Scripturalization as Management of Difference

Abstract

In this chapter Kurtis R. Schaeffer and Vincent L. Wimbush debate the political uses of religion. Schaeffer, in his original definition, defined religion as (1) “a discourse that claims transcendent origins, authority, and impact”; (2) “institutions governed by and governing that discourse”; (3) “communities ruling and resisting those institutions”; and (4) “practices personal and political that bring that rule, that resistance, to life in mundane and epic ways.” Wimbush responds by wanting to introduce aspects such as the personal and the racial into the conversation. Though he agrees with Schaeffer on the importance of understanding the political, he puts a much bigger emphasis on it, especially in light of the rise (and fall) of Donald Trump and the continued legacy of racism in America.

Religious Studies: Wither and Why?

“… 14 14 While there may be a variety of examples of how such terms as “myth” or “ritual” (or mythmaking and ritualization) are often used profitably beyond scholarship on religion, Newton (2020) provides a very helpful example of how the term “scripture” (or better put, scripturalization) can be redescribed and then used far wider in cultural analysis than a traditional scholar of religion might employ the term. See also Wimbush (2021) for another example of the more general use of this refashioned technical term. On improving our use of such technical categories, see the two volumes written by Aaron Hughes and myself (2021a, 2021b).…”