“Five Criticisms of Modern Gnosticism”
Interesting commentary from Jordan Stratford+ and Eckhart Christopher on modern gnosticism.
I am probably profoundly misunderstanding them, but they seem to be saying that Modern gnosticism derives its authority, legitimacy, succession, etc solely from the RCC - the one that Benedict is in charge of now, and John Paul before him, etc. - and that without that, its no more than a nonsensical waste of time.
So, y’know, its like if you don’t have the approval of a bunch of boy-lovers in fancy robes, there’s no spirituality in your game, so give it up.
EC:
“Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge it, the Roman Catholic Church is the mother church from which all Apostolic Gnostic traditions derive their authority and claims of succession. There was (as can be best determined from history) no separate line of succession… As Neuhaus points out, the farther you get from communion with Rome, the cheapier authority, tradition, and truth become. Now, I’m not saying we all need to go down and join the Roman Catholic church. I’m simply pointing out the inevitable result of the Protestant principle at work……the Protestant principle doesn’t create freedom. It creates tradegy…Protestant churches, utilizing the Protestant Principle, continue to splinter and splinter into more and more meaningless and trite denominations…
Unless bishops begin to exercise their charge, of shepherding the Church, this spiral into equivocation will continue and the tradition will be lost, again. If we truly believe that the Gnostic “symbols” are an important part of this great tradition, “the faith once delivered to the saints,” then we must act know to save those symbols from meaninglessness. And, the beginning of this action is in the exercise of authority (and the obedience to that authority)….
We don’t need more manifestos. We don’t need more people playing to their egos and doing their own thing. We don’t need sola scriptura. We need bishops willing to take seriously their obligations.”
This is such a strange idea to me its a bit hard to wrap my mind around. It completely contradicts ancient accounts of the gnostics, e.g., Tertuliian:
Tertullian:
“Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood.” ( Tertullian Against the Valentinians 1)
Well, I’ve gotten a bit ahead of myself here, Christopher was responding to a post by Jordan Stratford+ called “Five Criticisms of Modern Gnosticism“. Not much to say about that, where Stratford+ really lights up in in his response to Christopher’s response to this here:
Stratford+
“…the “Protestants” of Gnosticism seem disheartened by the very real fact that Gnosticism is a religion. It is not a sect of another religion, it is certainly not an “approach” to religion as easily applied to Zoroastrianism as to Hinduism. It’s a religion with an ecclesiology, and I would challenge that those who reject that ecclesiology out of hand are in fact replacing the Gnostic religion with another of their own devising: Gnosis-ism. Gnosisism says hey, start your own church, publish a manifesto, and we’re doing the same thing, right?Wrong. Obviously. We’re not doing the same thing. We over here are taking care of something we do not own; they on the other hand have doodled on the back of a cocktail napkin and have declared it to be a church….”
Stratford+ continues in a similar vein on his own blog:
“I’m certainly not talking about actual academic research or even sincere amateur inquiry. I’m talking about the sophomoric sci-fi-quoting posturing that turns people off from the get-go. Way too many online-only “Gnostics” are knocking themselves out trying to see who can sound the most like Comic Store Guy from the Simpsons.”
This recalls Irenaeus’ critique of the ancient gnostics, that they were too speculative and enjoyed too much creative and theological freedom:
Irenaeus:
“Every day one of them (gnostics) invents something new (i.e., myths and scriptures), and none of them is considered perfect unless he is productive in this way.”
Wow, again, this is really quite a strange perspective to me. Stratford+ & Christopher are basically saying that the line of apostolic succession that has been blessed and approved by the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate one - outside of that, gnosticism and the quest for it is only so much childish nonsense. So gnosticism that exists or existed apart from some esoteric “restoration” in the RCC 106 years ago - ain’t the real thing.
I do wonder about the implications of this. Some of the ancient gnostic teachers claimed apostolic succession (Basilides), other did not. Some modern “gnostics” do too FWIW (e.g., Michael Bertiaux) but I doubt either Stratford+ or Christopher will be preaching to their congregants about spider-lycanthropy or astral sex-parasites anytime soon.
And I guess this means that William Blake was a childish napkin scribbler, and Carl Jung too - what a shame!
Honestly, to me this is all quite reminsicent of Wiccans arguing about degrees and titles and fifty year old “ancient traditions” and trying to retroactively define words such as “witch” to mean only their one narrow little group of privileged North American whites while the worlds’ very ancient and real witchcraft traditions (which largely hail from non-white cultures) are defined out of existence.
FWIW, I am happy there was “restoration” 106 years ago in some esoteric branch of the RCC. And if they want to claim that they have exclusive access to gnosis and that being a gnostic means accepting the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and being obedient to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and accepting that there is something suspect about artistic and/or creative expression because the world doesn’t need any more “sophomoric sci-fi-quoting posturing ” they’re welcome to their perspective.
But to me this sounds boring and silly, and rather deadening really, and thank GOD I got initiated into an orally-transmitted tribal witchcraft tradition years ago, instead of joining up with one of these puritanical and rather stuffy sounding “gnostic churches” which I almost did instead!!!!
To me, a priest should be able to help you land a job, or heal a disease, or get the girl. That’s what priests do in shamanic religions anyway. Otherwise its just a guy in funny clothes speaking in an archaic and stilted way and telling you what to read and what to think and I can decide that stuff on my own already, thank you very much!!!
And if only members of their “North American College” are real “gnostics” and everyone outside that fold is just an insincere pretender, well, doubleplusgood on that too, I guess I’m in good company.
“I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.”
-William Blake
I should add that I have nothing personal against either of these guys and am sure they are both fine gentlemen and upstanding citizens. The whole purpose of having a blog (it sometimes seems) is to use other folks as a source of friction against which to define your own views and really, in this instance my views couldn’t be more different. In fact they’re the polar opposite.
SEE ALSO: Giving up on modern gnosticism
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz
word to that! i pretty much dumped everything i wanted to say here at EGINA (which i always think of in my head as rhyming with “vagina”) where I’m sure i’m being an obnoxious asshole. oh sweet internet anonymity.
right f’in on, both of ya’ll. and right on jordan and ec, too. they’ve got the stodgy market cornered, and their gnosticism is WAY different than mine.
i say more manifestos, more snake handling, less foo-fah and high-falutin’ism.
joe chip, i always did like you. wish you’d come back to the ptg sometime– things are goin’ pretty well over there.
pax,
~bro jp~
rev max,
drop me a line. i’d like to discuss your article in detail.
scott@knowgnosis.com