A friend just recently gave me a nudge (in the form of a magazine article) which has pushed me onto a path of learning about Gnosticism. Not a subject I've encountered often before, but rather rewarding in an arcane sort of way. It seems to be like Christianity cross-pollinated with Eastern mysticism, and that is a mix I like.
Anyway, my primer for now is a slim book about the Gnostic Gospels, discovered around the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls but, it seems, somewhat less notorious. This book teases out apparent differences between what would become orthodox Christianity (with a small "o") and the original variations which would come to be called heresy, as shown by these manuscripts which were hidden by someone before they could be destroyed by those with power in the steadily-more-established church.
What appears to crop up repeatedly is the way rival doctrines stand or fall not because of their inherent merit - what is more influential is the difference adherence to particular doctrines makes to the structure of society. As an example, the author of this book makes the case that the literalness of Christ's rising from the dead was a necessary belief because it was from the contact with the ex-dead man that the original disciples had their authority. There would have been no credible leadership for Christians with Christ gone, had he not returned to proclaim living men the means of continuing the faith. So alternative versions of the doctrine which said that the resurrection should be understood more subtly, were also subtly undermining the leadership of the church by putting the whole of humanity on the same footing: that of spiritual-only contact, not handed-down direct physical instruction. Weakening the leadership could not be allowed, and so alternative doctrines were stamped out with as much force as was needed.
I find this interesting, because the natural tendency when looking at this with modern eyes is to be cynical. The leadership shore up their own position, and power maintains the status quo which suits it. The author is careful to point out in this book that such assumptions are careless.
Anyone spot the parallels with brethrenism? How often does the outside observer look at a typical brethren "turning of a corner", or even an established brethren belief, and think "Oh, that's very convenient for them"? Yes indeed, but it may not look cynical from the inside, and I'd say it usually doesn't.
The point is that such things are the result of a whole world-view. The leadership of the ancient church thought, of course, that they had it right. The structure of the church was, as they thought, modelled on the natural inherent order of life as ordained and blessed by God. Had they thought otherwise, why would they have risen to the top of it? It suited the way they thought, and the fact that it had worked well for them personally surely didn't feed any doubts about it. And so, no doubt, they felt compelled to defend that "truth" - the fact that they were at the same time defending themselves, boosting themselves, was merely a happy side-effect, proof, if anything, that they were on God's side.
So be careful assuming that a religious man with a message increasing his own power is a hypocrite. He may be, but it's more likely he's fooling himself first. Look for the patterns of belief the message implies, and you're more likely to find ammunition there than in cynicism.
3 comments:
As religions go, an unusual and attractive aspect of Gnosticism is that it does not look like a method of wielding authoritative control over the masses, at least as far as we can gather from the few Gnostic writings that have survived. Most religions are capable of being used in that way, which is perhaps partly why they survived, but Gnosticism emphasises the importance of individual spiritual experience, which is not something that a prophet or priest can easily dictate.
However, one aspect of Gnosticism that doesn't appeal to me is that it seems rather esoteric, a religion for those with privileged secret knowledge, in that way rather like Exclusive Brethrenism. It seems to lack the spirit of inclusiveness and universalism that was expressed in the ministry of Jesus and of Paul.
I'm not thinking of becoming an adherent, I'm just interested, and parts of it are appealing. If I get as far as writing about an exclusive sect of some kind in fictional form I think this kind of doctrine could make a very good base for the very reason you mention, Ian. I wouldn't want to base it too much on my own experience or it would stop being fiction.
I do like your conclusion which I take to be that it's often self-delusion rather than hypocrisy which lies behind some EB thoughts and actions. But the relationship between the two must be close. Most likely a continuum.
Post a Comment