On "Neo-Gnosticism"

A Consideration

Perhaps especially in the Episcopal Church, which is my own context, people get very into trendy theology. Or, at least, theology which was trendy some 40 years ago.

Several different but remarkably similar such trends have arisen in that time span. The one that I’m interested in right now is what I’ll term “Neo-Gnosticism,” but usually is just called “Gnosticism.” This Neo-Gnosticism came into its own when scholars, particularly Dr. Elaine Pagels, popularized information about, and eventually English translations of, texts from the Nag Hammadi codices including now-famous texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth. Pagels had done interesting academic work on Valentinian Gnostic exegesis of Paul and of the Gospel of John, but it was her work The Gnostic Gospels, published in 1979, which garnered wide popular appeal. The Gnostic Gospels is intended as an introduction to both a translation of the Nag Hammadi texts which came out about the same time and the few Gnostic materials we possessed before their discovery. That is, it is an introduction to Gnostic thought in light of the then-recent discoveries. But it’s not really that when one gets into the thick of it.

Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels

The Gnostic Gospels instead fits into Pagels’ broader project of outlining the development of Early Christianity. What Nag Hammadi and other Gnostic materials demonstrate, according to Pagels, is that the development of orthodox doctrine is at least as much political and social as it is theological. Belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection was insisted upon by the orthodox because it validates ecclesiastical authority.¹ Monotheism was maintained because it solidified, or perhaps was projected from, the monarchical rule of bishops.² The orthodox reject Gnostic sexual and feminine depictions of the divine because they needed to subjugate women to men in every capacity, though there was no consistency among either party on this point.³ The literal crucifixion of Jesus upheld the orthodox ecclesial power by creating a shared narrative of persecution that united different communities.⁴ In the end, the Gnostic controversy creates the impetus for the creation of a hierarchical and authoritarian Church that demands “straight-thinking” on all within it.

Pagels clarifies in the conclusion that she did not set out to take a side in these controversies, let alone advocate a “return” to Gnosticism. Indeed, she believes that the survival of Christianity is owed to the tight organization of the orthodox Church.⁵ However, her work is rather often cited as a Gnostic manifesto for those Neo-Gnostics who decry the cruelty of orthodoxy. Nor is it totally inexplicable why that is so; even if the stratification of orthodoxy is credited with Christianity’s survival, the book does not do much justice to the orthodox authors it treats. The positions of authors such as Irenaeus or Clement of Rome are presented with glaring anachronisms or errors at times, as is the whole orthodox tradition. For instance, in discussing the role of Mary Magdalene in Gnostic literature, Pagels points out that she was never recognized as an apostle by the orthodox.⁶ In a sense that’s true; instead, she has been honored for millennia as the “Apostle to the Apostles.” Pagels also has a habit of forcing orthodox authors into dichotomies with the Gnostics that they went to great lengths to transcend. If asked whether Jesus was human or spiritual, the answer would be “both,” not just human. And yet, the orthodox are characterized as upholding the human end of the spectrum of Christology while the Gnostics carried the spiritual end. Likewise, Pagels claims orthodox Christians and Jews insist that God is infinitely distant from us and wholly other, while the Gnostics believe God is imminent.⁷ It’s true that we hold God to be wholly other, and yet because of that infinite transcendence, God can also be infinitely imminent, which is a core tenet of orthodox Christianity. The dichotomy is simply not one we fit into.

If the orthodox are presented as so unpalatable in The Gnostic Gospels, then it is no surprise that the book is taken to be a manifesto for a Neo-Gnostic alternative to orthodox Christianity. With Pagels book in the background, we should now turn to the reception of it into a sort of Neo-Gnostic movement in the Church.

What is Neo-Gnosticism? What’s the Problem?

It is clear that whatever Pagels is, in fact, arguing in her work, plenty of people read between the lines and develop their own ideas, with the book (and many books like it) as jumping-off points. What do these folks come away with and argue?

The obvious first point is the concept of gnosis itself. Pagels defines gnosis as a “knowing through observation or experience” that culminates in a process of self-understanding, wherein one can understand all things. More broadly, it’s an inner inspiration, what we might call enlightenment or nirvana. Pagels stresses the importance to Gnosticism of the connection of self-knowledge and knowing God; indeed, to know oneself is to know God, and this whole interconnected system of knowing is gnosis.⁸

To the Neo-Gnostic, as it seems to have somewhat meant for the ancient Gnostics, this means that no outside source is particularly worth dealing with unless it has your personal approval. That means the Bible is out as a source of religious knowing (again, unless it suits you) and certainly Church tradition is off the table. Many folks feel that, based on their insights and the insights of many other fellow-Gnostics, we should fundamentally repudiate most of what constitutes the Church as we know it or found a new Church, and of course supplement or replace the Bible with the recently found Gnostic texts.

The problem with the above is that there is no orthodox problem with gnosis. In fact, I would resolutely say that gnosis is highly desirable in orthodox Christianity! We don’t tend to call it gnosis, but we do have a lot of ways to talk about the same thing. In Hebrews 11:1, we are told that “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Does that not sound very much like gnosis as described above: inner, experiential learning? Likewise, observe this quotation:

“Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.”

That was written by John Calvin, who is perhaps the last person a Neo-Gnostic would expect to find common ground with! So while the Neo-Gnostic might set gnosis as their major distinction from us, there is in fact no essential distinction in what we claim to value, only a distinction in terminology.

A second theme, following the first, is the illegitimacy of ecclesial (or perhaps any) outside authority. There is not necessarily consistency on this point, but it is usually a matter of degree. Some Neo-Gnostics are perfectly content with outside authority as long as it is sufficiently exotic or transgressive, such as the Nag Hammadi texts or the image of Elaine Pagels that lives in their head. But with the concept of writings that are both authoritative and banned through history, there is inevitably a sense that the Church and its representatives, no matter how benign, is fundamentally off the deep end, perhaps having never known the true teachings of Jesus. Likewise, all of the different figures of authority, be they the pope or the parish’s resident deacon, are at the very least occupants of invalid offices. As is clear in The Gnostic Gospels, the ancient Gnostics were opposed to the orthodox hierarchy, and it is no different with the Neo-Gnostics.

I cannot imagine that everyone who lives in this line of thought, however, truly understands what the Gnostic alternative was. It is true that the orthodox churches consistently maintained, after a certain point, a regular hierarchy of deacons, priests, and bishops. What perhaps isn’t adequately stressed in The Gnostic Gospels (but is well documented in Pagels’ earlier book The Gnostic Paul) is that the Gnostics had a much more significant hierarchy. At the end of the day, in the orthodox churches, a bishop could be no more redeemed than a layperson; all were spiritually one in Jesus. The Gnostics, however, maintained that the vast majority of Christians were the “psychical,” or soulish, not really worshipping God even though they were in the Church. Frankly, they were just as of then too stupid to be saved. It was only the chosen, the pneumatic or spiritual, who possessed the secret gnosis by which they could actually be saved. With it, they set themselves far above the psychical rabble, much farther than a bishop could ever set themselves above the laity by virtue of their office. In this way, the orthodox churches, even if more outwardly hierarchical, were even more egalitarian than their Gnostic counterparts, insofar as they refused to set up the inward and spiritual hierarchy the latter thrived on.⁹

This isn’t the only way that I would argue that the orthodox maintained a greater populism than the Gnostics. One way that Pagels doesn’t do justice to in the work of Irenaeus (let alone the less nuanced Neo-Gnostic) is that she fails to illustrate how Irenaeus typically argued. One gets the sense that he and other bishops simply demanded authority without question, just as they might command blind faith with no evidence. However, the very core of his arguments almost always rely on appeals to the reader’s intuition; not the secret intuition of gnosis, but the common-sense intuition of common people. His refutations of the Valentinians mostly consist of explaining their teachings or mythology in thorough detail, then letting the reader decide if it sounds plausible. No magic episcopal power is involved, nor mysterious inspiration which most people can be expected to never receive. From that angle, the charge of elitism in Irenaeus seems rather unfounded. The very trust of intuition so core to the Neo-Gnostic is better manifest in the orthodox tradition than the Gnostic or Neo-Gnostic.

Conclusion

Much more could be said on particular points of the conversation around Gnosticism, and I will happily discuss whatever such points people are interested in through the comments! I stop here, though, because I think most of the other topics rise and fall on these themes of intuition, its meaning, and the number of people we can expect to possess it. Much more could also be said about the literary foundations of Neo-Gnosticism, both in the wider range Pagels’ bibliography and the work of Karen L. King and Jean-Yves Leloup. However, I already read two whole books in the past day and a half to write this, so that might have to come another day.

I wrote what I have here not to “debunk” people attracted to Gnosticism. Instead, I intended to demonstrate how a fuller manifestation of what I see valued by such people can be found in the orthodox sources, on the assumption that well-meaning people wouldn’t run to something like Neo-Gnosticism unless there was something they value rightly to be found there, even if in imperfect form. I hope that comes across.

1. The Gnostic Gospels, 7

2. The Gnostic Gospels, 34

3. The Gnostic Gospels, 66

4. The Gnostic Gospels, 98-99

5. The Gnostic Gospels, 142-143

6. The Gnostic Gospels, 22

7. The Gnostic Gospels, xx

8. The Gnostic Gospels, xix

9. Naturally, not every “orthodox” church is quite this egalitarian. Allow me to make explicit here that I am contrasting two idealized versions of the two church communities: the ideal Gnostic community was basically a church within a church, with the chosen doing the actual worship in secret while they facilitated the other Christians worshipping the jealous demiurge, while the ideal orthodox church recognizes no such inward and spiritual supremacy, and certainly does not codify it in secret rituals.