Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Gnostic Christianity
Message-ID: <2394@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 13:05:34 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.2394
Posted: Thu Nov 29 13:05:34 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 19:21:02 EST
References: <329@stcvax.UUCP> 
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Distribution: net.religion
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 121
Summary: 

In article  marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) writes:
>> Lately a friend of mine at work (who is a Gnostic Christian) has been 
>> talking to me about his religion and I have been truely fascinated.
>
>Could somebody explain what the Gnostic church is?  (The only thing that
>comes to mind is 'agnostic' -- are these Christians who aren't really
>sure of their beliefs?)
>

It's hard to make generalizations about Gnosticism, there are many
different flavors.  Gnosticism is alive and well, thank you, though
many who practice it do not call it by that name.  Mormons and
Christian Scientists (at the risk of offending some) have a strong
intellectual base in the Gnostic faith though they don't claim it and,
in fact, were founded well before the discovery of the major Gnostic
texts.

What follows is an elucidation of my own particular understanding of
Gnostic Christianity.  I speak for no one but myself, so it may differ
from others.  As the Gnosticism proceeds from the point of inner 
knowledge ("gnosis" -- agnostic means 'not knowing') there is a tendency
to develop one's own theology along common points of faith.

Fundamental to the Gnostic faith is the assertion of the spiritual
nature of Christ and of man.  G-d made man "in His image," thus man in
the realization of his true spiritual nature transcends the flesh which
is (literally) a temporal incarnation.  Jesus came/was sent to show us
the path to G-d, not through a set of rules and regulations for sal-
vation, but through demonstration -- through acts, through works and 
ultimately through spiritual resurrection.

The nature of the Resurrection was a point of strong division between
the Apostolic and Gnostic Christians.  The Apostolics believed (as
many do) that the resurrection was a literal resurrection of the flesh.
Gnostics believe that the resurrection was of the spirit.  This duality
is best exemplified in (I believe) "The Gospel of James," a Gnostic
text wherein Jesus appears to James *during the crucifixion* to declare
that what is being done "is not being done to me."  There is contained
the image of the crucified Jesus and above -- the spiritual Christ
laughing.  The early Roman Bishops considered this notion heretical,
as many would today.

Gnostics believe, also, that if all men and women are of divine nature,
then all men and women are equal.  Historically, there is no authority
structure in the Gnostic faith.  The various authority roles are 
selected by lot or democratic election (as with Christian Scientists
today.)  Many Gnostics believe Mary Magdelene to be the first witness
to the resurrection and thus the inheritor of the apostolic vacancy
ultimately given to Matthias.  (The political battle for control of
the early Christian Church between the Apostolics and the Gnostic 
sects is covered extensively in Elaine Paget's "The Gnostic Gospels"
a good source work for modern Gnosticism.)  It is a fairly strong
point of common belief among Gnostics that the christian faith was
led away from its true nature by the early christian fathers.

In line with this is the Gnostic notion of the Trinity not as the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but as the Father, the
Mother and the Son -- the divine reflection of the earthly family.
The Father, in this scenario, is the unnameable perfection.  "He
has no name for there was none to give Him one."  He exists, has
always existed and will always exist as (my own belief) the organizing
principle of the universe.  The Mother, 'the great Silence,' the
Sophia ("Wisdom") is the creative principle -- the Truth that is apparent.
The Child is us.  Mankind -- the spiritual offspring of the G-dhead.

There is another character in this theological playlet, the Demiurge
("Creator.")  The Demiurge is a *strong* point of division between
traditional Gnostic theology and more mainstream faith.  Essentially,
before all things (as we know them) began, the Creative Impulse
for need of something to create spawned a being/idea which (for
want of a better term) I'll call an Angel.  While of divine origin
this Angel was not omniscient or omnipresent and was unaware of it's
nature and origin (as are we.)  In a better job of it, all that we
know was brought to being *through* the Demiurge by the Male and
Female principles, again with its being unaware.

The Demiurge, being unaware, thought it was alone -- in charge of
the Universe.  As such, it endeavored to limit mankind in its
realization of spirituality (Genesis) and to make all manner of rules
to insure its place in control of ever-presumptive humanity.  (To
refer to the standard Gnostic statement:  "The Lord thy G-d is a
jealous G-d."  Jealous of whom?  Who else is/was there?  Only humanity.)

Ultimately, the Demiurge became aware of it's true nature and was mortified.
This, to Gnostics, marks the transition between the Old Testament and New
Testament G-d.  Did the Demiurge become the Christ?  Was it thrown down to
become Satan?  Are both of these aspects of the same?  There are strong
dividing points, even among Gnostics on these issues.

For us, how to we apprehend the Deity and our own nature?  Gnostics believe
that it begins with self-knowlege and understanding.  There is a lovely
Coptic text which I don't have at hand which asks not how is it possible
to apprehend G-d, but how is it possible to *not* apprehend G-d.  G-d
is evident in all things, most certainly in ourselves if we allow that
knowledge.  It is the greatest sin to be blind to oneself and one's own
nature.

How much of the above do *I* believe?  That is unclear to me.  I find
I put great faith in the Truth of spirituality and the temporal nature
of that which we call reality.  I regard the whole business of the Demiurge
to be an allegorical tale of the necessary transition from rule-laden
existence to the enlightenment and freedom inherent in self-knowledge.
I certainly believe in Christ as "The Way," but by example rather than
the relative complexities of Pauline theology.  One takes on the mantle
of Christ by emulating and at the same time struggling to apprehend G-d
in oneself.  That is the way to atone for one's transgressions, no other
person or being can do it for you.

I have no idea how more mainstream Christians regard Gnostics, though 
I expect I'll find out :-)  Before folks flame at me, or write me lovely
letters about my eternal soul and its disposition, let me say that
I've seriously considered the more mainstream path and cannot find it
within myself to accept it.  The notions are much to alien to me to
become part of my world view.  Likewise this is not an effort to convince
anyone, but only an exposition of my own faith.  I'm not foolish enough
to believe I can convince anyone of anything in this forum, and wouldn't
try it even if I could.  
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch