« The Statement on China | Main | Turning, turning... »

May 04, 2006

How many gnostics can dance on the head of a pin?

Gashwin Gomes takes a look at an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education examining new views of gnosticism; namely the conviction among some that "gnosticism" as a category should be abandoned.

(I assume these scholarly advocates are only speaking about the Christian versions of gnosticism. But of course.)

In an interview, Ms. King expands on her theory. "When you map out the similarities rather than the differences between the two sides — or what Irenaeus says are the differences — the territory of similarity is huge," she says. "Both work with this notion of humanity created in the image and likeness of God — and the need for a restoration of that. They both see Christ as the revealer figure, with the body as the place where the struggle takes place. They both have views at the end where humanity is divided into three groups depending on how you do."

Ms. Pagels agrees that "if we drop the invented terms, what we have is many different types of early Christianity. When I used the title The Gnostic Gospels, I assumed that they were all Gnostic. Now I would say that these are other Christianities. ... It's difficult for all of us who were raised the way we were to get rid of the assumptions. The act of shedding assumptions is only done one by one, and with great difficulty."

Gashwin has good comments, including on the final paragraph which (sigh) invites readers intrigued by DVC to read further. As if anything DVC says about anything (even gnosticism) is accurate or a reasonable jumping-off point.

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

Every comparison I've seen suggests that the differences are far more significant than the similarities King cites. This is somewhat similar to John Hick's habit of papering over differences among world religions. And it seems to be part of a larger strategy to dilute and disarm the historic Christian faith - ultimately to avoid accountability for one's sin, and the need to "bend the knee" to Christ.

Posted by: Steve T. at May 4, 2006 12:21:13 PM

It is the "world class" religon academics like Prof. King that remind me of why I would rather spend my retirement going to Mass at my local parish and chanting Psalms in my room, instead of doing theological study at GTU.

Even if she has given seminars with Bp. Spong.

Posted by: Old Zhou at May 4, 2006 12:44:21 PM

I've just been reading Aumann's _Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition_ (because it was on that Domine, Da Mihi Hanc Aquam's guy's class reading list!) The book mentions that the idea of knowledge of God being important to Jewish and Christian spirituality came first, but then it all went pear-shaped when folks twisted it. (Standard story for heresies.) I've also heard this attributed to non-Christian syncretism. Probably it was all a big ball of various motives and ideas.

But that doesn't mean it's a case of "different Christianities", all with the same authority. Heretical Christian gnosticism pretty much discarded everything that was important or historical about Christianity; I bet the same was true of Jewish gnosticism.

Pagan gnosticism, of course, could validly claim to be just another expression of religion and philosophy, because there wasn't any single consistent paganism to rebel against. Which isn't to say it's a good idea to hang with people who think matter, bodily functions, and reproduction is evil. If nothing else, they were probably bad cooks and had lousy bathrooms.

Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at May 4, 2006 12:45:39 PM

Reading the original article, I have to say I find funny the bit about Pagels discovering that heretics actually were sincere in their heretical beliefs! Well, duh! If you're not sincere in your heretical beliefs, why would you be a heretic? And of course you'd call the orthodox folks heretics in turn. Duh.

Apparently, however, Pagels is from the Peanuts gang school, and is impressed by anything that's sincere.

Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at May 4, 2006 12:51:24 PM

"If they drop the invented terms..."

You know, "hypostatic union" was an invented term, too. Come to think of it, so was "theology."

Posted by: Lickona at May 4, 2006 12:57:03 PM

to the drive-by snarky commenter Lickona:

The Catholic Church has seen empires come and go, and many "privately revealed" parodies of Christianity blow away like dust.

My wish for you is that you discover truth.

Posted by: doctor J at May 4, 2006 1:15:26 PM

Doctor J,

Thank you for your kind wish. I do confess to a bit of snark in my previous comment, but it seems I failed to make my snark-target clear. I was taking a shot at Pagels, who seemed to be suggesting that since "gnostic" was an "invented term," it was somehow suspect and worthy of being dropped. I'm a big fan of both theology and the hypostatic union - and a Catholic. My point was that a term's being invented does not necessarily make it invalid. Sometimes, you have to invent a word to name a thing. Sorry if I made the point poorly.

Posted by: Lickona at May 4, 2006 1:33:27 PM

As I recall Transubstantiation was an "invented" term and rather late in the game at that. It was coined simply to give a term to what every one had believed until some came along to mess around with that belief.

Posted by: Bill at May 4, 2006 3:45:31 PM

"Gnostic" is a key concept to distinguish the fullness, and often orthodoxy, of the Faith from pretenders who undermine catholicity by making "spirituality" either something for the sequestered elite, or disconnected with love of neighbor and obedience to ordinary ethics.

Dismantling a category like this, along with what Prof. Esolen reports of the muting of analysis or candor, is looking more and more like a direct assault both on the priority of the deposit of Faith, and on the means by which the Body of Christ can offer accurate, much less persuasive, expression to the world.

This is serious business, not just more clueless academic antics.

Posted by: dilys at May 4, 2006 5:02:14 PM

I'm sorry Lickona!
I misconstrued your snarkitude.

Posted by: doctor J at May 4, 2006 5:37:27 PM

No trouble. There's a reason my father holds clarity to be perhaps the first virtue of writing. I'll try to do better, even when being snarky.

Posted by: Lickona at May 4, 2006 6:16:11 PM

Thanks for the posting.

The whole heresy/orthodoxy can be amusing. Someone asked me if we were orthodox. I responded that our only orthodoxy is heresy.

The original Greek meaning of heresy relates to military conquest. The verb meant to take as a military would take a city. That definition fits the idea of a concept taking over an order. Many are the monks who have been "taken" by various heresies. The truth has a powerful effect on the human imagination.

Posted by: Sophia Sadek at May 5, 2006 4:59:35 PM

Post a comment