- I have four tools in my toolbox: each are heavy objects with a handle and a sticky label.
The first is a hammer with the label "hammer".
The second is a hammer with the label "hammer".
The third is a hammer with the label "hammer".
The fourth is a pipe wrench with the label "hammer".
As the label is sometimes used improperly, we must conclude that there really is no such thing as a "hammer" and we should dispense with the term altogether.
Further;
We have documented evidence that the Cathars had vegetarian diets, that is to say, diets being identical with that of modern-day vegetarians. However, nowhere in the contemporary accounts of Cathar meatlessness is the term "vegetarian" even used! Therefore we must likewise conclude that the Cathars were not vegetarian because they didn't themselves use the word.
Further further;
- Medieval seafarers; upon seeing walruses for the first time, often mistook them for mermaids. Modern science of course knows that many of the attributes ignorantly attributed to mermaids (long hair, lovely singing voice, shell-covered boobies) do not apply to walruses. Therefore we must conclude there is no such thing as a walrus.
And yes, he really does employ this reasoning to insist that there's no such thing as us. Instead, we're "biblical demiurgicals"; a term which is merely an awkward euphemism for "Gnostic".
Bart Ehrman says "Doing away with 'Gnosticism' entirely would be to fragment our knowledge to such an extent that we can't know what we're talking about."
Setting Jonas and even Quispel's framing aside, the common thread among "Gnostic" scripture, myth, and movements was and is soteriological; what makes us free is the gnosis of who we were, of what we have become.
19 comments:
Don't you steal my "Rethinking Rethinking Gnosticism" title - yours comes pretty close.
You're lucky I can't afford a lawyer. :)
J
Hold up, Jordie - somebody pass this man a glass of wine.
I understand why Williams frustrates you. He attacks history's polemical cliches to show that they don't work, and thus concludes the label of Gnosticism, as it is used (IE as meaning the cliches) is a broken category. I think however that Williams wasn't trying to say Gnostics don't exist, but rather the polemical caricature of them isn't accurate according to their own texts. I personally think that where he makes a mistake is leaving the argument simply at diversity - "Gnostics" are diverse, and so cannot be a unified category, he says. But he does not attempt to find the REAL similarities, he just uses the diversity to debunk the cliches. I feel like the book is only half-way to a conclusion. Nevertheless, I find it valuable for the dismantling of shabby cliche definitions. Nothing else has succeeded in making people rethink these old heresiological biases.
"We have documented evidence that the Cathars had vegetarian diets, that is to say, diets being identical with that of modern-day vegetarians"
I believe we know that they caught fish and ate animals they could hunt in field or stream. I think Cathars were specifically against raising animals, rather than hunting them (which seemed more uh, natural I guess). Personally, I think animals are freakin' delicious!!!
"Instead, we're "biblical demiurgicals"; a term which is merely an awkward euphemism for "Gnostic"."
I've thought long and hard about this, and I don't really think this is accurate. Marcion believed that the Old Testament God fulfilled a role much like the Gnostic Demiurge, but Marcion can't be said to have been a Gnostic. He did not express any sort of esotericism. He did not prefer the imaginative religiosity of Gnostic myth, but was a rigorous and ruthless literalist preoccupied with accepted scriptural authorities. His Demiurge was based on a rigorous literal exegesis of Jewish and Christian scripture (and a couple conspiracy theories), not on a spiritual transcendant relationship with the indwelling divine like Gnostics.
In fact, at the time of Marcion, it was the proto-Orthodox who were urging allegorical intepretation to rebut Marcion's devastating literalism! Later in the debate, the proto-Orthodox switched views to rebut the Gnostics, saying that they then considered literal interpretation authoritative and allegorical interpretation was to be discouraged. Of course, by then, the proto-Orthodox had changed so much of the text and held so much power in the overall tradition that their "literal" interpretation was usually just whatever they wanted the text to "literally" mean!
I think you're proving my point: "biblical demiurgical" is a far soggier term than "classical Gnosticism" and is useless; Williams starts out well by addressing problems, but his conclusions are untenable and merely ends up muddying the waters.
Again, the soteriological premise trumps any academic paradigm to date: Jonas to King, Williams included.
Jordan:
Thanks for the ‘Hammer’ analogy - it’s brilliant.
What I find interesting in this whole debate about the term “Gnosticism” is the lack of any reference to the transcendental experience we call “Gnosis” from which the phrase is based. Long before G.R.S. Meade, Hans Jonas and Dr. Robinson’s crew were translating the ancient texts, the phrase “Gnostic” was being used in translations of the great Sufi teachers, most notably in Ib’n Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam. In this context, the word was used to describe an individual who, using the tools of study, contemplation and ritual, had achieved Union with the Divine. In addition to the ecstatic rituals we most often stereotype them with, to the Sufi a “Gnostic” is one who is in that state at all times.
Unlike those of us in the Priestly Orders, academicians such as King, Williams and Pagels are not at liberty to avail themselves of “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” If one is compelled to base one’s opinion regarding modern Gnosticism solely upon texts a millenium and a half old, then a strong case could be made on the irrelevance or nonexistence of it. We, on the other hand, are not bound by such limits. In fact it is our duty to help guide others to this state of Knowing, using the ‘unsubstantiatable’ tool of Faith. No matter what nomenclature we try to bind it to, Gnosis and Gnosticism are, have, and always will be real and relevant.
Rev. Deacon Gilberto ‘Gil’ Morales [EG-LA]
Labels are dangerous. For example, I did an online test to see if I was a socialist (which I am). Apparently not, since I showed preference for stable family structures. But that's what labelling does, it segregates those based on popular conceptions.
Popular conceptions are based on mass miseducations. As Gnostics and Christians, we have the double burden of being labelled Gnostic-heretics and Christian-evangelicals. Of course we're not, so we have to embark on education through opening up the labels, and examining and explaining. We must reassemble our labeled identity based on the student's new enlightened perspective.
Muddying the waters is the predicament outcome of William's urging for dimantlement. We can't destroy and then rebuild, but we can explain how the engine works. Only then can these ancient ideas have relevance in the modern world. But we need trained Gnostic educators. How about a workshop for training proponents of Gnosticism, the Mormons do this!
I like to sum Williams up simply: People have been stupid about using the term "Gnosticism." So, if we get rid of it, and replace it with a term people won't use--people will be smarter. ;)
I just don't see why he hasn't been elected to anything yet. Probably only because he hasn't ran.
Mike: It isn't the same thing, but the Gnosis Institute is in the works. gnosisinst.org
Gnosis Institute? Sounds great...sign me up.
How about a Gnostic College? A place dedicated to helping Gnostics attain degrees in Gnostic thought. I mean, you can get a degree in "Christian" theology.
Or - let's build a place that we can all go to learn methods for attaining gnosis...
We can call it...a...uh...church...
Hey Jordan, how about getting the EG to expand their churches? It'd be great for those of us that can't just get in our car and drive to LA or Canada. (Especially in Tennessee ;-) )
First off, Joe, we're doing just that: reworking our Formation program so that it's more structured as an STL Program.
As for "getting" the Church to exand - we'd love to, but it's about someone on the ground doing the work. For example due to the efforts of Rev. Scott, we have a new Parish in Wisconsin.
It starts with a discussion group, a Narthex, sponsored by the Church. That means you or someone like you putting up a poster, meeting in a coffee house with one other person, once a month. That's the seed, right there. People coming together in person to share ideas, question, pray, and work to a common goal.
Gotcha.
I'd love to help with something like that.
Maybe you could give me some ideas on how to get started?
- Joe D.
Leaving the Williams issue aside, I would like to respond to a comment by Joe d. He wrote, "How about a Gnostic College? A place dedicated to helping Gnostics attain degrees in Gnostic thought. I mean, you can get a degree in "Christian" theology."
I think there are several difficulties involved in establishing a "Gnostic College." The least being the most obvious difficulty of funding.
First, there is the question of the existence of a normative theology among Gnostics. It simply doesn't exist. Now, this is not to deny that many Gnostics can agree on a broadly outlined series of topics. But, it is to point out that this is no basis on which to build a theological degree program. The reason you can get a degree in "Christian theology" is because there is a thoroughly established norm.
This naturally leads to a second difficulty. Namely, since there is no established norm (i.e. that is a creed or dogma or system), the question becomes which Gnostic perspective should be favored and taught over others.
It is no solution to attempt to teach them all. Such an approach simply isn't feasible and it would endanger the program's capacity to effect significant change in the heart and mind of the student.
Also, simply setting up one college for one perspective and another for a differing perspective is no solution either. As can be witnessed by the evangelicals application of this approach, such a structure creates and engenders division. Besides, I'm not sure that it is wise for the Gnostic ecclesia to begin taking notes from the pages of those churches that are the inheritance of the disaster that was the Reformation.
But, most importantly of all, I think the greatest difficulty stems from the nature of our tradition (and one of its strengths, as I see it). Tau Stephanus I writes, "Yet it is undeniable that the mainstream religious traditions differ substantially from the alternative tradition, inasmuch as the former tend to enshrine the results of revelatory experience in belief and commandment, and the latter strenuously resists the metamorphosis of experience into theology and moral preachment."
Given this, the focus should not be on creating persons who have mastered and memorized a set of Gnostic theological tenets, assuming such things could even be normatively establsihed. The focus should be on making myth-makers. "It is more than likely that the Gnostics were the first conscious mythologists who used myth both to express their primal mystical experiences and to subtly lead others to similar experiences."
Hence, I think a more fruitful approach would be to establish a network that would enable the would be initiate to connect with adepts and teachers, thereby enabling them to learn Gnostic praxis and the art of myth making. And, such a network I think is much more feasible (I'm reminded of attempts to form and discussion surrounding a Gnostic Communion).
Pax
"First, there is the question of the existence of a normative theology among Gnostics. It simply doesn't exist. Now, this is not to deny that many Gnostics can agree on a broadly outlined series of topics. But, it is to point out that this is no basis on which to build a theological degree program."
In the AJC, we're reworking the Formation program so that it's an STL program (not a degree program) but I *strongly* disagree that there's not a very solid baseline of Gn theology.
- soteriology: the salvific necessity of gnosis
- flexi-trinitarianism; Plerom, Logos, and Pneuma H.
- emanations-model panentheism
- 90% consistent ecclesiology
- the role of the Incarnation
- the centrality of the Holy Gn. Eucharist
That's a wealth of stuff there and covers 90% of the practicing Gnostics out there.
To my view, your outline is a great example of what I meant when I wrote, "Now, this is not to deny that many Gnostics can agree on a broadly outlined series of topics." But, the outline is not a creed or dogma (i.e., a normative standard). After all, just what exactly is "flexi-trinitarianism"? Or, whose definition of Gnosis? Or Gnostic? Is someome a Gnostic if they are a part of the eccleisa? Or Incarnation? You see, this is exactly my point: we can establish a broad concensus, but when it comes to particulars (which is the necessary stuff of a normative system) there is no such concensus. And, if Williams, King, and Pagel are to be believed, there never really was one in the first place.
But, again, I don't think this is a deficiency. As Gnostics, we live and move in the realm of myth. And, as you pointed out by listing the "10 things to remember about myth" from Campbell, myths are not dogmas that can be taught. They must be felt. This is why I like the idea of an STL program that requires initiates to breath in the stuff of Gnosis.
Having been through my share of academic theology programs, I must admit that I remain very skeptical (and I think we all should be) of the dangerous archonal powers of such programs that can interfere with the spiritual flowering of the individual.
Pax
"Or, whose definition of Gnosis? Or Gnostic? Is someome a Gnostic if they are a part of the eccleisa? Or Incarnation? "
I think everybody has pretty much the same definition of gnosis (= enlightenment, satori, nirvana, personal communion with the divine, knowledge and conversation with the holy guardian angel).
A Gnostic is a member of the religion of Gnosticism, the religion which centralizes gnosis. Few Gns would disagree with this. So yes, if you're part of the Gn Ecclesia, you're a Gnostic.
The Incarnation is the idea that runs throughout the Western Religion; that the Divine is made real and manifest in the world. Again, a very solid theological norm.
The purpose of applying theology to Gn is not to dessicate it, or to analyze it to death; and one doese not necessarily follow the other. I reject the anti-intellectualism that's creeping in to this debate over recent months. You CAN express and explore Gn in theological terms without robbing it of its poetry and its moving power.
The myths won't go away if we choose to use precise language to teach them, and talk about them. Obviously the academic workout doesn't end the debate: we as Gnostics continue to celebrate and innovate and jam on these myths as we experience them directly. But we shouldn't be afraid of the odd catechism either.
I too reject anti-intellectualism. So, I agree that it is possible to express and explore Gnosticism in theological terms.
Your comment about precise language is getting closer to what I have been attempting to argue is the necessary prerequiste to any Gnostic theological education. Even the latest definitions you offered (to my rhetorical questions) are still broad and imprecise.
It is a tendency of our pluralistic age to correlate one religious concept with another, at the expense of the uniqueness of both concepts. For example, you list several religious concepts as correlations of the term gnosis as a way to define it. However, each one of those, aside from possibly "enlightenment", convey a unique religious idea that derives from the overall religious tradition it is embedded in. Yes, these concepts are similar (analogous), but they are also different. And, in theological education and discussion, such differences between concepts are extremely important.
I'm certainly not afraid of the "odd catechism." And, I have no problems with "jamming" on the myths of our tradition. But, doing theology requires precision and such precision will create boundaries and divisions. As an example, the "Bible College" movement has done more for the splintering of the Protestant churches (aside from the inane idea of Sola Scriptura) than it has done for ecumenism.
Are we willing to create boundaries and divisions? I think on some level they are unavoidable (and at times welcomed). But, I also think that such things are the natural consequence of the precision required in doing theology. I think history bears this fact out.
"Are we willing to create boundaries and divisions? I think on some level they are unavoidable (and at times welcomed). But, I also think that such things are the natural consequence of the precision required in doing theology. I think history bears this fact out."
Your points are excellent, as always, and I don't disagree. And yes, I'm willing to create boundaries: The EG is Gnostic; so-called-Gnostic internet Protestantism is not.
When you have such a broad base of common ground among Ecclesiastical Gn as a movement, I think it's okay to say that EG-EGM-EGA-EGCA-EGCH-AJC are Gnostic, and some instant-enlightenment-goo-roo-cult is not.
That's my stand. I may be wrong. I frequently am.
"When you have such a broad base of common ground among Ecclesiastical Gn as a movement, I think it's okay to say that EG-EGM-EGA-EGCA-EGCH-AJC are Gnostic, and some instant-enlightenment-goo-roo-cult is not."
No argument here. But, the sort of divisions and boundaries I had in mind shall or possibly shall occur within the ecclesia. As an example, I am reminded of the ongoing question regarding Thelema. There is a reason why you have to list several abbreviations. Each one has its own focal point and emphasizes different aspects of the overall tradition. If this wasn't so, then we would have one church and not several.
So, in the end, the issues I raised come from a concern for Gnostic communion. I think the first priority should be establishing a strong fellowship and communion. With that in place, I think the necessary network would exist to then begin to construct resources for those persons who wanted a more academic (though hopefully the focus would be on praxis) experience.
Understanding that we have words which are not exactly what they represent is an important breakthrough that Nietzsche pointed out, however, being convinced that we are not what we say we are based simply on the limitation of words is a logical fallacy. Don't confuse the symbol for the actuality. Perceived reality is real, but not the only reality.
funny and sad this is the first site that came up when I searched "gnostic college". i'd love to study at a school that speaks of actual divine experience, and unifies the teachings of all religions. ain soph aur is enlightenment, magick is hinduism, the aztecs celebrated christmas, christ is consciousness, and there are so many better books to read than the bible!
Post a Comment