jps@stcvax.UUCP (Jeff Snover) (11/27/84)
Lately a friend of mine at work (who is a Gnostic Christian) has been
talking to me about his religion and I have been truely fascinated.
I have always believed that christian's view of man/the world/the cosmos
has been obstucted by the lower end of their digestive tract but this
guy makes sense!
Some my question is: How is the Gnostic chruch (not very big in the US
but alledgedly very big in Canada, Europe, and Mexico) viewed by the
"convential" christians? I know that the Gnostics consider them
(convential christians) to be essentially correct but misguided. I
would really prefer comments about theological dispute as opposed to
the "I think they're all jerks" flavor of comments.
--
Jeffrey P. Snover - STC StorageTek (Disk Division)
uucp: { hao, ihnp4, decvax}!stcvax!jps
{ allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!jps
USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028
DDD: (303) 673-6750marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (11/28/84)
> Lately a friend of mine at work (who is a Gnostic Christian) has been > talking to me about his religion and I have been truely fascinated. Could somebody explain what the Gnostic church is? (The only thing that comes to mind is 'agnostic' -- are these Christians who aren't really sure of their beliefs?) Marie desJardins marie@harvard
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/29/84)
In article <harvard.170> marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) writes: >> Lately a friend of mine at work (who is a Gnostic Christian) has been >> talking to me about his religion and I have been truely fascinated. > >Could somebody explain what the Gnostic church is? (The only thing that >comes to mind is 'agnostic' -- are these Christians who aren't really >sure of their beliefs?) > It's hard to make generalizations about Gnosticism, there are many different flavors. Gnosticism is alive and well, thank you, though many who practice it do not call it by that name. Mormons and Christian Scientists (at the risk of offending some) have a strong intellectual base in the Gnostic faith though they don't claim it and, in fact, were founded well before the discovery of the major Gnostic texts. What follows is an elucidation of my own particular understanding of Gnostic Christianity. I speak for no one but myself, so it may differ from others. As the Gnosticism proceeds from the point of inner knowledge ("gnosis" -- agnostic means 'not knowing') there is a tendency to develop one's own theology along common points of faith. Fundamental to the Gnostic faith is the assertion of the spiritual nature of Christ and of man. G-d made man "in His image," thus man in the realization of his true spiritual nature transcends the flesh which is (literally) a temporal incarnation. Jesus came/was sent to show us the path to G-d, not through a set of rules and regulations for sal- vation, but through demonstration -- through acts, through works and ultimately through spiritual resurrection. The nature of the Resurrection was a point of strong division between the Apostolic and Gnostic Christians. The Apostolics believed (as many do) that the resurrection was a literal resurrection of the flesh. Gnostics believe that the resurrection was of the spirit. This duality is best exemplified in (I believe) "The Gospel of James," a Gnostic text wherein Jesus appears to James *during the crucifixion* to declare that what is being done "is not being done to me." There is contained the image of the crucified Jesus and above -- the spiritual Christ laughing. The early Roman Bishops considered this notion heretical, as many would today. Gnostics believe, also, that if all men and women are of divine nature, then all men and women are equal. Historically, there is no authority structure in the Gnostic faith. The various authority roles are selected by lot or democratic election (as with Christian Scientists today.) Many Gnostics believe Mary Magdelene to be the first witness to the resurrection and thus the inheritor of the apostolic vacancy ultimately given to Matthias. (The political battle for control of the early Christian Church between the Apostolics and the Gnostic sects is covered extensively in Elaine Paget's "The Gnostic Gospels" a good source work for modern Gnosticism.) It is a fairly strong point of common belief among Gnostics that the christian faith was led away from its true nature by the early christian fathers. In line with this is the Gnostic notion of the Trinity not as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but as the Father, the Mother and the Son -- the divine reflection of the earthly family. The Father, in this scenario, is the unnameable perfection. "He has no name for there was none to give Him one." He exists, has always existed and will always exist as (my own belief) the organizing principle of the universe. The Mother, 'the great Silence,' the Sophia ("Wisdom") is the creative principle -- the Truth that is apparent. The Child is us. Mankind -- the spiritual offspring of the G-dhead. There is another character in this theological playlet, the Demiurge ("Creator.") The Demiurge is a *strong* point of division between traditional Gnostic theology and more mainstream faith. Essentially, before all things (as we know them) began, the Creative Impulse for need of something to create spawned a being/idea which (for want of a better term) I'll call an Angel. While of divine origin this Angel was not omniscient or omnipresent and was unaware of it's nature and origin (as are we.) In a better job of it, all that we know was brought to being *through* the Demiurge by the Male and Female principles, again with its being unaware. The Demiurge, being unaware, thought it was alone -- in charge of the Universe. As such, it endeavored to limit mankind in its realization of spirituality (Genesis) and to make all manner of rules to insure its place in control of ever-presumptive humanity. (To refer to the standard Gnostic statement: "The Lord thy G-d is a jealous G-d." Jealous of whom? Who else is/was there? Only humanity.) Ultimately, the Demiurge became aware of it's true nature and was mortified. This, to Gnostics, marks the transition between the Old Testament and New Testament G-d. Did the Demiurge become the Christ? Was it thrown down to become Satan? Are both of these aspects of the same? There are strong dividing points, even among Gnostics on these issues. For us, how to we apprehend the Deity and our own nature? Gnostics believe that it begins with self-knowlege and understanding. There is a lovely Coptic text which I don't have at hand which asks not how is it possible to apprehend G-d, but how is it possible to *not* apprehend G-d. G-d is evident in all things, most certainly in ourselves if we allow that knowledge. It is the greatest sin to be blind to oneself and one's own nature. How much of the above do *I* believe? That is unclear to me. I find I put great faith in the Truth of spirituality and the temporal nature of that which we call reality. I regard the whole business of the Demiurge to be an allegorical tale of the necessary transition from rule-laden existence to the enlightenment and freedom inherent in self-knowledge. I certainly believe in Christ as "The Way," but by example rather than the relative complexities of Pauline theology. One takes on the mantle of Christ by emulating and at the same time struggling to apprehend G-d in oneself. That is the way to atone for one's transgressions, no other person or being can do it for you. I have no idea how more mainstream Christians regard Gnostics, though I expect I'll find out :-) Before folks flame at me, or write me lovely letters about my eternal soul and its disposition, let me say that I've seriously considered the more mainstream path and cannot find it within myself to accept it. The notions are much to alien to me to become part of my world view. Likewise this is not an effort to convince anyone, but only an exposition of my own faith. I'm not foolish enough to believe I can convince anyone of anything in this forum, and wouldn't try it even if I could. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/30/84)
<>
Jeff Snover has asked about Gnostic Christianity. Byron Howes' answer
is a very fine summary of gnostic beliefs, especially those that were
rejected by the "catholic" church (not "Roman Catholic", but a term used
to distinguish those that were ultimately deemed "orthodox" from all the
"heretics"). It sounds as if Byron has relied heavily on Elaine Pagels'
"The Gnostic Gospels" - an excellent and interesting synopsis of gnostic
thought (even if Pagels is more than a little uncritical in her use of the
texts). Rather than repeat Byron or Pagels, let me recommend both as a
starting point, and proceed to throw my own ideas into the hopper.
After a half-semester looking at primary gnostic texts, I must admit that
I am just as confused about what constitutes gnosticism as I was when I
started. The heresiologists (early Christians that wrote against "heresy")
said that gnosticsm was Greek philosophy run amuk. Hippolytus (middle
3rd Century) specifically tied gnosticism to Pythagorean and extreme
Platonic schools.
The major beliefs criticized by "orthodox" catholic writers related to
gnostic cosmology (model of the universe) and allegorical interpretations
of Genesis 1-2, used to support their "pleroma" of "aeons" - a hierarchy
of divine beings; gnostic belief that Jesus only appeared as a man; and
gnostic emphasis on knowledge (Greek "gnosis" - hence "gnostic") by which
a person's mind/soul was saved without the body/material or physical activity
(ie ethical behavior).
No doubt the doctrine of some gnostics went to excess, but how accurately
the heresiologists represented their ideas is an open question. Valentinus,
writing his Gospel of Truth around 150 in Rome, was apparently accepted by
many as orthodox - even Irenaeus criticizes Valentinus' students more than he
does Valentinus. Their mythological universe was probably no more fanciful
than that of Origen (who wrote in Alexandria around 200-220, and was
considered orthodox at least until 390), and it I question whether the
author of a tractate like "On the Origin of the World" (in the Nag Hamaddi
Library) interpreted his story any more literally than contemporary pagans
interpreted Greek mythology. True, some gnostics felt that "Yahweh" and
"Adonai" were demons created by the Demiurge (the evil creator of the
material world), but I have found as many gnostics who seem to take Genesis
1-2 in its more traditional ("orthodox") sense.
Regarding salvation, historic gnosticism is a strange paradox. Although
salvation was a matter of "mind" over "matter," gnostics tended to become
very ascetic, and the Nag Hamaddi contains a great deal of material that
favors enthusiastic/ecstatic experiences. Still, their ideas were common
enough among middle Platonists of the day - Origen believed that God created
Adam and Eve as "nous" (mind), and that at the Fall they were confined to
physical bodies. And Clement of Alexandria (an "orthodox" writer) called
himself a "true" gnostic - one whose understanding was better than the
heretical gnostics.
Jesus was a greater problem for gnostics. Traditional scholarship has
defined gnosticism in terms of two myths - one of the origin of the world,
and the other of redemption. In the redemption myth Christ, the heavenly
embodiment of gnosis, comes down to earth to explain to gnostics their
real nature as heavenly souls ("gnosis" is a substance - some people have
it, some people don't). Christ, who is not a man, tricks the rulers of
the material universe, and then returns to heaven whence he came. Thus
for most gnostics Christ was not a real man, he either was a "phantom"
(in which case his captors were tricked into crucifying Simon of Cyrene),
or he temporarily took over the human body of Jesus (in which case he
left the body at the cross). In either case, the gnostics were wrestling
with the problem of how an impassible God (i.e. God who cannot suffer)
could be crucified, and what the significance of the event was. Again,
their answer was not entirely far-fetched when compared to "orthodox"
ransom-to-Satan theories.
In addition to doctrinal criticisms, the heresiologists raise questions
about church order. Apparently some of them were burned by the fact that
gnostics weren't deferential enough to the bishop. They tended to consider
themselves more "spiritual" than the church officials. They often allowed
the laity in general (and women in particular) to take an active role in
the church, and they were not so much interested in ecclesiastical structure
as in the gifts and working of the Spirit. In fact one faculty member at
Duke University (who translated a portion of the Nag Hamaddi Library into
English) has suggested to me that some gnostics may have been no more than
lay leaders in their churches interested in living better Christian lives
through the leading of the Spirit (as they understood that).
There are, of course, many other theories regarding various aspects of
gnosticism. German scholars as Hans Jonas and Rudolph Bultmann have
viewed gnostics as 2nd Century existentialists, and interpreted their
writings in such a way as to make them appear to be the first Lutherans!
In short, the current state of scholarship on gnosticism has produced more
questions than answers. If someone claims to represent a "gnostic"
church (I must admit I have never heard of a church advertise itself
that way - the equivalent would be my membership in the "First Church
of Christian Heresy" :-), perhaps the best course of action is to ask what
types of "gnostics" they follow, and which aspects of gnostic thought they
affirm. I must admit that I would question why a church felt it necessary
to make its reputation by calling itself after a two millennia old heresy,
but I suppose that I wouldn't be a minister in the Presbyterian Church if
I didn't have a [moderately] conservative streak in me :-)
Jeff Gillette duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke University