Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Creation and Fall / Temptation: Two Biblical Studies
Showing posts with label Gnosticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gnosticism. Show all posts
2.15.2012
Christian Materialism
"It is God's earth out of which man is taken. From it he has his body. His body belongs to his essential being. Man's body is not his prison, his shell his exterior, but man himself. Man does not "have" a body; he does not "have" a soul; rather he "is" body and soul. Man in the beginning is really his body. He is one. He is his body, as Christ is completely his body, as the Church is the body of Christ"
2.14.2012
The Secret pt VI
Contemporary Gnosticism: The Story we Find Ourselves In
The fascinating and prescient aspect of 'the Secret' isn't its content. As we have breifly discussed, it isn't all that new, or insightful. First, it is as old as Christianity (which isn't a bad thing). Second, it advocates the dismally naive idea that we just need to find out what we want, want it more, and then the world will be a better place (which isn't a good thing). The insight of 'the Secret' is its framing narrative, its packaging.
In point of fact, 'the Secret' isn't alone in this, much of the contemporary gnostic discussion is framed in the same way, whether it is Dan Brown's 'DaVinci Code,' or Elaine Pagels 'Beyond Belief.' The framing story always goes something like this: 'ancient wisdom of significant power has always been known to those iconoclastic few who attempted to share their wisdom with the masses, but were silenced and persecuted by conspiracies of powerful elites who were threatened by the democratic nature of that wisdom.'
Contemporary gnostics have managed to capture the popular imagination as the defenders of democracy and egalitarianism, as a persecuted minority, as an explosively radical and powerful movement, and as the purveyors of a hidden truth. Setting aside the simple historical fact that gnosticism has never been all that radical, and never been persecuted, because it has never been politically dangerous to those in power, it remains a remarkable feat of marvellously succesful marketing!
It is, of course, historically false to see gnostics as radicals who threatened the status quo. They were never persecuted for their claims in the way Christians were and are to this day. It is the Christian narrative that threatens the political authority of nations with allegiance pledged to the sovereign hand of God. (It is precisely this radical, explosive, subversive, power that is bleeding out of the church in the bastardized forms of faith that we see so prevalent in the West.)
It is the Christian narrative that provides the moral imperative for egalitarianism and democracy (although the Greeks were responsible for the political form). Gnosticism was actually an elitist sect, with tiers of purity that formed a hierarchy, with those outside viewed as beyond the pale. The Christians were the ones lifting up the poor and marginalized of society; admitting slaves and women to not only enter the fellowship, but to lead it; serving and helping their pagan neighbors.
The only claim the gnostics make that IS true is the claim to esoteric truth. The Christian church has a long history of publicizing its creeds. The gnostics like to hide theirs...
...in our final post we will look at just what this marketing angle has to say about our culture, and what that might mean for the church.
In point of fact, 'the Secret' isn't alone in this, much of the contemporary gnostic discussion is framed in the same way, whether it is Dan Brown's 'DaVinci Code,' or Elaine Pagels 'Beyond Belief.' The framing story always goes something like this: 'ancient wisdom of significant power has always been known to those iconoclastic few who attempted to share their wisdom with the masses, but were silenced and persecuted by conspiracies of powerful elites who were threatened by the democratic nature of that wisdom.'
Contemporary gnostics have managed to capture the popular imagination as the defenders of democracy and egalitarianism, as a persecuted minority, as an explosively radical and powerful movement, and as the purveyors of a hidden truth. Setting aside the simple historical fact that gnosticism has never been all that radical, and never been persecuted, because it has never been politically dangerous to those in power, it remains a remarkable feat of marvellously succesful marketing!
It is, of course, historically false to see gnostics as radicals who threatened the status quo. They were never persecuted for their claims in the way Christians were and are to this day. It is the Christian narrative that threatens the political authority of nations with allegiance pledged to the sovereign hand of God. (It is precisely this radical, explosive, subversive, power that is bleeding out of the church in the bastardized forms of faith that we see so prevalent in the West.)
It is the Christian narrative that provides the moral imperative for egalitarianism and democracy (although the Greeks were responsible for the political form). Gnosticism was actually an elitist sect, with tiers of purity that formed a hierarchy, with those outside viewed as beyond the pale. The Christians were the ones lifting up the poor and marginalized of society; admitting slaves and women to not only enter the fellowship, but to lead it; serving and helping their pagan neighbors.
The only claim the gnostics make that IS true is the claim to esoteric truth. The Christian church has a long history of publicizing its creeds. The gnostics like to hide theirs...
...in our final post we will look at just what this marketing angle has to say about our culture, and what that might mean for the church.
2.13.2012
The Secret pt V
Contemporary Gnosticism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
We've looked at the good and the bad of New Age beliefs, now lets take a deeper look at what the implications might be for contemporary Christianity.
The Ugly:
1) Bastardized Christianity
Just as Westerners have bastardized the Gnostic tradition, we have bastardized the Christian tradition. We have taken bits and pieces of data from the Biblical framework and have embedded them in a completely foreign framework. From eschatology to ecclesiology, soteriology to pneumatology, we have kept the biblical terms but redefined much of what they mean. We have kept the characters, but changed the story.
Just as Westerners have bastardized the Gnostic tradition, we have bastardized the Christian tradition. We have taken bits and pieces of data from the Biblical framework and have embedded them in a completely foreign framework. From eschatology to ecclesiology, soteriology to pneumatology, we have kept the biblical terms but redefined much of what they mean. We have kept the characters, but changed the story.
2) Ascetic Christianity
Christianity has become a religion that denies the world, denies pleasure, and denies passion. Even in the places where we are able to enjoy the world, we do so with an apologetic stance. We call it 'worldly' to enjoy culture, music, art, wine, food, dance, and other forms of beauty.
The biblical faith, however, is one that embraces the creation as God's good work. The biblical faith embraces pleasure and sees it as a gift from a wise and loving Father. The biblical faith seeks to encourage and direct our passions, not to eviscerate us into a dull and sober existence. Contemporary gnosticism is, in this way, much more biblical than contemporary Christianity!
Christianity has become a religion that denies the world, denies pleasure, and denies passion. Even in the places where we are able to enjoy the world, we do so with an apologetic stance. We call it 'worldly' to enjoy culture, music, art, wine, food, dance, and other forms of beauty.
The biblical faith, however, is one that embraces the creation as God's good work. The biblical faith embraces pleasure and sees it as a gift from a wise and loving Father. The biblical faith seeks to encourage and direct our passions, not to eviscerate us into a dull and sober existence. Contemporary gnosticism is, in this way, much more biblical than contemporary Christianity!
3) Powerless Christianity
Alongside our asceticism, contemporary Christianity has lost its practical wisdom and transformative power. We have removed so much of contemporary life from the power of the gospel by removing so much of life from the sphere of the gospel. We label university education and film-making 'secular' activities and then lament that professors and film-makers don't engage in their work with Spirit-led aims. We label construction and medicine 'secular' activities and then wonder why carpenters and doctors don't see the need for the Holy Spirit to guide their work. In short, we do not think God cares much about anything that happens outside of the 'sacred' arena. Unfortunately this is the arena in which we spend most of our time.
Alongside our asceticism, contemporary Christianity has lost its practical wisdom and transformative power. We have removed so much of contemporary life from the power of the gospel by removing so much of life from the sphere of the gospel. We label university education and film-making 'secular' activities and then lament that professors and film-makers don't engage in their work with Spirit-led aims. We label construction and medicine 'secular' activities and then wonder why carpenters and doctors don't see the need for the Holy Spirit to guide their work. In short, we do not think God cares much about anything that happens outside of the 'sacred' arena. Unfortunately this is the arena in which we spend most of our time.
2.12.2012
The Secret pt IV
Contemporary Gnosticism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
We've looked at some of the positive attributes of contemporary gnosticism, now lets continue with a look at how the teachings of 'the Secret' are contradictory to reality, and antithetical to God's Kingdom.
The Bad:
1) The path to accomplishing our purposes requires more than 'believing.'
The so-called 'Law of Attraction,' whereby one thinks and desires something in order to attain it, is sorely misleading. We cannot get what we want by wishing for it. Although it is absolutely true that desire is a part of the process, there is also much more involved. Wise understanding about the nature of the world around us is needed, and a practical course of action by which our goals can be attained, not to mention a resolute commitment to that course, and a practiced diligence.
2) Truth does indeed exist, whether or not we are inconvenienced by it.
New-Age spirituality's embrace of 'inner truth' coincides with a willingness to ignore universal truth claims. We cannot have what is contrary to reality. This includes spirituality. Not all paths lead to fulfillment, and not all paths lead to God. Either the claims of Christianity are true, or they are not; either the resurrection happened, or it didn't; either Jesus is divine, or he isn't. One must chose.
3) We aren't the only power at work in the world.
Contemporary gnostic navel-gazing downplays the reality of other actors effecting our reality. If it is true that I have power, then it must also be true that other humans have power, and their power can impinge upon my life. As well, there are beings other than humans who exercise power over us. Demonic forces are indeed real, and have the ability to effect our world. What's more, God Himself is an actor in our world, and He is the true power at work in our Universe. A belief in the inherent power of individual human beings must be tempered by these truths; indeed the power inherent in us must be submitted to God in order to become truly powerful and truly good. Which brings us to the next point...
4) Our identities are broken, and so our desires are corrupted.
Ancient gnosticism prescribed the renunciation of desire, contemporary gnosticism encourages the pursuit of desire. The genius of Jesus' ethical teaching is that neither course of action is the correct one; our desires must be retrained before they can be pursued. Human beings are a walking jumble of alienation, angst, fear, and pain. Encouraging a human, broken in such a way, to look deep within and pursue whatever is found there, is a recipe for disaster. New Age teachings are blind to the simple truth that evil in the world results from the pursuit of untrained desire.
2.11.2012
The Secret pt III
Contemporary Gnosticism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
If you are familiar with contemporary New-Age teachings, or if you simply watched the videos in the previous post, then you should be able to spot the obvious lies. But the most effective lies are half truths and partial deceptions. This is no exception and a deeper look will be illuminating.
So lets look at the Good in contemporary gnosticism, the Bad in it, and then we will look at the Ugly in contemporary christianity.
The Good:
1) The emphasis on human potential.
The power and potential of human beings is real and indeed immense! We are the image of God, set in the garden as a mirror to reflect God out to the created order and to reflect the worship of creation back to God. We are indeed created to rule and reign in God's authority; we have been vested with the power to re-create the universe!
The power and potential of human beings is real and indeed immense! We are the image of God, set in the garden as a mirror to reflect God out to the created order and to reflect the worship of creation back to God. We are indeed created to rule and reign in God's authority; we have been vested with the power to re-create the universe!
2) The focus on tapping into our deepest desires.
The pursuit of something bigger than ourselves is vital to our own health and that of the world around us. Dreams are to be encouraged and pursued! Our desires do indeed have the capacity to take us into the realm of something larger and more comprehensive. Even more, the desires that flow out of our identity should not be repressed; it is indeed dangerous to deny who we are.
The pursuit of something bigger than ourselves is vital to our own health and that of the world around us. Dreams are to be encouraged and pursued! Our desires do indeed have the capacity to take us into the realm of something larger and more comprehensive. Even more, the desires that flow out of our identity should not be repressed; it is indeed dangerous to deny who we are.
3) The awareness of energy in all things.
The universe is indeed full of vibrancy and life; the rocks cry out, "Hosannah," the oceans reveal glory, the mountains display righteousness. In a universe that contains the Incarnation, material reality is indeed imbued with deep theological significance!
4) The embrace of a holistic spirituality.
The universe is indeed full of vibrancy and life; the rocks cry out, "Hosannah," the oceans reveal glory, the mountains display righteousness. In a universe that contains the Incarnation, material reality is indeed imbued with deep theological significance!
4) The embrace of a holistic spirituality.
Spirituality should indeed effect everything in our life; family, housing, occupation, relationships, are all impacted by the spirituality we embrace
2.10.2012
The Secret pt II
Bastardized Gnosticism
Gnosticism, and ancient spiritual philosophy, is making a resurgence; even to the point of the popularization of ancient gnostic texts. Now ancient gnosticism was characterized by several defining emphases: a disgust of the material world and the eschewing of physical pleasure; a belief in esoteric wisdom (hence the name); a commitment to the inner spark of divinity of some human beings; and the goal of escaping from the prison of the material world through the pursuit of that inner spark and ascetic practices.
Contemporary Western gnostics have (in true Western form) taken bits and pieces of the ancient forms, and used them to suit their own purposes... Contemporary gnostics are attracted primarily to the concept of inner divinity, but of course, they democratize it; each human carries the spark of divinity, unlike the ancient beliefs. Wisdom remains esoteric and otherworldly to the contemporary gnostic, but the asceticism of the ancient way is rejected for a hedonistic pursuit. In short, contemporary gnosticism has bastardized the old; where the old was the renunciation of desire, the new has become the unshackling and divinizing of personal desire.
No where is this contemporary gnostic impulse better displayed than in 'The Secret.' A popular book, concept, teaching, film, movement.
The following two video clips highlight this for us:
The Secret
The Power
2.09.2012
The Secret pt I
The Western Approach to Culture
There is a phenomenon that I have observed in our culture that I rather abhor... perhaps you have observed it yourself?
Have you ever met a 'buddhist' or a 'hindu' who grew up in a nominal christian home in a middle-class suburb of America, visited India and bought a necklace and came back calling themselves a Hindu? They don't own a Bhagavad Gita, don't worship in shrines, don't (in point of fact) know the first thing about Hinduism, they just like proclaiming, "namaste," over everyone they meet. It is the aesthetic of Hinduism that they love.
Our culture predates on others, cannibalizing them for the parts we like and leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. We then take those parts, devoid of their original intentions and significance, and we use them for our own purposes. Yoga is perhaps an obvious case of this kind of bastardization, but examples abound. American Christianity is itself bastardized in this way; a child removed from it's lineage and brought up in another. We will return to Christianity shortly...
The point is, we refuse to accept a tradition or a culture on its own merits and instead deconstruct it to create our own syncretic hybrid. This would not be such a problem if we didn't label such things 'Hinduism,' or 'Christianity.' It is as though we adopt the bastard child, but don't allow her the use of our family name.
There is a phenomenon that I have observed in our culture that I rather abhor... perhaps you have observed it yourself?
Have you ever met a 'buddhist' or a 'hindu' who grew up in a nominal christian home in a middle-class suburb of America, visited India and bought a necklace and came back calling themselves a Hindu? They don't own a Bhagavad Gita, don't worship in shrines, don't (in point of fact) know the first thing about Hinduism, they just like proclaiming, "namaste," over everyone they meet. It is the aesthetic of Hinduism that they love.
Our culture predates on others, cannibalizing them for the parts we like and leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. We then take those parts, devoid of their original intentions and significance, and we use them for our own purposes. Yoga is perhaps an obvious case of this kind of bastardization, but examples abound. American Christianity is itself bastardized in this way; a child removed from it's lineage and brought up in another. We will return to Christianity shortly...
The point is, we refuse to accept a tradition or a culture on its own merits and instead deconstruct it to create our own syncretic hybrid. This would not be such a problem if we didn't label such things 'Hinduism,' or 'Christianity.' It is as though we adopt the bastard child, but don't allow her the use of our family name.
2.23.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt VI
6) Assumed Veracity (Falsity?) of All Texts
She never addresses the validity of any of the texts she is discussing, rather she simply asserts their assertions as though all historical texts are on the same footing. She compares Thomas and John, without any regard for their respective dates, languages, cultures, proximity to the life of Jesus, or any other (in)validation. (disregarding dates, cultures, etc.)
It is as though she assumes they are all correct (without attempting to harmonize their contradictions) or rather, that she assumes that they are all false (and so has no need), or perhaps (what seems most likely) she believes that the historical question is irrelevant. As though it is unimportant what Jesus actually said or did, or whether he existed at all; the only important issue is what is said and believed about Jesus, not what is true about him.
She never addresses the validity of any of the texts she is discussing, rather she simply asserts their assertions as though all historical texts are on the same footing. She compares Thomas and John, without any regard for their respective dates, languages, cultures, proximity to the life of Jesus, or any other (in)validation. (disregarding dates, cultures, etc.)
It is as though she assumes they are all correct (without attempting to harmonize their contradictions) or rather, that she assumes that they are all false (and so has no need), or perhaps (what seems most likely) she believes that the historical question is irrelevant. As though it is unimportant what Jesus actually said or did, or whether he existed at all; the only important issue is what is said and believed about Jesus, not what is true about him.
1.10.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt V
5) Ignoring Other Theories
Pagels makes no attempt to address the arguments of other scholars and simply asserts her version. It is not problematic for her to have a diverse view, but certainly a credible argument must be given as to why her opinion is correct in the face of so much scholarly opinion to the contrary. She seems simply unaware of (or unwilling to tangle with) the realm of scholarship on an issue like the significance of the resurrection. She puts forth as plausible that Christians might believe in a 'spiritual' resurrection, when at least some contemporary scholars have argued significantly that no Jewish Christian would believe such a thing, nor would such a belief lead to the rise of the Church.
Even on issues where I do not know the opinion of scholarship, she still fails to argue for her assertions when they seem to have obvious alternative explanations. This is true of the dating of various manuscripts, the degree to which certain theological diversities would have been acceptable as 'within orthodoxy' prior to Irenaeus, and many other issues.
Case in point, she asserts that the 2nd Century argument by Irenaeus for a four-fold gospel canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the simultaneous creation of Tatian's Diatessaron (the single book harmonizing these same four gospels), suggests that this was a new idea; that people would not have been familiar with the idea of a four gospel canon, and that this was why Irenaeus was so forceful in his argument for it. But to me it suggests exactly the opposite! Why would two men from two completely different parts of the world, from different cultures, simultaneously turn to these four gospels as authoritative if there were no previous weight given to those same documents? It seems a question that needs answering, not ignoring...
Even a basic working knowledge of orthodox doctrine seems to be lacking. She sees orthodox Christians arguing for a divine Jesus against the gnostic picture of a human one. This actually flips reality on its head; the gnostics were the ones who often pictured Jesus as lacking humanity (and a physical body), it was the orthodox position that affirmed both his divinity (and of equal importance) his humanity.
Pagels makes no attempt to address the arguments of other scholars and simply asserts her version. It is not problematic for her to have a diverse view, but certainly a credible argument must be given as to why her opinion is correct in the face of so much scholarly opinion to the contrary. She seems simply unaware of (or unwilling to tangle with) the realm of scholarship on an issue like the significance of the resurrection. She puts forth as plausible that Christians might believe in a 'spiritual' resurrection, when at least some contemporary scholars have argued significantly that no Jewish Christian would believe such a thing, nor would such a belief lead to the rise of the Church.
Even on issues where I do not know the opinion of scholarship, she still fails to argue for her assertions when they seem to have obvious alternative explanations. This is true of the dating of various manuscripts, the degree to which certain theological diversities would have been acceptable as 'within orthodoxy' prior to Irenaeus, and many other issues.
Case in point, she asserts that the 2nd Century argument by Irenaeus for a four-fold gospel canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the simultaneous creation of Tatian's Diatessaron (the single book harmonizing these same four gospels), suggests that this was a new idea; that people would not have been familiar with the idea of a four gospel canon, and that this was why Irenaeus was so forceful in his argument for it. But to me it suggests exactly the opposite! Why would two men from two completely different parts of the world, from different cultures, simultaneously turn to these four gospels as authoritative if there were no previous weight given to those same documents? It seems a question that needs answering, not ignoring...
Even a basic working knowledge of orthodox doctrine seems to be lacking. She sees orthodox Christians arguing for a divine Jesus against the gnostic picture of a human one. This actually flips reality on its head; the gnostics were the ones who often pictured Jesus as lacking humanity (and a physical body), it was the orthodox position that affirmed both his divinity (and of equal importance) his humanity.
1.07.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt IV
4) Flawed Recreations of History
Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that she simply misconstrues history. She paints the entire era of 2nd and 3rd Century Christianity in an inaccurate way.
She describes gnostic beliefs in ways that might seem attractive to contemporary spiritual seekers but leaves out central 2nd Century gnostic tenets that might be deemed 'unattractive.' She paints gnostics in the vein of free-loving, undogmatic, New-Agers, but she fails to communicate that the gnosticism of the day viewed the material world as evil. They disdained the creation and everything with it, food, sex, and pleasure were to be eschewed; the physical world was not a place of beauty, but rather a prison.
The same is true of orthodoxy. She portrays the orthodox Christian community as primarily seeking political power, or at least political autonomy. It is this undergirding force that she claims led early Christians to embrace 'orthodoxy' and its attendant creeds in the first place. Christians were not orthodox until it became politically expedient to do so. This is simply a failure to understand the political situation of the day, or the political, social, and economic ramifications of orthodoxy in that situation.
It seems as though Pagels is unaware of the enormous disfavor the early Christians faced for their beliefs. Orthodoxy was far from political expediency, it was actually political suicide! Strike that, it wasn't political suicide, it was actual suicide! To proclaim an orthodox faith was to court martyrdom. Certainly this was more or less true depending on the Emperor and the local governor in question, but it was largely a reality until 313 AD, 150 years after Irenaus' arguments against the gnostics.
The opposite is true of the gnostic communities. Rome simply didn't care about the wellspring of new spiritualities, or even the proclamation of the name Jesus (even a Jesus executed by Romans). So long as those who practiced this new faith were willing to proclaim "Caesar is Lord," and give worship to his name, the Romans were quite pluralistic. The gnostic communities were not the ones facing persecution, nor even political pressure.
Whatever pressure gnostics faced from orthodox Christians was pressure from those without power. You would hardly call a group being persecuted a seat of cultural or political power. When men like Irenaeus spoke their words it cannot be viewed as persecution of others, rather their words were born out of a need to clarify what exactly was true about Jesus, and what exactly needed to be held to in the face of their own persecution.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty is that she simply misconstrues history. She paints the entire era of 2nd and 3rd Century Christianity in an inaccurate way.
She describes gnostic beliefs in ways that might seem attractive to contemporary spiritual seekers but leaves out central 2nd Century gnostic tenets that might be deemed 'unattractive.' She paints gnostics in the vein of free-loving, undogmatic, New-Agers, but she fails to communicate that the gnosticism of the day viewed the material world as evil. They disdained the creation and everything with it, food, sex, and pleasure were to be eschewed; the physical world was not a place of beauty, but rather a prison.
The same is true of orthodoxy. She portrays the orthodox Christian community as primarily seeking political power, or at least political autonomy. It is this undergirding force that she claims led early Christians to embrace 'orthodoxy' and its attendant creeds in the first place. Christians were not orthodox until it became politically expedient to do so. This is simply a failure to understand the political situation of the day, or the political, social, and economic ramifications of orthodoxy in that situation.
It seems as though Pagels is unaware of the enormous disfavor the early Christians faced for their beliefs. Orthodoxy was far from political expediency, it was actually political suicide! Strike that, it wasn't political suicide, it was actual suicide! To proclaim an orthodox faith was to court martyrdom. Certainly this was more or less true depending on the Emperor and the local governor in question, but it was largely a reality until 313 AD, 150 years after Irenaus' arguments against the gnostics.
The opposite is true of the gnostic communities. Rome simply didn't care about the wellspring of new spiritualities, or even the proclamation of the name Jesus (even a Jesus executed by Romans). So long as those who practiced this new faith were willing to proclaim "Caesar is Lord," and give worship to his name, the Romans were quite pluralistic. The gnostic communities were not the ones facing persecution, nor even political pressure.
Whatever pressure gnostics faced from orthodox Christians was pressure from those without power. You would hardly call a group being persecuted a seat of cultural or political power. When men like Irenaeus spoke their words it cannot be viewed as persecution of others, rather their words were born out of a need to clarify what exactly was true about Jesus, and what exactly needed to be held to in the face of their own persecution.
1.05.2011
Review: Beyond Belief pt III
I don't have the energy to deal with these systematically, so I will just address these points in no particular order:
1) Telescoping History
This is a common problem with people who talk about history in general, and early church history specifically. A prime example is the discussion about the influence of Constantine on the Church. Constantine's influence is far reaching, and certainly deserves to be discussed in a book on early Christian doctrine and lifestyle, however, Constantine's Edict of Milan was in 313 AD. From our 21st Century vantage point this may seem like a short jump from the lifetime of the Apostle's and Church Fathers, yet we must remember that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is closer to us in history than Jesus' crucifixion was to Constantine's Edict; Irenaeus' argument for a canonical fourfold gospel is removed from the influence of Constantine's conversion by a period of time equivalent to our own removal from the Civil War. In short, there is a common confusion about the timeline of ancient history, and a subsequent muddying in people's minds about which events have an impact on which other events.
Pagels certainly makes this mistake, arguing about Constantine's effect on the early church in a way that reveals she simply is unaware that what was going on in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries could not have been influenced by what was going on in the 4th Century.
2) Confusing Literary Genres
The Gospel of Thomas is simply not a gospel. There is an attempt made by Pagels to compare and contrast the Thomas writings with the Gospel of John. But Thomas simply has no 'good news' to it. It is only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. The very attempt to label the Gospel of Thomas a gospel reveals how derivative a work it is. But none of this is addressed by Pagels.
3) Fails to Address the Historical Question
Pagels' book makes much of her recreation of the history of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries. She paints a very particular picture of the life of the church, and of individuals within the church. And yet, the glaring omission from the book is her failure to ever address questions of the 1st Century. Not only does she not address the life and events of Jesus and the Apostles, but she never even tells us why she doesn't discuss them. In a book that takes sides on the 2nd Century debate about 1st Century history, that she herself never even touches the question of 1st Century history is a bit confusing.
1) Telescoping History
This is a common problem with people who talk about history in general, and early church history specifically. A prime example is the discussion about the influence of Constantine on the Church. Constantine's influence is far reaching, and certainly deserves to be discussed in a book on early Christian doctrine and lifestyle, however, Constantine's Edict of Milan was in 313 AD. From our 21st Century vantage point this may seem like a short jump from the lifetime of the Apostle's and Church Fathers, yet we must remember that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is closer to us in history than Jesus' crucifixion was to Constantine's Edict; Irenaeus' argument for a canonical fourfold gospel is removed from the influence of Constantine's conversion by a period of time equivalent to our own removal from the Civil War. In short, there is a common confusion about the timeline of ancient history, and a subsequent muddying in people's minds about which events have an impact on which other events.
Pagels certainly makes this mistake, arguing about Constantine's effect on the early church in a way that reveals she simply is unaware that what was going on in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries could not have been influenced by what was going on in the 4th Century.
2) Confusing Literary Genres
The Gospel of Thomas is simply not a gospel. There is an attempt made by Pagels to compare and contrast the Thomas writings with the Gospel of John. But Thomas simply has no 'good news' to it. It is only a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. The very attempt to label the Gospel of Thomas a gospel reveals how derivative a work it is. But none of this is addressed by Pagels.
3) Fails to Address the Historical Question
Pagels' book makes much of her recreation of the history of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Centuries. She paints a very particular picture of the life of the church, and of individuals within the church. And yet, the glaring omission from the book is her failure to ever address questions of the 1st Century. Not only does she not address the life and events of Jesus and the Apostles, but she never even tells us why she doesn't discuss them. In a book that takes sides on the 2nd Century debate about 1st Century history, that she herself never even touches the question of 1st Century history is a bit confusing.
12.28.2010
Review: Beyond Belief pt II
I was simply disappointed with this book. I was hoping for a coherent and plausible worldview to be explained and advocated; an argument for gnosticism, or an explanation of why it is a plausible worldview, or even an explanation of historical gnosticism. I would have settled for an intelligent polemic against orthodox Christianity. What I read was largely a statement about contemporary gnostic beliefs, with a veneer of historical and scholarly language laminated over the top of it...
Pagels certainly references history, historical personages, and historical documents. She is herself a scholar, and she does reference scholarly opinion. But nothing she says actually links her contemporary gnostic worldview with either historical gnosticism, or the life of Jesus himself. She simply doesn't seem to care where her views come from. But of course, this is exactly what she is advocating: a spirituality unmoored from statements of truth about the world around us, a worldview that has no need to answer clunky questions about science or history.
The book progresses from a brief survey of literature about Jesus from the first three Centuries, to a bald assertion that there was virtually no consensus about the historical Jesus, and finally to another bald assertion that orthodoxy is the result of political pressures from the 4th Century. She uses this to conclude that Christians today should ignore Christianity (and more specifically, orthodox pictures of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus) and instead decide for themselves whatever they want to think, believe, value, and trust. It is as though she feels no need to connect the worldview she advocates with either the historical Jesus, or any particular historical gnostic community or document.
Instead of a book dealing with history and historical texts (which is what the subtitle of the book, and the constant references to history and scholarship suggests) we have a statement about Elaine Pagels personal spirituality, which is unmoored from any larger reality than Pagels' own personal navel gazing.
In my next post I will look at some of the historical claims she makes, and the overall historical framework she assumes. After that we will look at the spirituality she is advocating and compare that to what we do know of the historical Jesus and the spiritual life He offers us. Finally, we will look at some possible lessons the church can learn from Pagels' ideas.
Pagels certainly references history, historical personages, and historical documents. She is herself a scholar, and she does reference scholarly opinion. But nothing she says actually links her contemporary gnostic worldview with either historical gnosticism, or the life of Jesus himself. She simply doesn't seem to care where her views come from. But of course, this is exactly what she is advocating: a spirituality unmoored from statements of truth about the world around us, a worldview that has no need to answer clunky questions about science or history.
The book progresses from a brief survey of literature about Jesus from the first three Centuries, to a bald assertion that there was virtually no consensus about the historical Jesus, and finally to another bald assertion that orthodoxy is the result of political pressures from the 4th Century. She uses this to conclude that Christians today should ignore Christianity (and more specifically, orthodox pictures of the life, work, and teachings of Jesus) and instead decide for themselves whatever they want to think, believe, value, and trust. It is as though she feels no need to connect the worldview she advocates with either the historical Jesus, or any particular historical gnostic community or document.
Instead of a book dealing with history and historical texts (which is what the subtitle of the book, and the constant references to history and scholarship suggests) we have a statement about Elaine Pagels personal spirituality, which is unmoored from any larger reality than Pagels' own personal navel gazing.
In my next post I will look at some of the historical claims she makes, and the overall historical framework she assumes. After that we will look at the spirituality she is advocating and compare that to what we do know of the historical Jesus and the spiritual life He offers us. Finally, we will look at some possible lessons the church can learn from Pagels' ideas.
12.25.2010
Review: Beyond Belief pt I
I will address some of her specific points in later posts, but thought it best to start with some generalizations:
Pagels portrays orthodox Christianity as largely concerned with static doctrinal purity. Conversely, gnosticism, as she describes it, is entirely concerned with a perpetual quest for meaning. Pagels claims that the orthodox understanding of truth is largely in terms of propositional statements, and in the conviction that those propositional truth claims are absolute. Gnosticism, however, is open to other, intuitive and emotive, ways of knowing. Pagels implies often throughout the book that the orthodox position, far from holding to truth, actually prevents people from pursuing truth; we are more concerned with political correctness than with truth. I must confess, Pagels description here of the Church, while painful, is generally accurate.
This was, however, the only strength of the book in my opinion.
We have often set aside the pursuit of God, and the seeking of truth, for the sake of a sense of assuredness. We want to 'know the truth' but when we discover that the truth is complicated or even, at times, ineffable we settle for 'knowing doctrine.'
====================
...a friend wants to know God more deeply, he is a Christian and a member of a local church, but the leaders of the church simply parrot creeds and doctrines at him. He doesn't know what questions to ask, but there is a sense of dissatisfaction with the answers they give him. They are frustrated that he won't just 'get with the program' but he simply wants to know the truth. (I thought that was the program!)
====================
We have become more concerned with correctly pronouncing our theological shibboleth's while ignoring the content of our theology and our lives. How someone answers the question of Christology, or homosexuality, or ____________, is more important to us that whether someone prays regularly, loves deeply, lives intimately, or obeys readily. We are unwilling to question, or to allow (much less encourage) others to question, out of fear. I know of Christian pastor's and professors who have explicitly stated, "I don't want my students to learn to think critically, I just want them to believe the correct statements of fact and doctrine."
Gnosticism, of course, runs to the other end of the spectrum here! There is no real concern for truth, as such. Rather, whatever I discover within myself is truth. This is Pagel's real agenda behind her scholarship; yet another ringing endorsement of the Enlightenment agenda, the unshackling of individualism and hedonism.
The contemporary gnostic says, 'Look deep within yourself, and then be true to whatever you find there.'
As one who has looked deep within myself and been horrified, I find these sentiments naive at best, evil at worst, and obviously spoken by someone who has no intention of looking 'deep within' in any honest sense of those words...
Pagels portrays orthodox Christianity as largely concerned with static doctrinal purity. Conversely, gnosticism, as she describes it, is entirely concerned with a perpetual quest for meaning. Pagels claims that the orthodox understanding of truth is largely in terms of propositional statements, and in the conviction that those propositional truth claims are absolute. Gnosticism, however, is open to other, intuitive and emotive, ways of knowing. Pagels implies often throughout the book that the orthodox position, far from holding to truth, actually prevents people from pursuing truth; we are more concerned with political correctness than with truth. I must confess, Pagels description here of the Church, while painful, is generally accurate.
This was, however, the only strength of the book in my opinion.
We have often set aside the pursuit of God, and the seeking of truth, for the sake of a sense of assuredness. We want to 'know the truth' but when we discover that the truth is complicated or even, at times, ineffable we settle for 'knowing doctrine.'
====================
...a friend wants to know God more deeply, he is a Christian and a member of a local church, but the leaders of the church simply parrot creeds and doctrines at him. He doesn't know what questions to ask, but there is a sense of dissatisfaction with the answers they give him. They are frustrated that he won't just 'get with the program' but he simply wants to know the truth. (I thought that was the program!)
====================
We have become more concerned with correctly pronouncing our theological shibboleth's while ignoring the content of our theology and our lives. How someone answers the question of Christology, or homosexuality, or ____________, is more important to us that whether someone prays regularly, loves deeply, lives intimately, or obeys readily. We are unwilling to question, or to allow (much less encourage) others to question, out of fear. I know of Christian pastor's and professors who have explicitly stated, "I don't want my students to learn to think critically, I just want them to believe the correct statements of fact and doctrine."
Gnosticism, of course, runs to the other end of the spectrum here! There is no real concern for truth, as such. Rather, whatever I discover within myself is truth. This is Pagel's real agenda behind her scholarship; yet another ringing endorsement of the Enlightenment agenda, the unshackling of individualism and hedonism.
The contemporary gnostic says, 'Look deep within yourself, and then be true to whatever you find there.'
As one who has looked deep within myself and been horrified, I find these sentiments naive at best, evil at worst, and obviously spoken by someone who has no intention of looking 'deep within' in any honest sense of those words...
12.17.2010
Rewriting History, or Correcting It?
"During the time of persecution of Christians, the church fathers constructed the canon, creed and hierarchy, suppressing many of its spiritual resources in the process, in order to avoid conflict with Roman law and religion."
Here is the link to where the quote came from.
It is a review of the Elaine Pagels book I am currently reading, Beyond Belief. I will have some thoughts and a review of sorts posted here shortly...
Fascinating stuff that makes me grateful for my intellectual superiors who have done their homework before me, and allowed me to look over their shoulders all the while!
Here is the link to where the quote came from.
It is a review of the Elaine Pagels book I am currently reading, Beyond Belief. I will have some thoughts and a review of sorts posted here shortly...
Fascinating stuff that makes me grateful for my intellectual superiors who have done their homework before me, and allowed me to look over their shoulders all the while!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)