetry in Motion, Structure and Spirit,” Horus; A. Arberry, Mystical Poems of Rumi; Arberry, Mystical Poems of Rumi II; A. Hamarlund, T. Olson, and E. Ozdalga, eds., Sufism, Music and Society in Turkey and the Middle East; Mevlevi Order of America home page, http://www.hayatidede.org/; R. A. Nicholson, trans., The Mathnawi of Jalal al-Din al-Rumi; H. Paul, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi and His Tasawwuf; W. M. Thackston, trans., Signs of the Unseen: The Discourses of Jalaluddin Rumi.
D. B. Cook
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL. One of only two named angels in all of Scripture (the other is Gabriel, mentioned in Dan. 8:16, 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26), Michael is the solely named archangel (Jude 9). It should be noted at the outset that the scriptural data regarding archangels generally—and Michael the archangel specifically—are sparse, though there is considerable apocalyptic tradition regarding each.
The term archangel (Greek, archangelos, “chief angel”) appears only twice in Scripture (Jude 9 and 1 Thess. 4:16), which prevents dogmatic responses to questions such as whether “archangel” is an office held by a single angel or an entire class of angels, or precisely what tasks an archangel performs. We can, however, say some things about archangels—and thus about Michael—with some degree of confidence. For example, there is good lexical evidence that an archangel has prominent status among angels. The semantic range of the prefix arch- includes “chief,” “prominent,” and “first.” This same prefix is used in the words “chief priest” (archiereus; Matt. 26:57), “chief of the synagogue” (archisunagogos; Mark 5:22), and “chief tax collector” (architelones; Luke 19:2), among others. We also know that Christ’s second coming will be marked by an archangel’s shout (1 Thess. 4:16).
Scripture refers many other times to an angel named Michael, who scholars generally agree is in fact Michael the archangel—although there is no explicit biblical evidence for that conclusion. The angel visiting Daniel mentions “Michael, one of the chief princes” (Dan. 10:13; cf. 1 Enoch 20:5), who combated the prince of Persia, and the angel later identifies Michael as Israel’s prince (Dan. 10:21; 12:1; cf. Josh. 5:13–15). This is consonant with Michael’s contending with the devil over the body of Moses in Jude 9. During the war in heaven, it is Michael and his angels who battle the dragon and his angels (Rev. 12:7).
Various sects teach unbiblical views concerning Michael the archangel. According to Joseph Smith Jr. in the LDS Church scripture Doctrine and Covenants, Adam was Michael as a preexistent spirit (D&C 27:11; 107:54; 128:21). Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Michael the archangel is another name for Jesus Christ, whom they view as the chief angel. Seventh-day Adventists traditionally agree that Michael is Jesus Christ but take the view that archangel means chief over the angels, thus making the identification compatible with the deity of Christ.
See also CHRISTIAN
Bibliography. K. D. Boa and R. M. Bowman Jr., Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons; C. F. Dickason, Angels Elect and Evil; D. Jeremiah, What the Bible Says about Angels.
R. K. Loftin
MIKVEH/MIKVAOT. Mikveh is a rabbinic Hebrew noun (pl., mikvaot) primarily used for a collection of water. In Judaism it has become a technical term for the place of ritual immersion. The Hebrew term for immersion itself is tvilah (in Greek, baptismos, or “baptism”), but the place where tvilah is performed is in the mikveh.
The purpose of the ritual is to undergo ritual cleansing from ritual uncleanness. It is also used for conversion purposes when a gentile converts to Judaism. One of the convert’s three obligations is immersion (the other two are circumcision if the convert is male, and a donation to the temple).
For a mikveh to be acceptable, it must be large enough to allow for the total immersion of an average-size individual. Furthermore, it must contain at least 150 gallons of water. Further rabbinic rules include that the water of the mikveh must come from either a natural spring or a river that originates from a spring. A mikveh filled with rainwater is also permitted.
Many mikvaot have been uncovered through archaeology on the south wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which was the main entry point for pilgrims entering the temple compound. These were places where the majority of the population who were not wealthy could be ritually immersed for ritual uncleanness or prepare for special righteous duties. Members of the wealthy class also had their own private mikvaot in their homes for the necessary ritual immersions.
See also JUDAISM
Bibliography. C. Roth, “Mikveh/Mikvot,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by C. Roth; I. Singer, “Mikveh,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia.
A. Fruchtenbaum
MILLER, WILLIAM. William Miller (1782–1849) founded the Millerite movement, a Christian millenarian movement, and in 1822 he predicted that Jesus Christ’s second coming would occur in 1843 or 1844.
Miller had been raised by a Baptist mother but did not follow in her faith. He was a Deist for a time, being a voracious reader of popular Deists such as Voltaire, Hume, and Paine.
Miller’s experience in the War of 1812 affected him deeply. A cannon round exploded only feet from him but left him uninjured. This event, coupled with the victory of the US despite the seemingly insurmountable odds it faced against the mighty British Empire, convinced Miller that God was not the uncaring and inactive god of Deism. After purchasing a farm in Low Hampton, New York, Miller began attending a Baptist church. Later, he was asked to read a sermon for the pastor, who was often absent. During the sermon, Miller was so moved by the story of Jesus’s death that he embraced Christianity. This was during a time when northern New York was a hotbed of religious revival and fervor, especially Adventism.
After his conversion, and challenged by his Deist friends, Miller began studying the Bible intensely, starting with Genesis. When he encountered Daniel’s revelations in 1822, Miller became convinced they contained the date on which Christ would return to earth. He settled on a time between 1843 and 1844 and began to spread his message.
Miller’s message of the impending return of Jesus proved popular, and his fame spread as newspapers were set up in several northeastern cities to proclaim Miller’s views. For the next twenty years, Miller wrote constantly and gained an estimated fifty thousand to five hundred thousand followers. As 1843 approached, Miller’s followers began preparing for the coming kingdom. Some quit working and sold all their possessions. Although Miller was reluctant to set a specific date, he eventually proclaimed the period of March 21, 1843, to March 21, 1844, as the time frame for Christ’s return. When the later date came and went, Miller and his followers were thrown into confusion. The majority of Millerites gave up their beliefs, while a small minority, including Miller, simply continued to expect Christ’s return at any moment. Miller continued in this belief until his death.
See also ADVENTIST MOVEMENT; MILLERITE MOVEMENT; SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM; SMITH, JOSPEH, JR.
Bibliography. E. N. Dick, William Miller and the Advent Crisis; G. R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World.
R. L. Drouhard
MILLERITE MOVEMENT. The Millerite movement was a Christian millenarian movement founded by William Miller (1782–1849), who, in 1822, predicted that Jesus Christ’s second coming would occur in 1843 or 1844.
Miller lived in northern New York, an area that became known as the “Burned-Over District” due to its many revivals and new religious movements. Joseph Smith Jr., Lily Dale, the Shakers, and several other religious figures and movements traced their roots to the area. Miller became interested in the millennium as a result of his study of the book of Daniel, after his conversion from Deism to Christianity.
Using a form of the “day-year” (considering each “day” as a literal year) interpretational method of Daniel’s prophecies for the return of Jesus, Miller used 457 BC (the decree of Artexerxes to allow the rebuilding of Jerusalem) as the starting date for Daniel’s prophecy that “unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (Dan. 8:14 KJV), which Miller interpreted as the purification of the earth and Christ’s return. He added twenty-three hundred years and came up with AD 1843 or 1844 as the year when the prophecy would be fulfilled.
He published his findings in the Vermont Telegraph, a Baptist newspaper, and received so much interest in his views that he printed a pamphlet outlining his beliefs. In 1840 Joshua Vaughan Himes, a Boston pastor who embraced Miller’s views, established the Sign of the Times newspaper to publicize his views (the Seventh-day Adventist Church continues to publish it). Eventually, Miller’s views were published in forty-eight other periodicals in New York City, Philadelphia, Rochester, Cleveland, and Montreal, among others. Miller also personally funded the printing of materials for converts in England, and later two more Millerite newspapers were published there. Through the spreading of Millerite literature, the movement eventually had followers in Australia, Norway, Chile, and Hawaii.
As 1843 approached, Miller’s followers urged him to set a specific date when Christ would return. Although reluctant to do so, Miller settled on the period between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When March 21, 1844, came and went, Miller simply began to preach that Christ could come at any moment, but the Millerites began to adjust his calculations. They set April 18, 1844, as the date, then when this passed, claimed they were in the “tarrying time” taken from Habakkuk 3:2–3 and Matthew 25:5. By August the Millerite movement was on the verge of crisis. Then a Millerite preacher named Samuel S. Snow presented what was to be called the “seven-month” message. Snow employed biblical typology to calculate that the twenty-three hundred years would actually fall on October 22, 1844. Although there is little indication that Miller himself accepted the date, the majority of rank-and-file Millerites embraced it and spread it with renewed fervor.
When nothing unusual happened on October 22, 1844, the Millerite movement was thrown into disarray. Some reset the date once more. Others began acting like children, citing Mark 10:15 as a requirement for entering the kingdom. However, most Millerites abandoned the movement altogether. October 22, 1844, has become known as the Great Disappointment.
Eventually three major groups vied for the remaining Millerite faithful. The first group appropriated Christ’s parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13 to true believers. The “shut door” of the house in the parable meant that there would be no more salvation to those outside. All who were inside (the Millerites) would be living in the kingdom, while all the others would be left out. Not surprisingly, the “shut door” movement lost popularity quickly. The second group rejected the “shut door” group and instead focused on preaching to the lost and looking for the return of Jesus. This group persuaded Miller himself to join them and became the foundation for the Advent Christian Church. The third group continued to believe that October 22, 1844, was the correct date, but they began to teach that Miller’s interpretation of the “cleansing of the sanctuary” was not an earthly but a heavenly event. Hiram Edson, an early follower of Miller, claimed to have received a vision of Jesus entering the holy of holies in the temple in heaven. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was born from this group, and Edson’s idea became the root of the doctrine of investigative judgment in Seventh-day Adventist theology.
It is also interesting to note that Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, had connections to the Millerite movement, having studied the Bible and early Christianity with Millerites from 1870 to 1875.
See also ADVENTIST MOVEMENT; MILLER, WILLIAM; SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
Bibliography. E. N. Dick, William Miller and the Advent Crisis; G. R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World; “The Exeter Campmeeting,” Advent Herald, August 21, 1844; R. E. Winkle, “Disappearing Act: Hiram Edson’s Cornfield Experience,” Spectrum.
R. L. Drouhard
MIRACLES IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. Miracles are events or acts of power that appear to violate the normal expectations of science, physics, medicine, or probability. Miracles are not simply scientific anomalies but function as wonders to draw attention to God and signs to confirm that one is on the right path.
In a Judeo-Christian context, miracles are construed as originating from a supernatural domain (outside nature) to confirm God’s existence and authenticate his messengers. Other religions that believe in miracles may conceive of them not as interventions from outside nature but as the manipulation of a “higher law” within nature; thus “miracles” are a kind of science we have not yet discovered. A personal God who acts is not as necessary as a practitioner who understands the higher laws.
In Islam the miracles of the biblical prophets are called signs. Allah gave “nine clear signs” to Moses (sura 17:101) for Pharaoh, who did not listen. The Qur’an affirms the healings and virgin birth of Jesus (19:20) but includes extrabiblical miracle stories from apocryphal books (3:49; 19:29–34). Muhammad had no miraculous sign but the Qur’an itself (29:49–51), though certain miracles were later attributed to him in the hadith.
Aberrational forms of Christianity take diverging views. Mormonism was founded on the continuation of miracles (Mormon 9:7–20), particularly the discovery of the Book of Mormon. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe miracles and divine healing ceased with the death of the apostles. Christian Science espouses the miracles-as-higher-law theory mentioned above and touts a 150-year record of healings as proof of Mrs. Eddy’s claim that sickness is an illusion. Pentecostal healer William Branham used healing miracles and his own prophecies as one proof that his doctrines were correct (another proof was that they were taught in the Bible).
Hinduism has long had many gurus claiming siddhi powers, but the best-known is the late Sathya Sai Baba (d. 2011), who was worshiped by millions of people as the incarnation of Shiva for nearly fifty years. His popularity arose from his ability to materialize vibhutti (sacred ash), candy, flowers, and small idols allegedly out of thin air. Though his powers have convinced some scientists and government officials of his deity, videotape caught him using sleight-of-hand to perform the “materializations.” Other gurus attempted to do the same, but with less popularity.
Outside a monotheistic context, such as among tribal religions or in occult circles, the notion of “miracle” is not relevant because there is no God behind it, only a display of raw power mediated through spirits or magic incantations. The function of wonder creates awe of the magician or shaman, and the function of sign points to the magician’s power to bless, curse, heal, or control the unknown. Since Christians worship a supernatural God, some missionaries advocate a public power encounter with shamans or occultists, to openly confront and defeat the spirits believed to be behind the “demonic miracles” of pagan supernaturalism.
See also SAI BABA, SATHYA
Bibliography. H. Brant, “Power Encounter: Toward an SIM Position,” International Journal of Frontier Missions; N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; G. Lindsay, William Branham: A Man Sent from God; V. Mangalwadi, “Sathya Sai Baba,” in World of Gurus, rev. ed.; G. Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 2nd ed.
E. Pement
MISSIOLOGY. The word missiology is used to describe the study and practice of Christian missions. Included in its field of review are such varied topics as the history, theology, practice, and methodology of missions. Ancillary areas of study and practice are sociology, anthropology, and comparative religion. Missio, or “sent,” is the Latin term transliterated into English as “mission.” A missionary, hence, is one who is sent, in particular, one who is sent on a Christian ministry, usually focusing on the task of evangelism, church planting, or ministry to the poor or indigent.
The term missiology emerged in the late twentieth century. Prior to the emergence of the more refined science of missiology, much of the study of missions practice was subsumed into the disciplines of practical theology and missions. Numerous journals committed to the study of missiology also emerged in the 1900s. Academic programs developed, offering doctorates of missiology, among other degrees.
Missiology and missiologists in recent decades have focused particularly on the possibility of the fulfillment of the Great Commission (cf. Matt. 28:18–20). Some missiologists believe it is within the grasp of the Christian world to reach every person on the earth—seven billion by recent census—with the gospel of Jesus Christ, thus possibly completing the task of global evangelism.
Recent trends in missiology have led to the strategic focus of evangelistic and church-planting resources on people groups—that is, self-identified ethno-linguistic and social groupings within countries and cities—instead of on nations alone. Additionally, the more refined science of missiology has helped to direct Christian resources to the least evangelized or least reachable areas of the world. The emergence of the “10–40 window” concept, referring to the northern latitudes in the Eastern Hemisphere, stretching from northern Africa to the Pacific, is an emphasis developed and refined by missiology.
See also CHRISTIAN; CHRISTIANITY, PROTESTANT
Bibliography. F. A. Oborji, Concepts of Mission: The Evolution of Contemporary Missiology; E. C. Pentecost, Issues in Missiology.
R. P. Roberts
MODALISM. Modalism is the heresy according to which (1) there is only one divine person; (2) “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are merely different names for this one divine person; and (3) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, consequently, are identical with each other. The names “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” modalists insist, signify not different persons but different modes in which God manifests himself to human beings.
One may hold, with orthodox theologians from Basil of Caesarea to Herman Bavinck, either that the divine persons are modes of the divine being or that they differ only in their modes of being, without committing oneself to the heresy of modalism. In order to avoid modalism, rather, one need merely affirm that the distinctions between the divine persons are (1) eternal, (2) unchangeable, and (3) real, and in particular, intrinsic to the divine being and not dependent for their existence on the activity of nondivine minds.
History of Modalism. One can trace five phases in the history of modalism. The first occurred in the patristic era, when Noetus of Smyrna (fl. ca. 200) reputedly originated the heresy and Sabellius (excommunicated for heresy in 220) organized its adherents into a distinct sect. Early opponents of the heresy such as Tertullian and Hippolytus designated its followers “Patripassians” to underscore one of its least palatable implications—namely, that the Father suffered (pater passus est) on the cross. To avoid this untoward consequence, Sabellius and most subsequent modalists tended to minimize the connection between Christ’s human and divine natures and to affirm that, although the man Jesus suffered, neither the Father nor the Son, strictly speaking, suffered crucifixion.
Ironically, therefore, persons so passionately committed to the Father and the Son’s consubstantiality that they denied all distinction between them came to deny that the man Jesus was God. Though they identified the Logos with the Father, they regarded Christ as a mere man. The synod of Constantinople (335), accordingly, condemned the Sabellian Marcellus of Ancyra as both a modalist and an adoptionist. His disciple Photinus suffered a similar fate at the synod of Sirmium (351). The only organized religious bodies that professed Sabellianism in the patristic period—that is, the ones founded by Sabellius and named after him and the Priscillianists—apparently perished shortly after their condemnation by the First Council of Constantinople (381) and the synod of Braga (561), respectively.
In its second, medieval phase, Sabellianism lay largely dormant in elite circles. Gottschalk of Orbais, admittedly, charged Hincmar of Rheims with modalism early in this period, and according to some reports, Peter Abelard suffered condemnation for Sabellianism. Otherwise, modalism surfaced primarily in popular movements such as Bogomilism and Patarinism. During the Reformation, the third phase of modalism’s history, the heresy began to reemerge from obscurity. The Anabaptist Michael Servetus, this era’s most vocal modalist, composed three works against orthodox trinitarianism and famously suffered capital punishment for his views in Calvin’s Geneva. David Joris and Hans Denck, both Anabaptists like Servetus, also advocated Sabellianism in this period.
Modalism reached the summit of its popularity in the fourth phase of its history, which extends from the beginnings of the Enlightenment in the late seventeenth century until the collapse of old-fashioned theological liberalism in the aftermath of World War I. Most theologians, by the end of this period, denied that God had ever communicated information about himself in propositional form to human beings. In the majority’s eyes, therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity constituted, at best, a speculative projection of threefold patterns in God’s historical self-manifestation into his inner being. Since these theologians considered such speculation presumptuous, most of them denied that God had revealed himself as intrinsically tripersonal.
In the fifth period of modalism’s history, which began after World War I and extends into the present, the doctrine of the Trinity has revived somewhat. Karl Barth influenced many to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity on the grounds that God’s threefold historical self-manifestation must correspond to the realities of his inner being. So-called social trinitarians, furthermore, have portrayed the Trinity as a kind of egalitarian society that human beings can emulate. Outright modalism, nonetheless, persists among liberal thinkers, especially process theologians. “Jesus only” Pentecostal organizations like the United Pentecostal Church International, moreover, continue to preach Sabellianism to the masses.
Refuting Modalism. In order to refute modalism, one need observe merely (1) that Scripture testifies just as plainly to the distinctness of the divine persons as it does to their deity and the divine unity and (2) that two or more entities can be identical to the same substance and yet distinct from each other through the distinctness of their properties. As to the first point, Scripture states that the Father sends the Son (e.g., John 5:23, 30, 36–37; 6:39, 44, 57; 10:36; 12:49; 14:24; 20:21; 1 John 4:14), that the Father and the Son send the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7), and that the Spirit constitutes “another helper” besides the Son (John 14:16). None of this would be conceivable if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not really distinct. Inasmuch as God is immutable, then, this real distinction between the divine persons must be not merely real but also eternal.
As to the possibility of two entities being identical to a single substance and yet really distinct from each other, examples of this exist among creatures. The ancient road from Thebes to Athens, for instance, was substantially identical to that from Athens to Thebes. Yet the two roads were really distinct in that one went upward and the other downward. Likewise, teaching, in the strict sense of the term, consists in the impartation of knowledge to a student’s intellect: until the student learns, no teaching has occurred. This enrichment of the student’s mind, in which teaching consists, when viewed from the student’s perspective, constitutes learning. Teaching and learning, therefore, are identical to the same process, yet few things differ more radically than teaching and learning. Creaturely entities, accordingly, can be identical to a third substance without being identical to each other. If mere creatures can accomplish this, it seems unreasonable to suppose that the divine persons cannot do so as well.
Conclusion. Modalists are simply wrong, therefore, when they assert that one cannot affirm both the deity of the divine persons and the singularity of the divine nature without implicitly identifying the divine persons with one another. Scripture testifies that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really distinct from one another and that each is equally identical to the one God; and logic poses no obstacle to human acceptance of Scripture’s verdict.
See also SOCINIANISM; TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSIES; TRINITY, THE
Bibliography. Aristotle, Physics 3.3; E. J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity; Pseudo-Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration 4; Tertullian, Against Praxeas.
D. W. Jowers
MOHAMMED. See MUHAMMAD
MOKSHA. In several Eastern religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, moksha (or mukti) is defined as liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. Fundamentally it is said to involve (1) the understanding that what we identify as the self is ultimately unreal and (2) the transformative experience of its dissolution. Some schools of thought claim that this happens only at death; others assert that persons can achieve moksha during this life. Some Hindu sects view moksha as the loss of all experience of space, causality, or time; nearly all insist that it involves the realization that Atman is the same as Brahma and that phenomenal things (the components of the world of appearances as experienced by the unenlightened) are illusory. In Hinduism there are three main paths to the attainment of moksha: Brahmanism (the way of works), Advaita Vedanta (the way of knowledge), and Bhakti (the way of devotion). In Buddhism moksha is understood as realizing that there is no Atman. In Jainism it is the freeing from the weight of karma. Sikhs hold that moksha is the loss of individuality as one realizes the ultimate.
See also HINDUISM; JAINISM; SIKHISM
Bibliography. H. W. House, Charts of World Religions; K. Knott, Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction; W. G. Oxtoby, World Religions: Eastern Traditions, 2nd ed.
M. Power
MONARCHIANISM. Historians employ the term Monarchianism to designate two heresies that flourished in the late second and third centuries. The first is dynamic Monarchianism, whose proponents denied the deity of Christ. The second is modalistic Monarchianism, whose advocates denied any real distinction between the Father and the Word.
Dynamic Monarchianism first appeared in the teaching of Theodotus, a leather merchant, who gathered a school of adherents in Rome before the close of the second century. Theodotus and his followers taught that Jesus was a mere man whose exemplary virtue God rewarded, after his baptism, with a special endowment of the Holy Spirit. The Theodotians applied the term Christ exclusively to this gift of the Holy Spirit, not to the man Jesus himself. A synod in Antioch condemned dynamic Monarchianism and its most distinguished exponent, Paul of Samosata, in 272.
Modalistic Monarchianism originated near the end of the second century in the teaching of Noetus of Smyrna. This heresy, also known as Patripassianism because its tenets imply that the Father suffered in Jesus’s crucifixion, entered Rome through the preaching of Noetus’s pupil, Epigonus. Here it reached its most mature form in the speculations of Sabellius, who identified not only the Father and the Word but also the Spirit with a single, undifferentiated divine person, who manifests himself in three modes.
See also HERESY, DEFINITION OF; MODALISM
Bibliography. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed.; Tertullian, Against Praxeas.
D. W. Jowers
MONOPHYSITISM. Monopysitism is the doctrine that the incarnate Christ had only one nature (Greek mono, “one,” and physis, “nature”). The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared the view heretical, countering that if Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, he needed both a divine and a human soul, lest he be conceived of as God in the empty shell of a human body. The council’s decision sparked controversy within the church, and several churches broke away, contending that the council had reverted to Nestorianism.
To this day, several traditions are often labeled Monophysite (such as the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syrian Orthodox churches), though they strenuously deny this characterization. They contend they are miaphysite; that is, they assert that the one person of Christ possesses one united nature, both human and divine, but unmixed and unconfused. Much of the controversy seems to stem from the difficulty describing the complex theological terms across several different languages used by the parties involved.
See also CHALCEDONIAN CONTROVERSY; CHRIST, NATURES AND ATTRIBUTES OF
Bibliography. J. Chapman, “Monophysites and Monophysitism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, edited by Charles G. Herbermann et al.; A. E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction.
R. V. Huggins
MONOTHEISM. Monotheism (sometimes abbreviated as “theism”) is the worldview that affirms the existence of one immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, and wholly good God, who is worthy of perfect worship and obedience. God created the universe out of nothing and is metaphysically distinct from the creation; yet God is active and immanent in the world through providence, miracles, and various modes of revelation. Scripture, nature, and conscience reveal that monotheism is true to reality (Rom. 1:18–20; 2:14–15). The Bible affirms, and some anthropological evidence indicates, that monotheism was the world’s original religion (Gen. 1–2). Because of its uncompromising insistence on God’s peerless power, majesty, and authority, monotheism has had a worldwide influence unmatched by any other religious worldview.
Monotheism is distinguished from polytheism or animism (there are many gods), pantheism (everything is God), panentheism (God is in the universe, like the soul is in the body), deism (God is transcendent but not active in the world he made), metaphysical dualism or gnosticism (God transcends an evil world of matter), and atheism (there is no God). The three great and categorically monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—although forms of Hinduism and Buddhism have monotheistic elements.
Christianity is unique among monotheistic religions in affirming the Trinity (one God eternally existing in three coequal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the incarnation (God the Son takes on a human nature in Jesus Christ for the redemption of the world).
See also ANIMISM; BUDDHISM; HINDUISM; ISLAM, BASIC BELIEFS OF; JUDAISM; PANENTHEISM; PANTHEISM; POLYTHEISM
Bibliography. N. Geisler, “Primitive Monotheism,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; H. P. Owen, “Theism,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by P. Edwards; R. Stark, One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism.
D. R. Groothuis
MONOTHELITISM. Monothelitism is the doctrine that the incarnate Christ had only one will (Greek, mono, “one,” and thelein, “to will”); the doctrine is closely associated with Monophysitism. It was condemned as heresy by the Third Council of Constantinople (680–81). The council insisted that if Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, he needed both a divine and a human will. Pope Honorius was excommunicated for his advocacy of Monothelitism in 680.
See also CHRIST, NATURES AND ATTRIBUTES OF; ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Bibliography. “Third Council of Constantinople” and “Monothelitism and Monothelites,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia.
R. V. Huggins
MOSLEM. See MUSLIM
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is the name given to an interaction in September 1857 between Latter-day Saints militiamen (possibly assisted by some Native Americans) and a group of emigrants traveling through Utah to California.
The group of emigrants, known as the Fancher-Baker company, was traveling to California during the fall of 1857. Rather than following a direct route through the Sierra Nevada, they chose to avoid the mountains by taking a more southern route through Utah. This route was heavily populated by Native Americans and Latter-day Saints. At the time, tensions were running high among the Mormon residents of Utah. The US Army had been sent to the region, and many Mormons were ready to retaliate against any non-Mormons who were involved in the persecutions in Missouri or in the murder of LDS founder Joseph Smith Jr. and his brother Hyrum.
When the emigrants arrived in southern Utah, they stopped in an area known as Mountain Meadows. On September 7, 1857, a Mormon militia dressed as Native Americans, who according to some accounts were assisted by a small group of actual Native Americans, attacked the encamped emigrants, and they continued attacking them throughout the remainder of the week. Finally, on September 11, 1857, after learning that the emigrants had discovered their true identity, and fearing reprisal, John D. Lee and a group of Latter-day Saints militiamen promised the emigrants safe passage for the rest of their trip in Utah. At a prearranged signal, the militiamen turned on the emigrants. They executed 1,120 men, women, and children that morning; only 17 young children (deemed too young to remember the event) survived. The emigrants’ property was auctioned off, and the children were dispersed to Mormon families in the area. Due to the outbreak of the Civil War (and, according to some historians, efforts by Mormons to block criminal investigations), it was not until two decades later that John D. Lee was tried, convicted, and executed for his involvement in the massacre. Scholars debate to this day the extent to which Brigham Young, LDS Church president and Utah governor at the time, was complicit in the massacre or had contributed to the climate in which it occurred.
See also CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Bibliography. W. Bagley, Blood of the Prophets; J. Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre; S. Denton, American Massacre; R. E. Turley Jr. and G. L. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows; R. W. Walker and R. E. Turley Jr., “The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” Ensign.
T. S. Kerns
MUDRA. Mudra (Sanskrit, literally, “seal” or “mark”) is a symbolic gesture of the entire body, but the word usually refers to the hands and fingers used in Hindu and Buddhist ceremonies and dance or in sculpture and painting. The mudra “seals” an utterance and is often used together with mantras. The hundreds of mudras used in Asian dances are illustrated in large technical manuals, as are the ones used in religious ceremonies.
An example of mudra is found in the statute of Buddha seen in many temples, sitting cross-legged with his left hand open on his lap and his right hand directed toward the earth (calling on earth to witness his buddhahood).
See also BUDDHISM; HINDUISM; MANTRA; NAMASTE
Bibliography. M. Schumacher, “Mudra: Hand Gestures with Religious Meaning,” http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/mudra-japan.shtml.
H. P. Kemp
MUHAMMAD. Muhammad (AD ca. 570–632) is the prophet and messenger of Islam and the founder of Islam. His teachings are found in the tradition (hadith) literature that is ascribed to him or to his close companions.
Muhammad was born into a minor branch of the tribe of Quraysh, which dominated the holy town of Mecca. During his youth and early adulthood, he is said to have participated in the merchant caravans that were the economic backbone of the town. In approximately 610, while meditating and seeking God’s will on Mt. Hira (located outside Mecca), he claimed to have encountered the angel Gabriel and received revelations from God. These revelations were of a strongly monotheistic nature, and belief in their veracity set Muhammad and his first followers in opposition to the cult of Mecca that revolved around the cubical Ka‘ba in the middle of the town and was devoted to pagan gods.
During this initial phase of Muhammad’s ministry, he gained several dozen followers: some close relatives, others transients attracted to his message, and yet others who were slaves (mostly from Christian Ethiopia). Both Muhammad and his followers faced some persecution and social ostracism from their pagan relatives and neighbors, which eventually forced Muhammad to leave Mecca. He had earlier proclaimed his message to some of the tribesmen of the oasis town of Medina (about one hundred miles north of Mecca), and they had converted others to Islam, so in 622 Muhammad and the Meccan Muslims emigrated (in Arabic hijra) to Medina, where Muhammad was accepted by the population as a holy man and prophet who could arbitrate their disputes.
Medina was divided between two major Arab tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj, from whom Muhammad drew the majority of converts, and three smaller, Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu al-Nadir, and the Banu Qurayza. Although the Jewish tribes were small, they held a good deal of economic power and occupied strategic positions in the oasis. Few of them, however, were willing to convert to Islam, and they occasionally ridiculed Muhammad’s teachings.
Starting in 624, the Muslim community began a series of engagements with the Meccans, who depended on the trade routes going to Syria—which passed right by Medina—for their livelihood. The Battle of Badr, fought during that year, ended in an overwhelming Muslim victory; however, the Muslims were still too weak to follow it up. The following year the Meccans attacked the Muslims in Medina and won an equally overwhelming victory; likewise, they were too weak to totally destroy the Muslim community. During the following years, both sides fought skirmishes and tried to gain as many allies as they could from the Bedouin tribes around Mecca and Medina. All these conflicts were inconclusive or draws. But Muhammad used this period to consolidate his position within the oasis of Medina and progressively expelled the Jewish tribes and had one of them, the Banu Qurayza, slaughtered. Additionally, the numbers of his followers grew immensely, while the pagan Meccans lacked a charismatic leader to counter his influence. By 630 he had taken Mecca in a bloodless attack and purified the Ka‘ba of all the idols hitherto contained within it.
During the final two years of Muhammad’s life, he gained the submission of most of the tribes inhabiting the Arabian Peninsula and countered the influence of a number of other self-proclaimed prophets who had appeared as a result of his success. Heralding, during the final years of his life, the great Muslim conquests that were to follow his death, Muhammad sent troops to attack the Christian Byzantine Empire in present-day Jordan. These attacks failed, but they signaled the direction that Muslim leaders would take for expansion. Muhammad died in Medina in 632 and was succeeded by his oldest supporter, Abu Bakr.
The reasons for Muhammad’s success are numerous. First, the message of Islam, that of absolute monotheism, was one that, while completely contradictory to the paganism of Arabia, offered a coherent belief system that answered a number of problems apparent in the society (what happens after death, social inequalities, etc.). Second, Muhammad’s personal determination and consistency, even if one does not accept the hagiographic nature of the sources, was impressive. With a few brief exceptions, he held to his message against all opposition. Third, although Muhammad was by no means a military genius and lost almost as many battles as he won, he had the ability to consolidate his gains politically and to win people, especially key figures, over to Islam on a personal level. Finally, it was his fortune that he faced no organized and structured opposition.
Muhammad’s first marriage, to a wealthy widow, Khadija, was the one that gained him financial stability and all but one of his children. However, of his (approximately) eight children, all four of the boys died young, and of his four daughters only one, Fatima—through marriage to his cousin, ward, and fourth successor, ‘Ali—gave him male grandchildren (Hasan and Husayn). After Khadija’s death, he married a total of thirteen other wives, for which he received a special dispensation (Qur’an 33:50). Most of these marriages were political alliances, and only the marriage to six-year-old ‘A’isha, his only virgin bride and a daughter of Abu Bakr, is fully detailed in the sources; the marriage was consummated when she was nine. ‘A’isha, however, bore him no children. Muhammad did have a son by Mariam (a Christian slave concubine) during his old age, but the child died in infancy.
The literary legacy of Muhammad is immense and of crucial importance for the development of Islam. Part of this legacy is the Qur’an, which Muslims believe is the revealed Word of God spoken by Muhammad. The Qur’an, as we know it today, was assembled about thirty years after the death of Muhammad by his third successor, ‘Uthman. The suras, or chapters, into which it is divided are arranged in order of descending length, so the chronologically earlier materials appear to be located at the end, while the later materials are at the beginning. The Qur’an contains themes of eschatology, exhortations to the community and to its opponents, stories of the prophets (mainly biblical in origin but with some Arabian material), and laws for the Muslim community, as well as personal material concerning Muhammad and his family.
Another part of Muhammad’s literary legacy is called the hadith literature, which Muslims believe describes the eyewitness accounts from Muhammad’s companions of what he said and did. Muslim religious scholars use this material, especially in the case of Sunnis, to emulate the life of Muhammad as closely as possible. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars recognize that doubts exist about the authenticity of certain parts of the hadith literature. Consequently, the study of hadith and the verification of its authenticity form a large part of traditional Islamic scholarship and learning. Non-Muslim scholars often argue that the hadith literature is so vast and apparently contradictory that it probably represents the efforts of a large number of Muslims to influence the early development of Islam, especially in legal and political matters. Muslim scholars deny this and argue that through scholarship one can reach reliable conclusions about the life and teachings of Muhammad.
For non-Muslims many problems remain with the reconstruction of the life of Muhammad. The earliest Muslim sources date from at least 150 years after his life. The work of his biographer Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) has survived only in the later version of Ibn Hisham (d. 833). These sources contain a large amount of hagiographical material that appears to have grown through the centuries. There are no contemporary non-Muslim sources from the region of Arabia that can be used as a control (although a few outside sources mention the appearance of someone claiming to be a prophet, they give no details). Further, none of the words of Muhammad’s opponents have survived in non-Muslim sources. In the end, all his opponents or their descendants converted to Islam, so it is very difficult to know to what degree the historical record of their words and actions can be trusted.
Since approximately the eighth century, the position of Muhammad within some branches of Islam has been greatly magnified. Although the Qur’an insists that Muhammad was only a human (Qur’an 18:110) who did not perform miracles, gradually a vast collection of hagiographic and miraculous tales has grown up around him. Today it is forbidden in most Muslim countries to make any denigrating characterizations of him or even criticize him because doing so is considered blasphemy. Thus his persona, while not divine, has achieved infallibility and a superhuman status. Within Islam overall, his influence is paramount, and his example is normative.
See also ISLAM, BASIC BELIEFS OF
Bibliography. M. Cook, Muhammad; A. Guillaume, trans., The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah; Hisham Ibn, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya; M. J. Kister, “The Massacre of Banu Qurayza,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam; M. S. Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based upon the Earliest Sources; F. E. Peters, “The Quest for the Historical Muhammad,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies; M. Rodinson, Muhammad; A. Schimmel, And Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety; W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca; Watt, Muhammad at Medina; Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman.
D. B. Cook
MUHAMMAD, ELIJAH. Born Elijah Poole, Elijah Muhammad (1897–1975) became the head of the Nation of Islam in 1934 and continued in that role until his death. Elijah was the seventh child and second son in a family of thirteen children, born and reared in Sandersville, Georgia.
Early Life. Elijah’s parents were William and Mariah Poole. His father was a poor black sharecropper who on weekends pastored two Baptist churches. Elijah left school after the third grade to help in the fields, and by age sixteen he was working in factories in the area. Elijah joined the church, but because of the hypocrisy of others, he didn’t fully believe what the church taught. At age ten, he witnessed a lynching that deeply affected him.
He married twenty-year-old Clara Evans in 1919, and in 1923, having “seen enough of the white man’s brutality” (Clegg), he joined the exodus of blacks from the rural South to find work in northern industrial towns. The Pooles moved to Hamtramck, just north of Detroit. Despite having trouble finding work during the Great Depression, Elijah and his wife had eight children in the next decade. Poverty and alcohol became his regular companions for the next several years.
Conversion and Ascendency in the Nation of Islam. In 1931 Elijah attended a speech on Islam at the insistence of his wife. The speaker was Wallace Fard Muhammad, who called himself Master Fard (pronounced “Far-rod”), the leader of the Allah Temple of Islam. Fard sold clothes and household goods in the black neighborhoods. He said that he was born in Mecca, having a black father and a white mother (Muhammad, Our Saviour, 183). Fard provided hundreds of eager listeners with a new identity and a radically different vision of their origin and destiny. Elijah learned that the white man was the devil, the religion of black people was Islam, their book was the Qur’an, and God was black. Fard instructed students in a blend of Masonry, mathematics, and Islamic lore. Although Fard’s message was presented as Islam, the beliefs he taught differed significantly from orthodox Islam. Moved by Fard’s message of black empowerment, Elijah and two of his brothers joined the group; Fard gave each one a different Muslim name. Elijah’s last name was changed to Karriem. New converts took lessons in the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, with secret papers they hand-copied and were required to memorize. Though there were many potential leaders for Allah Temple, Master Fard spontaneously named Elijah Karriem as the “Supreme Minister,” second only to himself, and “helped him rouse support for the Nation of Islam” (Halasa, 81–82).
A small mosque was formed in Detroit. Elijah periodically traveled to Chicago to proclaim this new truth to the “so-called Negroes,” who were really black Gods blinded by the “tricknology” of the dominant culture. Fard gave further lessons about UFOs, the myth of Yakub, the cycle of black Gods, and his true identity as Allah in person.
In November 1932, a member of Allah Temple committed a ritual murder. Fard was arrested because his hand-copied lessons declared “all Moslems will murder the devil.” The police released Fard on the condition that he leave Detroit. Fard complied, moved to Chicago, and established “Temple no. 2,” leaving Elijah in control of the original group.
Before Fard disappeared in 1934, he appointed Elijah to continue his work. Elijah took on the surname “Muhammad,” and the group’s name was changed to the Nation of Islam. Elijah carried on with vigor and success, creating a disciplined and powerful movement in cities with large black populations. His followers were called Black Muslims, although their version of the shahada (the Islamic creed, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”) generally referred to Elijah Muhammad, not to the author of the Qur’an. His followers also distributed his newspaper, Muhammad Speaks, as well as books compiled from his regular columns.
Over the next three years, Muhammad faced a series of bitter internal battles over the leadership of the Nation. Eventually he was forced to leave Detroit for Chicago due to death threats. Continuing to fear for his safety, he moved from Chicago to Milwaukee, where he established Temple no. 3, and finally to Washington, DC, where he established Temple no. 4. In 1942 Muhammad was arrested for failing to register for the draft. On advice from his attorney (who feared a lynching), he fled Washington for Chicago. In Chicago he was arrested again and charged and found guilty of eight counts of sedition for teaching Nation of Islam members to refuse to register with the Selective Service or serve in the military. He served four years in prison.
Growth of the Nation of Islam. After World War II, the Nation of Islam, under the now-firm control of Muhammad, experienced rapid growth. By 1959 there were fifty temples in twenty-two states. In the 1950s and 1960s, Elijah taught that “the whole Caucasian race is a race of devils” (Supreme Wisdom), requesting that separate states be given to black people as reparation for centuries of slavery.
Elijah’s most famous converts were Malcolm Little and Cassius Clay: Little converted to the Nation of Islam while in prison in Massachusetts in 1948, becoming Malcolm X in 1950; Clay became the world heavyweight boxing champion in 1964 and then changed his name to Muhammad Ali. Most (but not all) new members of Nation of Islam replaced their “slave name” with the letter X, signifying their unknown African family name. Malcolm X experienced a significant conversion from a life of crime, quickly became a top leader in the movement, and for most of his life served as the foremost spokesman for “the Honorable Elijah Muhammad” (by far, his most common title). More than anyone else, Malcolm X is credited with increasing both the membership and the media exposure of the Nation.
Malcolm X would have been the heir apparent, even above Elijah’s own sons, were it not for two turning points. First, on December 1, 1963, Malcolm suggested to the media that John F. Kennedy brought his assassination upon himself, and he wasn’t even sorry—violating an order from Elijah Muhammad to say nothing at all about the assassination. Elijah silenced Malcolm from public speaking for ninety days and took steps against his prized lieutenant. Second, Malcolm discovered that Elijah had fathered children by several of his female disciples. Sexual infractions were treated severely in the Nation of Islam, and this discovery was crushing to Malcolm.
Malcolm made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964, converted to Sunni Islam, took steps to help Nation of Islam sisters who had been impregnated and abandoned by Elijah Muhammad, and tried to organize a new movement. He was killed by three renegade Nation members in Harlem in February 1965. If Malcolm’s death was not directed by Elijah Muhammad, it was certainly expected to occur.
Elijah had groomed his seventh son, Wallace D. Muhammad, to take over the movement, but it was never publicly announced that Wallace was to be his successor. Wallace was named after Wallace D. Fard. It was well-known that Wallace (who later renamed himself Warith Deen) had been a very close friend of Malcolm X, aware of his father’s infidelity, a skeptic of the Yakub myth, and favorable to orthodox Islam. He fell in and out of favor with Elijah over the next ten years.
Controversy. In 1973 Muhammad was embroiled in controversy after seven Nation of Islam members invaded the home of Hanafi head Khalifa Hamaas Abdul Khaalis (Hanafi is one of the four schools of jurisprudence within Sunni Islam) and brutally murdered Khaalis’s children, a grandchild, and one of his followers. Khaalis was not home at the time. Khaalis had been severely critical of the Nation in an open letter written several weeks prior to the murders. Five of the seven murderers were captured and convicted, and they received life sentences. Although it was never proven that Muhammad was directly involved, critics charge that Muhammad was directly or indirectly responsible.
On February 25, 1975, at the age of seventy-seven, Elijah Muhammad died of congestive heart failure caused by diabetes and asthma.
After his death, his son Warith tried to disband the Nation of Islam. He recast Fard’s teaching as deep symbolism and persuaded some followers to accept traditional Islam. He even abandoned the name Nation of Islam. Warith died in 2008.
Louis Farrakhan, who joined the Nation of Islam in 1955 under Malcolm X, revived the discarded name in 1977 and returned the Nation of Islam to Elijah Muhammad’s original teaching.
In recent years, some of Elijah’s followers have sought to clear his memory by recasting his extramarital affairs as polygamous marriages, more acceptable to Islamic practice. However, bigamy was illegal throughout Elijah’s lifetime, and none of these purported “marriages” were performed legally or publicly. Today there is little doubt about the extent of Elijah’s infidelity. “Mother” Tynetta Muhammad, a regular columnist for the Nation of Islam newspaper, openly claims to have four children by Elijah Muhammad, and there is a long history of court proceedings involving over a dozen illegitimate children claiming millions of dollars in withheld inheritance from his multimillion dollar estate.
In additional to Farrakhan’s movement, a small number of independent organizations and publishers continue to promote Elijah’s teachings today.
See also ISLAM, BASIC BELIEFS OF; NATION OF ISLAM
Bibliography. C. A. Clegg III, An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad; E. U. Essien-Udom, Black Nationalism: A Search for an Identity in America; K. Evanzz, The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad; M. Gardell, In the Name of Elijah Muhammad: Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam; M. Halasa, Elijah Muhammad; C. E. Lincoln, The Black Muslims in America, 3rd ed.; E. Muhammad, The Fall of America; E. Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America; E. Muhammad, Our Saviour Has Arrived; E. Muhammad, The Supreme Wisdom; S. Tsoukalas, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the “Black Muslims.”
E. Pement and H. W. House
MUKTANANDA. See PARAMAHANSA, SWAMI MUKTANANDA
MUSLIM. The term Muslim literally means “one who submits” (obsolete variant, Moslem). The term represents someone who believes in, belongs to, and performs Islam. A Muslim resigns himself to the divine will of Allah. As explained in the Qur’an (33:35), a Muslim is someone who is devout, patient, humble, and chaste. This, then, is demonstrated through the five pillars of Islam: creed (shahada), prayer (salat), tithes (zakat), fasting (sawm), and pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj).
A Muslim is also defined by his adherence to the six beliefs of Islam explained in the Qur’an (2:177): Allah (God is one), angels (invisible beings who execute God’s will), prophets (conveying the message of Allah), sacred books (Qur’an and hadith), judgment (“last day”), and decree (paradise or hell).
A Muslim, therefore, is someone who follows this “straight path” while fearing Allah.
See also ISLAM, BASIC BELIEFS OF
Bibliography. G. Braswell, Islam: Its Prophets, Peoples, Politics, and Power; Ergun and Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam.
Emir Caner
MYSTICISM. It is difficult to define mysticism precisely. The term is used to describe the practice of seeking a personal, subjective experience with God. It has some affinity with existentialism in that both derive knowledge predominantly from the psychological/experiential realm. Mysticism appeals to, or emphasizes, the emotional side of human experience over cognitive activity.
Religious mysticism is closely aligned with the search for spirituality and centers not so much on what one believes as on the inner person. Non-Christian religious movements such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Krishna consciousness, New Age thought, and the occult have strong tendencies toward mysticism.
Within the Christian community, mysticism is manifested in numerous ways. Mystical elements have been a part of Christianity from its inception, although at times the mystical has been at odds with orthodox doctrine. Most forms of mysticism in ancient Christianity centered on devotion to some aspect of mystery within Christianity, such as the Eucharist or the Trinity. Traditionally, the Eastern church has emphasized the mystical more than the Western church.
The spread of aberrant mysticism within the Christian community is evident through some aspects of Pentecostalism, with its use of dreams, extrabiblical revelation, emotional/psychological manipulation, and visions.
See also BUDDHISM; HINDUISM; INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS (ISKCON)
Bibliography. W. Corduan, Mysticism: An Evangelical Option?; G. Friesen, Decision Making and the Will of God; A. Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism; D. D. Martin, “Mysticism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
S. J. Rost
MYTH. A myth is a type of narrative that seeks to express in imaginative form a belief about humans, the world, and/or God or gods that cannot be expressed adequately in simple propositions. Since the word is used in contemporary scientific and theological literature in a variety of ways, any definition of it appears to be arbitrary. In common language, myth is used to denote a story that is untrue. Perhaps a better term for myth is, as Walter Fisher has suggested, a “narrative paradigm,” since this term serves well to denote a story that directs individuals and communities.
Until recently myth was used in biblical studies to denote a mistaken worldview based on supernatural assumptions that stand in sharp contrast to the modern scientific worldview. It was this understanding of myth that inspired the biblical criticism of scholars like D. F. Strauss (1808–74) and Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), who sought to “demythologize” the New Testament.
The contrast between myth and science has been challenged by many philosophers, literary critics, religious studies scholars, and others who compare myths with legends, fairy tales, and the like and argue that myths are stories with some sort of inner or spiritual meaning. For such people, myths portray a “truer” or “deeper” version of reality than secular history, realistic description, or scientific explanation. This spiritualized view of myth ranges from outright irrationalism and post-Christian supernaturalism to more sophisticated accounts where myths are held to be fundamental expressions of certain psychological properties of the human mind. The work of Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is a good example of this type of approach to myths and mythology.
The problem with these spiritualist ways of understanding myth is that the term eventually becomes so vague that it is virtually meaningless. Further, many contemporary definitions of myth have their origins in different forms of fascist thought and in the writings of men like Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946), the official ideologue of the Nazi Party, where myths were deliberately promoted as a way of manipulating people to avoid rational analysis. The works of many popular writers on myth, such as Mircea Eliade (1907–86), Joseph Campbell (1904–87), and even Jung all reflect the influence of fascist thinking and open the door to irrationalism.
Probably the best definition of myth is based on the work of anthropologists like John Middleton, who defined a myth as “a statement about society and man’s place in it and in the surrounding universe. . . . Myths and cosmological notions are concerned with the relationship of people with other people, with nature and with the supernatural” (x).
In social anthropology, what makes a story a myth is not its content, as the rationalists thought, or some “inner spiritual meaning,” as the spiritualist interpreters argue, but the use to which the story is put. Once accepted a myth can be used to ennoble the past, explain the present, and hold out hope for the future. It gives individual and social life meaning and direction. This ability to guide action distinguishes myths from legends, folk tales, and other stories. In short myths have the power to change lives and shape societies. Probably the best definition of myth is “a story with culturally formative power.”
See also MYTHOLOGY
Bibliography. W. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Towards a Philosophy of Reason, Value and Action; B. Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion; J. Middleton, ed., Myth and Cosmos; R. Samuel and P. Thompson, The Myths We Live By.
I. Hexham
MYTHOLOGY. Strictly speaking, mythology is the study of myths. In ancient times shamans, oracles, priests, and other holy men learned and passed on the myths of their culture, most often through oral storytelling. The term may also refer to a series of stories that function as myths and hang together as a whole or coexist as isolated fragments in a person’s consciousness without any need being felt to express their meaning propositionally. Today the term is often used for collections of stories with titles like The Greek Myths, without acknowledgment that in their original setting these stories were believed to be true and taken as a guide for daily living.
Once the exclusive arena of classical studies and literature, myths have begun to be studied by scholars in a new light, with the realization that important insight can be gained into a culture through the study of its myths. A culture’s values, mores, influences, and other anthropological information can be revealed in its myths. Some scholars have even begun to study modern mythology and how it relates to modern culture.
Another modern phenomenon is the rise of “urban” myths. These are usually incredible stories that seem to defy nature. With the advent of the internet and email, many of these stories are widely dispersed. The popularity of urban mythology has given rise to groups seeking to verify these stories, and to at least one television show.
See also MYTH
Bibliography. P. Maranda, ed., Mythology.
I. Hexham