Interview with Jordan Stratford
When I met Jordan Stratford + online I was really excited to have the opportunity to talk to him, because our stories complement each others' so well. I set up one of the first big Gnostic sites on the web in the mid-90s but wound up getting initiated as a priest in an African witchcraft religion; Jordan was a witch in an occult sect called 'The Witchcraft" who wound up becoming a Gnostic priest! For all my enthusiasm, I've always retained an outsider's perspective on Gnosticism; Jordan is in many ways the ultimate insider, a clergy member in an esoteric 'restoration" movement and the author of several books on modern Gnosis. Add to that the fact that we are both graphic designers who grew up in Canada and this interview kind of had to happen. Enjoy!
1. So, starting at the beginning, have you always felt an affinity for mystical and or occult religions or practices? Did you have any sort of early childhood experience which opened your eyes (as it were) to the “hidden side” of life and set you on the path you’re on now, perhaps before you could even articulate it?
JS+: Certainly, like a lot of children, I had an active imagination - which lead me to wonder what I or anyone else was experiencing was verifiably real or imaginary. I think this opens you up to a wider way of seeing. I also experienced at a very young age a number of subjective or non-ordinary phenomena, and in my early teens looked for a word-view which gave some kind of framework to these experiences. I identified very early with the archetype of witchcraft; the little pull at the edge of the forest, the interstitial zone between the rational and the irrational. Where imagination and event intersect.
2. Many people move into Gnosticism from mainstream Christianity, but you took the road less traveled - before you became a Gnostic priest you were involved for a time (and initiated as) a neo-pagan witch in a practice called “The Witchcraft.”
How did you get involved in ‘the Witchcraft”? What did you learn from it? How does it complement (or contradict) your current role as a Gnostic priest? Was it something you had to transition out of, or do you see instead your initiation as a priest as more of a “building upon”? Was it difficult to move into a more Christian frame of reference? Any obstacles, stereotypes or internal resistance you had to overcome?
JS+: The Witchcraft involves working with a specific archetypal combination: the Holly and Oak Kings against the backdrop of the Leukothea, the White Goddess, through poetry and ritual. This work was best explored by Robert Graves in “The White Goddess”; using the mythic role of the poet to negotiate with primal creative forces. It also sees a clear continuity between the Classical Greco-Roman world and the Western European experience with those same forces. It’s occupied with the transformative power of language, of the spoken and written word; spell and talisman and charm and sigil.
Rather than “occult sect” I’d say The Witchcraft is more like a technique, a suite of tools, and a path to experience ‘ a literary or an art movement rather than a sect. I had a “teen fiction” introduction to this work: I fell in love at 15 with a bookish brunette with big brown eyes; her father was a famous university professor with a Lovecraftian resumé, a longstanding friendship with Robert Graves, a massive, massive occult library and an avuncular interest in me. My teen years were spent drinking wine with the finest artists and poets and magicians my country had to offer, and initiation after initiation into various schools or occultism. I also spent some time hosting and hanging out with Robert Anton Wilson, Phyllis Seckler and Dr. Christopher Hyatt in the 1980s.
Now that process did lead me for a time to identify as Wiccan, although it was soon apparent that what I was doing was not how Wicca was seeing itself; and I was marginalized by an ambient misandry. I also bought into the simplistic anti-Christian ethic of Wicca, which I came to see as no better than any other kind of anti-, such as anti-semitism.
What I got out of that history was a very deep insight into myth and archetype and symbol, to the point where I started reading Jung and realized I had reached many of his conclusions independently. It was obvious we’d been drinking from the same well. Jung’s genius allowed me to articulate my thinking to a much more refined degree. I still work in the realm of spiritual alchemy, of transformation and transubstantiation, through inspiration, symbol, and compassion. That mystic font is universal, so I see no contradiction.
Subjectively my ordination was a furtherance or a “building upon”, but objectively it is rather much more than that; it’s a permanent alchemical change with the essence of the priest. Working within a Christian tradition - reconciling Christianity with its Pagan predecessors - was a challenge as we’re culturally inundated with the presentation that Christianity was something entirely shocking and new to first century audiences. This presentation is of course a fiction. Understanding Christianity as a continuation of the Hermes myth, of the Osiris/Horus myth, offers the necessary reconciliation. This is what makes the Gospel of John so amazing: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” This is a profoundly Hermetic statement.
But certainly seeing the man in the mirror with the Roman collar on his way to turning bread and wine into the Body of Christ is still something of a shock. It’s been a long road to here. To pursue an interest in spiritual alchemy always sets one apart from the rest of society: let’s face it, it makes you a weirdo. Then to discover not “a form” of it, but “the form” - the eucharist, in plain sight at the very heart of western civilization itself ‘ this was news, this was significant. Bread and incense and candle and wine as earth, air, fire and water. And the Quintessence, the Spirit, bringing it all together and giving it life. The pentagram I was given as a youth, made real and whole and present.
I think it’s safe to say we can date civilization not from agriculture but from the adoption of the sacraments: chrismation which separates childhood from adulthood, matrimony with its attendant issues of inheritance and rights and property, the eucharist as spiritual nourishment. These are complex ideas that exhibit a society having a multi-layered image of itself.
3. It often seems that religions which emphasize the role of sorcery and/or witchcraft tend to relate these phenomena to ancestral energies in a very tribal (i.e., non-universal) way - the practices of a particular sect (and the spirit or spirits behind it) are specifically Celtic, Japanese, Yoruba, etc.
Was that the case with “the Witchcraft” - was this a specifically “European” or even ethnic practice? What value do you see in paths which don’t have pretensions to being universal - which don’t advertise or proselytize, and which people have to be “called” to join, or maybe even have to “inherit”? Should people adopt practices which are not part of their own cultural inheritance, e.g., whites who practice Native American shamanism or African-Americans who practice Nordic reconstructionism? Is Gnosticism a “tribal” phenomenon that is only right for some people or a “universal” phenomenon like Buddhism, Islam, etc?
JS+: Having spent much of my professional life with aboriginal clients, I find non-Natives who work in Native American traditions tremendously offensive. Imagine having a stranger half way round the world hanging a picture of your uncle in their living room and celebrating your grandmother’s birthday. It’s an intrusion on intimacy, a disgraceful co-option. First Nations traditions are about family, not in general but in one family specifically. If you’ve not been given permission, you don’t have it: You’ve stolen it. So this adoption of Cree or Ojibway spirituality just makes you a stalker of the lowest order.
I would say that The Witchcraft, because of the significance of the word, is wedded to the English language (and its many contributing languages) and to British folk cultures. But those cultures have always been “messy”; waves of immigration and integration, so it’s not “ethnic” in the sense that there’s no genetic monopoly. English is a mutt language!
Gnosticism has always been international, cosmopolitan, syncretic. It’s a religion for airports.
4. In the book “Gnostic Philosophy” Tobias Churton distinguishes between Valentinian texts (e.g., Gospel of Truth) which are extremely psychologically sophisticated and imply a sort of idealist monism (Buddhism in Catholic clothing, basically) and Sethian texts (e.g., Hypostasis of the Archons) which are more crudely dualistic and almost Lovecraftian.
It seems like most of the Gnostics I meet online focus on the texts from that first group since they are pretty approachable and familiar from a Christian frame of reference. Counterintuitive question here, but given that, what value do you see in the Sethian texts and other writings in the second group?
As far as the broad stream of Gnosticism goes we’re stuck with creation myths which seem calculated to cause maximum cognitive dissonance and offence to mainstream Christians. Why do you think they were written in this way? As a protest? As a form of “crazy wisdom”? What value do you see in, or role for, the more shocking elements of Gnostic mythology?
JS+: Well Gnosticism is very much like Buddhism; a specific symbol-set to describe a universal field of unique experiences. That being said, it has a limited appeal - Gnosticism is hard work. It’s not a lightweight religion, in that it assumes a great deal of personal responsibility. It’s not for those afraid to ask the hard questions, afraid of challenging the ego. Gnosticism is not a creedal religion - you can’t just “sign here” and agree to believe x and be “saved”. There’s work involved; doubt, discernment, discipline.
Seeingthe Gnostic scriptures out of context can be very disorienting unless you understand the history and the assumptions about the intended audience. Unless you know what the audience knew - about Judaism, about Greek philosophy, about daily life and culture - you’re going to miss 90% of it. It’s like going back in time 50 years and making Seinfeld references, people are just not going to understand you. Of course all ancient texts are the same way - the Bible is misunderstood in our contemporary western world because there’s little or no education of substance, so Paul or Luke are making all these specific cultural references that are going over the readers’ heads, but enshrined regardless.
But there is something very real and energetic about these texts that transcends much of that deficit. It’s obvious to some readers that “something is going on here”. They’re compelling in that way; there’s a dreamlike quality to many of them. And the humour is resonant, such as when the Archons decide that Eve should be obedient and subservient: “Then Eve, being a force, laughed at their decision”.
The hook for me was Thunder: Perfect Mind, and its similarity to The Song of Amergin with which I was intimately familiar. It was immediately obvious to me that Thunder is a spell of transformation, of reconciliation. The idea of Wisdom as a Goddess who was not *another* deity but one facet of the gem of Infinite Divinity: there’s at once an arresting simplicity and sophistication in this model. The fact that such an approach is contained within the Christian idea of the Trinity was very revealing, and I started looking for other signals in the noise of what I misunderstood Christianity to be.
I think it’s an arbitrary distinction between the literature of the Valentinian and Sethian schools - they share many common themes and they each are reaching with these very complex explanations of how the universe works. With all of this cosmological material we’re not seeing, in my opinion, teachings per se but rather a freeform jam session of ideas and symbols. I think they are records of a process or “doing the math” rather than a summation of conclusions. Did Valentinus really think there were 72 luminaries in 5 heavens or was he instead pointing out that 72 degrees is a fifth of a circle, and that there’s a Platonic ideal around these relationships? It’s this Hermetic idea of the interplay of all things, and that understanding these relationships one can enter a kind of informed consent with the mechanism of the universe.
The “weird stuff” is no weirder than much of the “accepted” stuff, such as Revelations. But I see them as accounts of subjective experiences, such as the journals of ayahuasca practitioners or Castaneda’s work. “I had this vision, this is what I saw, this is what happened to me.” It’s of varying use or interest to the reader. Some of it is compelling and insightful, some of it is water-cooler conversation about your co-worker’s dream in which she’s an origami leprechaun.
The “Lovecraftian” bits are cultural fossils from pre-Jewish semitic tribal traditions, and there’s a deep well of archetype in that material. The further you go back archaeologically, the more you run into the idea that Nature is the thing that’s waiting in the dark to kill you in nasty ways, and that religion is the diplomacy of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock.
5. How literally do you take the “hard” Gnostic ideas - dualism, docetism, the demiurge, the existence of hylic, psychic and pneumatic grades of people, etc? If these ideas are symbols, what are they symbols for? Do you feel bound by these ancient ideas and/or models or do you feel free to reinterpret Gnostic myths and concepts in modern terms and accommodate them to the culture we live in now?
The dualism that pops up every now and again in Gnosticism is balanced out by recurring themes of reconciliation and union, in Thomas L22 or Thunder: Perfect Mind. As for hylic, psychic et cetera these are never “grades of people” but rather modes of experience and expression within the human condition. We receive and process signals from our physical bodies, from our souls, from the Spirit and we react accordingly. I’m always somatic. I’m always pneumatic. Just as each sephiroth on the Tree of Life contains the others, we’re always experiencing these modalities.
6. It seems like a common stumbling block for Christians trying to understand Gnosticism are all the arcane and esoteric details in many of the myths, e.g., 72 luminaries in the 5 heavens, 365 angels and demons in the human body, 7 souls, etc. In many instances they seem to represent the traces of rituals based on esoteric anatomical and astrological concepts who origins and significance we can only guess at; we also read heresiological accounts of such.
How far should modern Gnostics go to recover this material, either to understand, use or rehabilitate it? Should it be reconstructed by poaching concepts from Tantra or similar practices? Do concepts like astrology, sacred sexuality or numerology play any significant role in modern Gnosticism? Or are the trappings of western occultism irrelevant to the contemporary pursuit of gnosis?
JS+: You’re going to run into the same problems with reading Paul or Revelations that you encounter with Gnostic cosmologies: these ontologies were very common in the first few centuries of the Christian era. And as I’ve said, some of it may be useful and some of it may be gibberish; one’s reaction to this stuff is highly subjective.
As for poaching concepts, we have to be careful not to just Frankenstein a religion together because it rationalizes what we’re already doing or idealizing.
Are the “trappings” of occultism irrelevant to gnosis? Gnosticism does not have a monopoly on gnosis; Gnosticism is there to amplify and celebrate that experience, not to bring it about, so I’m not sure I can answer that. Certainly there’s a “geiger counter” aspect to all of that: if you’re reading a medieval manuscript and it starts talking about numerology or any other esoteric stuff, your detector goes off and you start digging for Wisdom material. Looking at the historical texts, it does seem that once upon a time Gnosticism found astrology valuable but then clearly rejected it as archonic fatalism, as in The Gospel of Judas.
7. How did you get involved in the Johannite Church? Did you research Gnosticism on your own first, meet someone who invited you, experience gnosis or a mystical vision of some sort and then track them down”?
JS+: I was contacted by a reader, who suggested there might be a fit, as I’d written extensively on the symbolic language of the Templars and the Grail mythology as it relates to Gnosticism.
8. Is there magic in Gnosticism? How is it different from witchcraft? Are the sacraments a form of magic? Is there some sort of occult energy that is transmitted from priest to initiates, like the ache of Santeria or the shaktipat of some gurus? Or do the mysteries of modern Gnosticism function according to some non-analogous principle?
JS+: It very much depends on how you define “magic” - if you’re talking about ritual and psychodrama to invoke Quintessence in order to effect change, then yes, the sacraments are very definitely magic.
There’s definitely a magic strain in Gnostic texts: the elaborate correspondences and heirarchies are a kind of taxonomy - if there’s an angel in charge of my left elbow, then naming that angel and praying to it can cure my left elbow. It’s the basis of all early medicine and science, a way of connecting the individual to the cosmic. Does that play a role in contemporary Gnosticism as a living, vital religion? I don’t think so, personally - they’re theories, like ether or platonic solids, that were useful for a while but replaced with more accurate framings.
9. On a similar note, the Johannite church is based on apostolic succession. Is modern Gnosticism, as you understand it, still a mystery religion? Is apostolic succession part of the mystery? Were elements of ancient Gnosticism really preserved unbeknownst to and under the nose of some very anti-Gnostic (some might say demiurgic) forces for 1700 years? Or is apostolic succession instead the founding myth of a relatively modern reconstructionist movement? Does it matter, in your view, where a church derives it authority and lineage from?
JS+: The Johannite Church is based on the work it does in service to the laity, not Succession, although the AJC does take care of that particular garden. Certainly the idea of “initiated initiators” gives the process a gravity it wouldn’t otherwise have. There is, I think, a real value in taking care of something that predates you and will outlive you.
And yes, Gnosticism did survive tenously in the Christian shadow. Albertus Magnus, one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, was an alchemist (as was his student, Thomas Aquinas) with Gnostic leanings.. St. John of the Cross was inarguably a Gnostic, as was St. Hildegard of Bingen. The Templars were an agency of the Christian establishment and yet we see enduring elements of Johannite Gnosticism. St. Joan of Arc was a Gnostic. If it’s 1300, and you have a spiritual or Gnostic experience, where else are you going to go? If you’re going to want to study magic and alchemy and the nature of the universe, you’re going to have to learn how to read and find a way to feed yourself at the same time; invariably, that means the priesthood.
11. How quickly is the Johannite church growing, why had I not heard of them until recently, has it always been so public or has it been under the radar by design? Why? Do they have a prison ministry? Do they hold cooperative bake sales with the Cathars? Are they worried about triggering another persecution of Gnosticism or perhaps a backlash from the religious right? Are you grooming Gnostic televangelists and planning to distribute copies of the NHL in hotels a la Gideon?
JS+: The Johannite Church in North America is a very recent phenomenon, and the AJC didn’t exist until a few years ago. Strains of a Johannite diaspora in South America and Europe and the Middle East are starting to coalesce around the work that’s been recently undertaken here. The tradition begins with John the Baptist, and flows from him through Christianity, into the Cathars and the Templars and then there’s a renewal of that work in Napoleonic France.
I don’t know of any prison ministry but several of our clergy do hospital and hospice work. We’re not concerned with a blacklash, and don’t proselytize in any way, shape or form. The idea of a Gnostic televangelist or any kind of promotion-for-conversion is entirely revolting to me.
There is a micro-trend of “boddhisatva-ism” among some modern Gnostics; this idea that they promise not to become fully enlightened until the poor ignorami catch up to them on the spiritual race-track. I suppose they think they’re being noble, but really it’s no less annoying and elitist than someone on your doorstep wanting you to be as “saved” as them. I find it truly ghastly, and rude, but it’s obvious their hearts are in the right place.
12. On a similar note, what can people get out of reading the NHL texts who aren’t involved in the organized pursuit of gnosis? What are the pitfalls of pursuing gnosis on your own, outside of an organization? What are the benefits? Where might so-called independent and creative Gnostics of the PKD/Blake camp fit into the scheme of the larger Gnostic movement as you see it, outside of organizations? Is there are role for these sorts of people in modern Gnosticism or do they represent more of a liability? Can you achieve gnosis outside of organized Gnosticism? Should you try? How much of gnosis is a manifestation of the trickster impulse and how much should be focused on building lasting institutions?
JS+: The NHL can be read as inspirational poetry. Reflecting on that, incorporating that meaningfully, and putting that into practice: NONE of that requires a Church. But there is value in community, in liturgy, in honouring collectively the passage of the liturgical year and the sacramental cycles of one’s life; birth, adulthood, marriage, death, acknowledging your mistakes and nourishing the mythic self. So the Gnostic Churches enable people to celebrate these cycles in a Gnostic context. There’s no aspiration to exclusivity at all, and there’s no “liability” in those who find comfort and meaning outside the Church in a more monastic setting, even if that’s on the bus or in their living room. We need to learn from each other’s journey, and that’s harder to do if we view those who respond to community or those who respond to isolation as a “liability”.
Your latter point is very important; it must be understood that anyone can experience gnosis either inside or outside of any religion. GnosticISM is unique in that it does not purport to grant enlightenment, but creates a safe space to celebrate and honour it once it occurs. Gnosis in and of itself is not a manifestation of the trickster archetype and neither does it have anything to do with institutionalism per se. That does not mean that an institution cannot grow and develop in order to serve those whose gnosis has led them to contribute and participate. To boil water, you put it in a pot. To perform magic, you cast a circle. To cross the deep waters, you get in a boat. That’s all a Church is.
13. Now is a very exciting time to be a Gnostic - the mandarins of popular culture really seems to be pushing VERY hard to get Gnostic ideas accepted on a mass level. Since my own interest and/or involvement in online Gnosticism began I’ve seen multiple Time and Newsweek cover stories about Gnosticism, the Matrix, the Da Vinci Code, etc. Do you perceive this push too? What (or who) do you think is behind it? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Why? What misconceptions do you have to battle most frequently? What do you wish people understood about Gnosticism that they seem not to? What do you think of self-proclaimed ‘Gnostic” new age psychic channellers like Sylvia Brown and J.Z. Knight?
JS+: Imagine if a fifth of all North Americans had heard their cats speak English. This is disorienting, as it’s impossible; our modernist world view doesn’t account for it, our churches have no place to put this experience. Such is gnosis. I think in an earlier, less critical age, gnosis was allowed to flow and there was enough mystery and dark corners of the world in which these experiences could crystalize and find expression. Now there’s so much information, we’re pushing Wisdom out of the wilderness in an often jarring confrontation, like bears in a new suburb.
Brown and Knight and their followers just seem to be groping in the darkness ‘as we all are’, and using the label “Gnosticism” for its Google ranking. A consumer culture, hungry for religious experience, expects to buy it. It’s a natural part of the consumer ecosystem for someone to insert themselves between the consumer and the flow of money. I’m lonely, I want sex, here’s my VISA. I’m an exiled Spark of God, I yearn for reunion with the Pleroma, here’s my MasterCard. Brown and Knight are inevitabilities, and there will be more of them.
14. Do you have any advice for people trying to find their spiritual path? Any parting words of wisdom? If you could summarize the absolute most important things you’ve learned about the human spirit to a paragraph or two (less or more if you prefer - it’s important!) what would you say?
JS+: “It’s the praxis.” Mindfulness constantly, centering prayer daily, lectio divina weekly. Join your local art gallery. Write something. Paint something. Donate blood. Hand a homeless person a pair of clean socks and a toothbrush. Vote. Give all your paperbacks to charity. Drink and make love and sleep in and play with your dog. The Secret Book of James says “Hearken to the Logos, understand gnosis, love life.” I can’t top that.
15. Bad form but I’ll ask anyway ’cause I can’t resist: I grew up in French-speaking Canada and have always thought Canadians were so polite, civilized and reasonable compared to Americans ‘ how do Canadians today perceive the outburst of public political hysteria which has gripped your Southern neighbors since the unfortunate events of 2001? I know what the US looks like to me from the inside - the inmates are running the asylum. How does it look from the outside? Is it like sitting next to hulking lunatic on public transportation who spills food on you but so far hasn’t actually made eye contact, and you’re just holding your breath waiting for him to get off at the next stop?
JS+: It seems that it all went sideways before 2001. Just prior to the Clinton impeachment, the United States was at its high-water mark any way you choose to measure a society; literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, education, access to health care, disposable income, civil liberties. Things had never been better for your average citizen. With each impeachment vote, the Hussein regime launched fireworks in celebration; they knew the Republicans were dismantling America. It was obvious “whose side” the impeachers were on. Also I don’t think there’s a democratic nation on the planet that considers the 2000 election legitimate. We worry that your constitution ‘an amazingly influential work of world literature up there with the Magna Carta or the Geneva Conventions’ has been trumped by the biggest power grab in the history of the executive branch.
That being said, Canadians ‘ indeed the rest of the democratic world ‘ has a tremendous love and respect for the American people. We trust you guys will work it out, and see it already happening. You cannot have a free people take off their shoes to get on an airplane for very long. Americans will cooperate and submit and hand over their freedom, but only if they think they’re helping out their country or their neighbour, because they’re generous people. Once they feel that such sacrifices are in vain or that they’re being exploited, they’ll simply cease to cooperate. The Bush regime has either overestimated the attention span of the American public, or greatly underestimated their sincere love of their country, their constitution, their dignity, and one another. The coup will not stand. We love and trust you as a people. We know you’ll be okay.
Father Jordan Stratford+
Apostolic Johannite Church
Regina Coeli Parish,
Victoria BC Canada
Related posts
Really awesome interview, so glad I checked back in. While a good portion of the subject matter was over my head (much due to my excitement), it certainly adds fuel to my fire to continue further exploration in such realms.
If I may use this platform for a brief question… does anyone have any book recommendations for the topic of “comparative occultism”? I’m not even sure if that is a term anyone uses, but it is the best I can come up with to describe my interests. Having poured over Joseph Campbell’s comparative mythology work for years, I cannot help but see my recent interest in the occult as an extension of my fascination with mythology. Any ideas would be awesome, thanks.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Interview with Father Jordan Stratford+, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.