GNOSTICISM--- WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE YOU NEED TO KNOW? Too often people use this term in the same way elementary school children use the word cooties to describe the personality afflictions possessed by other groups of children with whom they dont want to associate. Many today likewise use the term Gnosticism pejoratively to describe other forms of Christian spirituality with which they dont want to associate. This is a day when many are calling others with whom they disagree a Gnostic. This term is being frequently bandied about without full discernment as to what its deepest and most dangerous dynamic actually is. Some Gnostics are dualistic in their thinking, but thats not what Gnosticism IS. Some Gnostics are matter-relishing epicureans, but thats not what Gnosticism IS. Some Gnostics are matter-detesting ascetics, but thats not what Gnosticism IS. Some Gnostics are Docetic, some Diestic, and some Polytheistic, but none of these things define what Gnosticism IS. What Gnosticism IS comes to definitional light in the following statement. Gnosticism IS a hyper-intellectual worldview which believes that ONLY the credentialed and initiated intelligentsia of their own chosen mental culture are the ones who have accurate knowledge of God. Gnosticism isnt so much about WHAT you believe as it is HOW you believe. There is no standard system of Gnostic thought because of the variant sects and diverse emphases. Thus, its much more instructive and beneficial to see HOW Gnostics thought rather than WHAT they thought, lest we become bogged down in the swamp of discordant mindsets described below. Gnosticism is, That strange, obscure movement, partly intellectual, partly fanatical ... in the 2d century spread with the swiftness of an epidemic over the church from Syria to Gaul (Law, The Tests of Life, 26.) It is therefore of high importance to gain a right conception of the nature of this potent anti-Christian influence. This is not easy. The difficulty in dealing with Gnosticism is that it was not a homogenous system of either religion or philosophy, but embraced many widely diversified sects holding opinions drawn from a great variety of sources. The infinitely varied shapes assumed by the systems render its almost impossible to classify them, or even to give an account of their leading ideas, which shall not be open to objection. We might as well try to classify the products of a tropical jungle, or the shapes and hues of the sunset clouds, which change under our view as we look at them. (Orr, James, The Progress of Dogma, 58.) The differing Gnostic beliefs come from the particular mental culture which operates within each respective sect. Dr. Orr writes, Gnosticism may be described generally as the...the blending of certain Christian ideas -- particularly that of redemption through Christ -- with speculation and imaginings derived from a medley of sources, (Greek, Jewish, Parsic; philosophies; religions, theosophies, mysteries) in a period when the human mind was in kind of ferment, and when opinions of every sort were jumbled together in an unimaginable welter. It involves, as the name to notes, a claim to knowledge, knowledge of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable, and in the possession of which salvation in the full sense consisted. This knowledge of which the Gnostic boasted, related to the subjects ordinarily treated of in religious philosophy; Gnosticism was a species of religious philosophy (The Early Church, 71). My aim here, then, is to focus on the WAY Gnostics thought rather than WHAT Gnostics taught. They ALL sought to redefine and/or replace organic and personal faith with the trinity of mind, intellect and knowledge. The mental culture usurps the heart culture. Whereas normative Christian Mysticism rightly esteems the gut, conscience and heart, Gnosticism esteems the mind, intellect, and knowledge. Under Gnostic belief, the intellects obtaining of knowledge is our raison dêtre (reason for being). The result is that only the opinions of the credentialed intelligentsia (in our particular mental culture) matter. In other words, one must be initiated into the sect of the scholar or sage (of whatever Gnostic system toward which one adheres) to obtain the secret knowledge necessary to form an accurate opinion about divine matters. Anyone without the heightened knowledge of the initiated scholar should be forbidden to opine about divine truths. These ignorant ones are the mass of the uninitiated, uninformed and the uneducated, and should be ignored or dismissed as errant. Again, Gnosticism occupies no singular system of thought. Rather it elevates thought itself TO divine status. Famed German theologian and church historian Johann Neander has described Gnosticism as the first notable attempt to introduce into Christianity the existing elements of MENTAL CULTURE, and to render it more complete on the hitherto rather neglected side of THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE; it was an ATTEMPT OF THE MIND of the ancient world and its yearning after knowledge, and in its dissatisfaction with the present, to bring within its grasp into appropriate the treasures of this kind which Christianity presented (Antignostikus, Intro, 199). Gnosticism was distinguished by an unethical, LOVELESS INTELLECTUALISM. This seems to be the explanation of the false teaching against which this epistle (1 John) is directed. The apostle describes the dry head knowledge which left the heart and life untouched by love, and which lead man, while they profess to love God, nevertheless to remain destitute of love to their fellow man. Dr. James Orr, ISBE, GNOSTICISM. As I indicated above, although there are sects with differing views, Gnosticism generally believes that Christs personal presence wasnt and isnt REALLY here on this corrupted earthly and temporal plane, either at His supposed incarnation or even now. This often results in Gnostic Docetism (God is perfect Spirit and cannot inhabit this imperfect material world) or Gnostic Deism (God is remotely located elsewhere in the realm of Spirit and has left this material plane for us to deal in with His absence). Thus, Gnostics tended to be Dualistic, Docetic and Diestic, which meant they were separatist in their thinking when it came to spirit and matter. This then often resulted in two extremes. Either the sect would be ascetic, deploring this prison of matter and seeking to starve out all affection for its pleasures by ascetic discipline, OR, by contrast, the sect would lean toward an antinomian existence grounded in sensual and epicurean enjoyment, for what we do here is meaningless because the material world is a burning ship which will never reach eternitys shores. Either way, Gnosticism divinizes the human intellect as the only functioning instrument of deity left here on the broken earth. Our intellect, mental culture, and the scholarly knowledge both reach here then becomes the only divine residue left on this temporal plane. And we must therefore submit ALL things to it. We literally worship the particular knowledge of our specific mental culture. Cold, clinical, and credentialed knowledge, which only the initiated intelligentsia can ever obtain, now becomes the measure of all things spiritual. At its root then, Gnosticism is Christianity hijacked by hyper-intellectualism. It a head knowledge which puffs up egos but deflates the organic heart dynamic described in Galatians 3:2 as the hearing of faith(Galatians 3:2). The words that chill me the most as I have studied this challenging topic are Dr. Orrs description of Gnosticism as loveless intellectualism. Rather than quickly finger-pointing Gnostic accusations at others with whom we experientially and theologically disagree, I think the wiser course of action is to remove any plank of loveless intellectualism from our own eye. Our bind-spot comes because we are lured into believing WHAT we think makes us a Gnostic rather than HOW we think. Simply put, Gnosticism exalts our respective mental cultures into Temples built to a God of knowledge. What Jesus prefers are heart cultures where we move in ALL the divine promptings: intellect, emotion, intuition, imagination, epiphany and visceral valor. Faith is OF the heart. Faith trumps intellect and head knowledge wherever they conflict. Faith can certainly put intelligence to good use, but it doesnt serve it. Faith does away with the need for mental popes whose rings we must kiss because of their credentialed knowledge. Jesus picked 12 disciples with no knowledge credentials at all to build His Kingdom of light and love. Rather, they had the heart credentials Jesus was looking for-- those with good and honest hearts committed to dialoguing with His divine Spirit by organic faith. To be anti-Gnostic is simply to be an anti-intellectualist. French theologian Henri De Lubac made a critical distinction between an anti-intellectual and an anti-intellectualist. The first is against intelligence, while the second is against the tendency to reduce the Christian revelation to a doctrinal system of mere ideas, when it is first and foremost the manifestation of a Person, the Truth of an individuated Person. -- Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the Theology of Henri De Lubac, by Susan k. Wood, Eerdmans (1998). So, someone who merely OPPOSES the Gnostic idea that we cant REALLY hear Gods inner voice, sense Christs interior presence, or be guided by the Spirits personal promptings, is NOT being anti-intellectual. However, this person may certainly be an anti-intellectualist, and thus anti-Gnostic. We live by faith, not by Gnostic knowledge.
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:08:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015