It seems to me that the Gnostic Restoration since 1890 has been largely characterized by personality rather than theology. We desperately need a dialogue among the vital contributors of the Restoration: the big G Gnostics, the Theosophists, the Thomasine, Johannite and Primitive Christians, the Thelemites, the Liberal Catholics, the Jungians, the SAW people, the Masons, everybody with a stake and voice.
I would like to offer this analysis as a acting spine of Ecclesiastical Gnosticism through which we may move forward as a greater community.
What is a Gnostic Communion? It would seem that each gathering and Eucharist would be open and flexible enough to recognize that we each to come to gnosis through our own, unique path, and that we each have a point. The points below are not a suggestion of or for orthodoxy, but rather as explorations for common ground, and starting points for a sound debate. What I hope to see in the next decade is something greater than a concordat between Latin Johannites and Haitian Thelemites - but a respecting of territorial Bishops, a sharing of resources, the continued exchange of successions, and a more accessible Ekklesia. Okay and maybe a seminary.
To my mind, a Gnostic Communion would hold to:
1) A superrational, supernatural, superpersonal Divinity
The Big, BIG God model. I subscribe to the idea that any idea of God we can conceive rationally is a kind of idolatry. As Gnostics, we *must* have direct, firsthand experience of how Divinity relates to each of us before we can move forward and share our ideas with the world. This experience *cannot* be academic, or safely contained in language. God is not Yahweh or Osiris or Gaia; each of these are crude caricatures of God. The Pleroma can be Known, but cannot be grasped.
2) The idea of agency and and personal responsibility
a) Tag, you're it. The Kingdom of God is within you. The Logos is not getting off a plane or manifesting as anybody you'll see on CNN. Christ is something that happens to you, the anointing of the spark of Divinity within, and giving THAT authority over your life.
b) Gnosticism is NOT initiatory in the traditional sense. I cannot conduct a ritual making you a Gnostic and imparting the secret wisdom of the Gnostics. You have the exclusive ability and obligation to Gnosticize yourself. There are forces at work in the world to prevent this, but there are also forces in the world to enable it.
c) It's obvious that the agents of the Archons are everywhere - but less obvious about the signals we receive from the Divine. Sophia is everywhere - everywhere, sometimes within the mechanism of the Archons themselves.
3) Ownership of terms (gnosis, pleroma, pneuma, logos)
We really need a strong, solid language as a starting point, and we need to sign off on these terms. What do we mean by Pleroma? I would love to see not just a lexicon (there are a few out there) but a real theological examination of these words in a Gnostic context.
4) Distinction between Ecclesiastical Gnosticism and philosophical "small-g" gnosticism, and a rejection of the idea of neo-gnosticism
Neo-gnosticism means anything a critic wants it to. The term is meaningless, meant to be mildly insulting, and we need to banish it from the radar. If we see an article employing the term, we need to be contacting the authors and asking them to clarify. Gnosis is the birthright of all humanity. GnosticISM is a religion for a few that at its core honours the experience of gnosis.
5) Recognition of our pre-Christian roots
Gnosticism is not an heretical branch of Christianity. We need a critical, objective look our history, its nature and syncretism - and then to be more proactive and less retroactive. What of our pre-Christian roots needs to survive? What needs to be put in the attic?
6) Rejection of literalism (esp. literalist dualism) , fundamentalism, and historical revisionism through iconoclasm, wit, humour, and joy
To my mind the single worst thing that could happen is the development of a Gnostic Fundamentalism, or a claim that Thomas (apostle and/or brother of Jesus) actually wrote Thomas, or that the events of Poimandres happened on a certain Wednesday in Damascus. We cannot be "about" dusty old codices from a jar, but rather a living, breathing religion that asks questions about domestic violence, about poverty, about media and democracy. We must fervently renounce the slanderous label of dualism, and point to how lovingly Gnostic scripture refers to natural forces. We reject the system, not the earth.
7) Communication of our rich cultural heritage
No, The Matrix doesn't count. We need to read Blake, sponsor a tour of Roerich, publish tranlations of Soloviev. Actually we need a Blake Year.
"Valentinus, Basilides and the Logos walk into a bar..." - why are there no Gnostic jokes?
8) Centralize the purpose of Eucharist in our practice, not the form
Who will be the first to declare their liturgy Open Source? How about a core structure of the Mass, with a more modular approach? Insert your creed here. Regardless, we need stronger, more coherent Gnostic RE to explain what's going on up there with the little white crackers.
9) Ecumenism, not proselytization
a) No more schisms. Please. Enough with all the schisming. Our tradition holds for independent Bishops - we don't need a new set of incorporation documents and logos and websites with every ordination.
b) The model is not that of an hierarchical Church, but a non-resident monastery. Clergy serves those who have chosen to show up, by listening, counselling, teaching and cheerleading.
c) Unlike many religious communities in the West, we are growing. Others are disappearing. We need to build a bridge to lapsed Catholics, the Liberal Catholic Tradition, and to Reform Judaism. The latter has a lot to teach us about encoded wisdom, and surviving as a minority religion.
10) Praxis and Caritas
What do we DO, exactly, other than read and pray and argue on listservs? Each Parish needs to dedicate itself to social action by adopting one or two local, on the ground charities. It's not enough to donate a copy of The Jesus Mysteries to your local library - that's self-serving. I mean hot meals to elderly shut ins, the animal shelter, clean socks to the homeless. Tithe. Hours if not money. Make it a condition for membership. Nobody does a better job of this than Bishop del Campo's folks, and they are to be lauded.
There are few enough of us to build rapid consensus and to sign off on something like this in the next ten years.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It was my hope when I created the North American College of Gnostic Bishops that it would be able to adopt and enact these points.
I'm not totally unconvinced yet that it can't happen.
Jim
See, now you've gone and spoiled the punchline, which is Part II of this post, where I say that the NACGB is the mechanism to make this all happen.
I agree with the points you make. As I become more and more involved in the EG, there are a few items that keep popping up in my head that make me question its role in the revival.
For instance, the Bishopric of the EG is currently tied exclusively to Tau Stephan Hoeller. Although he's an incredible individual with an amazing inner light and is a profound and capable Bishop, he's getting on in years, and at the momemnt no line of succession has been established. Yikes!
Also, I feel a sort of stagnation surrounding certain aspects of the ritual & rubrics. An example: we honor Saints and Teachers in the liturgy, but the most modern is Jacques de Molay! Why isn't there a canonization process in place? Blake, Jung, Phil Dick, etc.-- these guys did as much for the gnosis as Marcion, Basilides, etc. That we're unable to canonize seems odd to me . . . .
Now, the EG is definitely my spiritual place; I don't intend to leave it any time soon, but I see gnosticism as valuable because it recognizes the need for constant self-assessment. Why can't this extend to the Church body, and why can't it extend in a greater framework that includes such a Communion?
Jeremy - Perhaps you could ask Father Sam to read this? It would be interesting to get his feedback, and if he thinks it's feasible (to get a significant number of clergy onboard). I think it's a good sign that we have an AJC Bishop and an EG Deacon on board within 12 hours. ;-)
I have heard these criticisms of Bishop Hoeller before. I have a tremendous amount of admiration for his integrity and what he's done for all of us, but it does seem strange that, as Patriarch of the EG, he's not spreading the Episcopate around to even the workload. He must have his own reasons.
Regardless, havingindividual EG clergy support these 10 points (or something like them) as common ground would go a long way to making a Gnostic Communion a reality.
And a question to everyone out there - which of these are likely to be the sticking points? Personally, I think 5 and 9.
You're going to have a bit of trouble getting Institutional "Regular" Freemasonry to dialog, as they aren't a religion in the strictest sense, and don't recognize the Gnosticism in their group.
The "Fringe" masonic groups might be interested, though.
Perhaps you could ask Father Sam to read this? It would be interesting to get his feedback, and if he thinks it's feasible (to get a significant number of clergy onboard).
Yeah, Sam's a pretty open guy-- I'll see if I can't at least bounce a few ideas off of him.
Some other comments by point--
Although I personally agree with point six, here, I'm not sure that introducing criticism of historicity within such a communion would be an effective idea. Rejecting Gnostic Fundamentalism is one thing; allowing people to express their gnosis through historicity is another.
Though you and I might be perfectly comfortable saying that there was never an historical Jesus, that's not an easy point to get across, nor, imho, should it be. I know a number of members of our parish would be bothered if presented by a Gnostic Communion that insisted on a decision on this matter one way or the other.
I have to reiterate that I think it's a moot point-- if someone believes in an actual, historical Jesus, then I don't see as how that's a problem. I often find it useful to build an internal story-system which includes an historical Jesus figure.
I think it might be better to present this concept in terms of individual gnosis-- in an infinite universe, it's possible to reject literalism while still believing in the possibility of an historical Jesus (or an historical Santa Claus, for that matter).
Secondly, along with the myth of "duality," it might also be useful to discuss the pernicious myth of "elitism." i.e., How much of what we've referred to as a "secret tradition" needs to remain secret?
Finally, when it comes to Praxis and Caritas, I again agree it should be included. But, it would be important to remember the admonition that one should not do what one hates. Requiring anything, even charity and care for others, as conditions of membership is a slippery slope. Encouraging compassion for others is an essential part of the Way, but *requiring* compassion or withholding service to those who don't display compassion would be, imho, counter to a number of basic Gnostic tenents.
At the risk of innundating your comments form, allow me to quote from my commentary to Saying 6 in Thomas, which I feel addresses this matter:
"Jesus also uses this moment to teach the disciples about the importance of honesty before man and the God. "Don't lie" is his first admonition. His second is a bit more cryptic at first glance: "don't do what you hate." Notice, Jesus is not telling the disciples to do whatever they want to-- he's telling them not to do anything they don't want to do. This is an important idea-- when one does prays, or gives charity, or observes a specific diet, but hates doing it, one is acting dishonestly. Better not to pray at all than to pray because it's a chore that's prescribed by the law. It doesn't matter one bit if one gives to the poor just because he or she is told to give to the poor. What matters is that the person giving, or fasting, or obeying the "law" does this because he or she knows for him or herself that it's the right thing to do, that it's something worth doing because it's pleasing to the God. hat Jesus means by prayer, charity, fasting, etc. is left up to the reader/listener. Jesus has confidence in humanity's ability to recognize the good for what it is, and follow through in action. When one comes right down to it, in spite of the heaviness and intricacy of Judaic legal code, one's diet, one's chosen method of prayer, one's decision to fast, one's decision to give to the poor-- these are all completely unimportant and focusing on them is worthless. The important thing is honesty to the God, one's self, and one's neighbors.
By extension, those who do hate praying, giving charity, etc., whether they do these things or not, have most likely not acheived gnosis and do not know the God. These people are acting simply based on the shallow, illusory experience of a defective Cosmos, and are acting as part of the unredeemed Cosmos that Jesus came to save."
Okay, I've got to actually get some work done. ;) I have more thoughts on this, which I'll post at some point.
Perhaps a good start might be an e-mail list for interested parties?
Scott - I'm not talking about inviting every Lodge to come to a theological synod, merely saying that there are many Masons who are also Gnostics, and want to have a voice from a Masonic perspective. We need to respect the traditional ties between Gnosticism and Freemasonry.
Jeremy - I'm not going to force someone in the laity to donate to the Red Cross upon threat of excommunication. But certainly a Parish *collectively* can make a commitment to x dollars or x hours (or both). If a Parish *collectively* chooses not to make such a commitment, then hell yes, we should question if they're in the right religion. Same goes for individual clergy. If not to serve, then what are you doing here?
As for historicity, I'm not going to hold up someone's take on Jesus or the physicality of the Holy Grail or even the Battle of Hastings as a condition for membership in a Gnostic congregation. We do need a dialogue, however, on the danger of entrenching ANY particular take on who-said-what-to-whom, and confusing the IDEA of, say, the Magdalene, and what that means from a personal or experiential perspective, with any first-century person who may or may not have had French children from a planet in orbit of Sirius. I'm saying we need to look at history, not get bogged down in it.
I definitely see where you're coming from & essentially agree with you (except that Mary Magdalene DID have sex with aliens from Sirius, dammit! And I'm the King of the Prieury of Sion!) ;)
"But certainly a Parish *collectively* can make a commitment to x dollars or x hours (or both). If a Parish *collectively* chooses not to make such a commitment, then hell yes, we should question if they're in the right religion."
Hmmm . . . . I'm still not sure about the practicality of this. Again, I agree with you 100%, but I would be uncomfortable question whether someone else is in the right religion-- seems to me that it's their choice/responsibility. I don't think I'd ever be comfortable sending the message to another Parish that, "you guys don't give enough or serve in the right way, therefore you cannot be part of this." I still think it's too slippery a slope.
Seems to me that the most important aspect of a Gnostic Communion would be the process of dialogue itself. It's too bad there's so much geographical distance between so many of us-- it's not like most of us can just visit the Gnostic church down the street. I'd love to see Gnostic clergy from different traditions attending one another's ceremonies (as time/ritual/distance allows, of course).
Hmmm... Freemasonry... Well, as a Master Mason in blue lodge, 32nd degree in Scottish Rite, and a Knight Templar in the York Rite (albeit suspended for non-payment of dues in all three... tough times), I definitely see the gnosticism in Freemasonry. If you contact members of some of the research lodges (who are generally open-minded, but a few are stuck in their beliefs), you might get something of a dialog going. You can also feel free to cantact me, and I will share my feelings upon the subject.
I'm very excited to find this blog. It's extraordinarily refreshing to find someone possessed of such graceful, quiet sanity.
Post a Comment