More on Gnosticsm
Joe Chip posted an interesting comment on my blog about Harry Potter, remarking on my brief summary on Gnosticism. He points out that "Gnostics did not and do not believe that Gnostic myths are 'the fullest comprehension of the real.'" I entirely agree with him on this point and repudiate my statement. Most mystics, no matter their tradition, would cringe at the notion that their ideas of God or the Ultimate Reality or Truth could be conveyed, comprehensively, in words. Our means of communication are intrinsically limited, and few know this better than those who have encountered the ineffable, and want to talk about it. This notion, of our limits to talk about God, is developed in greater or lesser degree depending on the theological or philosophical system through which God is understood. The Judeo-Christian tradition understands God to be a God of revelation, the culmination of which is the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. Much of what we can say about the divine will be articulated in negative theology, saying what God is by listing what he is not, but we also have the means of articulating positive theology because of the Trinity's self-revelation in and through Jesus. Classical Gnostics did not believe that God was revealed in creation, or in the incarnate Christ, but was so unknowable that even to say, in terms of negative theology, that God is ineffable, is to say that something is known of him. As Jean Danielou writes, according to the Gnostics, "God is unknown absolutely, both in his essence and in his existence; he is the one of whom, in the strictest sense, nothing is known, and this situation can be overcome only through the Gnosis." It is in this context that the essential dualism of Gnosticism is made apparent, contrary to the claims of Joe Chip, because this unknowablility of God is "a question of radical dualism, distinguishing between the God of whom the world enables us to form some idea (who is merely the Demiurge) and the God who has no connection whatever with the world, and who can be known only by means of himself."* In this context it is clear that my sentence was inappropriate.
I find it interesting, as well, that several of Joe's statements could be read as statements of Orthodox Christianity. For example, "Gnosis is salvific insofar as it transforms our being and brings us into union with the divine, making us like Christ, little christs and all that that entails--boundless compassion, selflessness, humility, etc." Deification is the effect of salvation, and this has been well developed in Orthodox Christianity, finding its essential and distinct beginnings in the Gospel of John, and finding episcopal articulation in the writings of Athanasius.
Also, "The Eucharist is a localized transubstantiating event, a redemption of matter by alchemically transmuting it into the spiritual substance of the body and blood of Christ, bringing Christ and matter into union, a local Incarnation." The use of the word 'alchemically' is inappropriate; God's redemptive work is not a magical manipulation of material reality, but a re-creative healing of reality. However, the essential idea is true: Christ is made present in the Eucharist by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of bread and wine are substantively changed and redeemed, mysteriously incorporating the real presence of the crucified Lord. It is a local Incarnation.
That being said, I think Joe's understanding of Gnosticism reflects an anachronism common to contemporary Gnostics. The unity of neo-Gnostic thinking does not reflect the highly variegated religious, philosophical, and mystical communities and individuals of antiquity who have been grouped in modern scholarship by their common ideas under the rubric, Gnostic. Vanentinus, Basilides, and Marcion have each been called "Gnostic" by various writers, and each had a very different appreciation of the nature of reality and how it could be understood. As I wrote in the post, "Gnosticism as it existed in Late Antiquity was distinctly religious. The Gnostics were inheritors of the mystery cults and middle and neo-Platonism. To this admixture was added the ideas and stories of the Jews and Christians, a real mélange of beliefs." For support I quote Justo L' Gonzalez in A History of Christian Thought (Abington Press: 1970):
Under the general title of "Gnosticism" are included several religious doctrines that flourished in the second century, and whose main characteristic was their syncretism. The Gnostics would take any doctrine that they found valuable, without any regard for its origin or for the context from which it was taken. When they came to know early Christianity and saw its great appeal, they attempted to take those aspects of Christianity which seemed most valuable to them and adapt them to their systems... There has been a great scholarly debate regarding the origins of Gnosticism, but this debate probably can never be settled because of the syncretistic nature of Gnosticism itself, which makes use of Persian dualism as well as oriental mysteries, Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic philosophy, and practically every doctrine that circulated in the second century. (pg. 128-129)
And Paul Johnson in A History of Christianity (London: Penguin, 1988):
No one has yet succeeded in defining ‘Gnosticism’ adequately, or indeed in demonstrating whether this movement preceded Christianity or grew from it. Certainly Gnostic sects were spreading at the same time as Christian ones; both were part of the general religious osmosis. Gnostics had two central presuppositions: belief in the existence of a secret code of truth, transmitted by word of mouth or by arcane writings. Gnosticism is a ‘knowledge religion’ - that is what the word means - which claims to have an inner explanation of life. Thus it was, and indeed is, a spiritual parasite which used other religions as a ‘carrier’. Christianity fitted into this role very well. It has a mysterious founder, Jesus, who had conveniently disappeared, leaving behind a collection of sayings and followers to transmit them; and of course in addition to the public sayings there were ‘secret’ ones, handed on from generation to generation by members of the sect. Thus Gnostic groups seized on bits of Christianity, but tended to cut it off from its historical origins. They were Hellenizing it [making it acceptable to the Greeks (from ‘hellenas’=Greek)]... Their ethic varied to taste: sometimes they were ultra-puritan, sometimes orgiastic. (pg. 45)
Joe Chip's claim that "gnosis is not just for Gnostics... Anyone can have gnosis," reflects common liberal sentiments of inclusion and pluralism more than historic conceptions of gnosis. Also, his suggestion that perhaps what I "perceive as mere imagination is a kind of gnosis, the recognition that creeds and dogmas are not, in fact, reality," reflects the subjectivism and relativism characteristic of Unitarian or universalistic conceptions of reality and religious expression. The implication is that transcendent truth can be interpreted through the doctrines and creeds of various religious traditions so long as those doctrines and creeds are recognized as mere "pretty symbols pointing the way, but not the way itself, just as the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself."
What is most interesting to me about this is the evidence it provides for the enduring syncretistic and parasitic nature of Gnosticism, even in its contemporary forms. While still drawing on its old sources of Platonism, Christianity, Judaism, and near-Eastern paganism, it manages to draw also on nihilistic relativism, subjectivism, and universalism. This also sets into context the apparent near-orthodoxy of some of Joe's, and other Gnostic’s, statements; they are Christian doctrines, pilfered and modified to match a Gnostic paradigm.
And the paradigmatic shift from antique Gnosticism to neo-Gnosticism, which draws on the philosophical sources previously mentioned, serves to validate what I posted, that "most people in the West, being skeptical, do not actually impart religious belief to anything Gnostic." Rather, they use the fascinating and affective Gnostic fictitious formula, employed in its characteristically parasitic and syncretistic manner, to formulate a spiritually compelling story that generates a religious feeling that can cloak their essentially non-religious world-view.
I am interested to read Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, as recommended by Joe Chip. The Penguin edition has an introduction by Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the past century.
*Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine: Vol 2, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (Dartman, Longman, & Todd: London 1973) pg. 336-337
I find it interesting, as well, that several of Joe's statements could be read as statements of Orthodox Christianity. For example, "Gnosis is salvific insofar as it transforms our being and brings us into union with the divine, making us like Christ, little christs and all that that entails--boundless compassion, selflessness, humility, etc." Deification is the effect of salvation, and this has been well developed in Orthodox Christianity, finding its essential and distinct beginnings in the Gospel of John, and finding episcopal articulation in the writings of Athanasius.
Also, "The Eucharist is a localized transubstantiating event, a redemption of matter by alchemically transmuting it into the spiritual substance of the body and blood of Christ, bringing Christ and matter into union, a local Incarnation." The use of the word 'alchemically' is inappropriate; God's redemptive work is not a magical manipulation of material reality, but a re-creative healing of reality. However, the essential idea is true: Christ is made present in the Eucharist by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of bread and wine are substantively changed and redeemed, mysteriously incorporating the real presence of the crucified Lord. It is a local Incarnation.
That being said, I think Joe's understanding of Gnosticism reflects an anachronism common to contemporary Gnostics. The unity of neo-Gnostic thinking does not reflect the highly variegated religious, philosophical, and mystical communities and individuals of antiquity who have been grouped in modern scholarship by their common ideas under the rubric, Gnostic. Vanentinus, Basilides, and Marcion have each been called "Gnostic" by various writers, and each had a very different appreciation of the nature of reality and how it could be understood. As I wrote in the post, "Gnosticism as it existed in Late Antiquity was distinctly religious. The Gnostics were inheritors of the mystery cults and middle and neo-Platonism. To this admixture was added the ideas and stories of the Jews and Christians, a real mélange of beliefs." For support I quote Justo L' Gonzalez in A History of Christian Thought (Abington Press: 1970):
Under the general title of "Gnosticism" are included several religious doctrines that flourished in the second century, and whose main characteristic was their syncretism. The Gnostics would take any doctrine that they found valuable, without any regard for its origin or for the context from which it was taken. When they came to know early Christianity and saw its great appeal, they attempted to take those aspects of Christianity which seemed most valuable to them and adapt them to their systems... There has been a great scholarly debate regarding the origins of Gnosticism, but this debate probably can never be settled because of the syncretistic nature of Gnosticism itself, which makes use of Persian dualism as well as oriental mysteries, Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic philosophy, and practically every doctrine that circulated in the second century. (pg. 128-129)
And Paul Johnson in A History of Christianity (London: Penguin, 1988):
No one has yet succeeded in defining ‘Gnosticism’ adequately, or indeed in demonstrating whether this movement preceded Christianity or grew from it. Certainly Gnostic sects were spreading at the same time as Christian ones; both were part of the general religious osmosis. Gnostics had two central presuppositions: belief in the existence of a secret code of truth, transmitted by word of mouth or by arcane writings. Gnosticism is a ‘knowledge religion’ - that is what the word means - which claims to have an inner explanation of life. Thus it was, and indeed is, a spiritual parasite which used other religions as a ‘carrier’. Christianity fitted into this role very well. It has a mysterious founder, Jesus, who had conveniently disappeared, leaving behind a collection of sayings and followers to transmit them; and of course in addition to the public sayings there were ‘secret’ ones, handed on from generation to generation by members of the sect. Thus Gnostic groups seized on bits of Christianity, but tended to cut it off from its historical origins. They were Hellenizing it [making it acceptable to the Greeks (from ‘hellenas’=Greek)]... Their ethic varied to taste: sometimes they were ultra-puritan, sometimes orgiastic. (pg. 45)
Joe Chip's claim that "gnosis is not just for Gnostics... Anyone can have gnosis," reflects common liberal sentiments of inclusion and pluralism more than historic conceptions of gnosis. Also, his suggestion that perhaps what I "perceive as mere imagination is a kind of gnosis, the recognition that creeds and dogmas are not, in fact, reality," reflects the subjectivism and relativism characteristic of Unitarian or universalistic conceptions of reality and religious expression. The implication is that transcendent truth can be interpreted through the doctrines and creeds of various religious traditions so long as those doctrines and creeds are recognized as mere "pretty symbols pointing the way, but not the way itself, just as the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself."
What is most interesting to me about this is the evidence it provides for the enduring syncretistic and parasitic nature of Gnosticism, even in its contemporary forms. While still drawing on its old sources of Platonism, Christianity, Judaism, and near-Eastern paganism, it manages to draw also on nihilistic relativism, subjectivism, and universalism. This also sets into context the apparent near-orthodoxy of some of Joe's, and other Gnostic’s, statements; they are Christian doctrines, pilfered and modified to match a Gnostic paradigm.
And the paradigmatic shift from antique Gnosticism to neo-Gnosticism, which draws on the philosophical sources previously mentioned, serves to validate what I posted, that "most people in the West, being skeptical, do not actually impart religious belief to anything Gnostic." Rather, they use the fascinating and affective Gnostic fictitious formula, employed in its characteristically parasitic and syncretistic manner, to formulate a spiritually compelling story that generates a religious feeling that can cloak their essentially non-religious world-view.
I am interested to read Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, as recommended by Joe Chip. The Penguin edition has an introduction by Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the past century.
*Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine: Vol 2, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (Dartman, Longman, & Todd: London 1973) pg. 336-337
posted by Eric at 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home