Yesterday was Restoration Day; the 106th anniversary of the founding of the Gnostic Church from which all modern Apostolic Gnostic Churches derive. – the EGA, the EGCA, the EG, the EGM, the AJC, all of us. Having spent part of the day in meditation and prayer, the day filled me with no little sadness.
I have always promised my readers here the good, the bad, and the ugly: Time to take a look at the seedy underbelly of the Restoration. There are some very real flaws in contemporary Gnosticism, and here they are as I understand them.
1) Smartypants
People want to be moved by poetry, not convinced by theology. Google Gnosticism, and you will be overwhelmed by polemics and posturing. Too many of the voices in Gnosticism are pale-cast apologists, not poets. The idea that our experience as Gnostics is above all argumentative is driven by a desire to "logic away" paradox; there is a real fear for some of the seeming contradictions in Gnostic scripture.
This makes a poverty of the riches of divergent currents. Gnosticism has always been and must be embracing of multiplicity: to gaze into the gem is to perceive reflection and refraction. Please, no more manifestos. I'm not talking about valid academic research and exploration, I'm talking about parochial posturing in order to make others feel inferior.
So let us make art instead of arguments. Let us share the cup of the eucharist and the distinctions of "Sethian" and "Valentinian" be damned. I don't care how smart you are, and neither do those seekers encountering Gnosticism for the first time. We care about how much you can love, about how much beauty you can stand.
2) Authority is Cheap
When the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States was elected, one of the very real concerns was that she had spent only a dozen years as a priest before her consecration as bishop. The great idiocy of the Indie Cath movement is that I could get myself all bishoped inside of a week, make a miter out of cardboard and I'm off to the races. Now there certainly have been legitimate reasons to radically expedite one's Major Orders; history is full of 15 year old Popes etc. But such velocity should be rare, whereas here there is rarely season to one's formation. It's too easy, and that cheapens it. I know of a priest who talked himself into ordination by a bishop with whom he had no prior contact, and never saw that bishop again (the bishop regrets the ordination). A little over a year later, that priest is now a bishop himself. To what end? What urgent work needed to be done here? For this person, as for many in Independent Catholicism, it's just another merit badge – without the merit.
3) It's Ugly
When we have such a gorgeous visual heritage on which to draw – the Symbolists, Art Nouveau and the rich Gothic tradition – looking at a church site or brochure should be like stepping into Lothlorien, instead of the crammed garage sales or hospital smoking lounges the experience usually evokes.
4) Paranoia
The part of the problem with being convinced that God is an evil parking-ticket-dispensing elf, out to make sure you never find out who you truly are is... well, just explain that to your therapist.
5) Baggage
Recently Bishop A declared his tiny little church the One, True, Right and Only Gnostic Church Ever. Actually he did this a while ago, even when he was part of Bishop B's church, but Bishop B doesn't go online much. So Bishop B's in a snit and calls Bishop C to grumble so they send a vaguely snotty e-mail to Bishop D who is in a totally unrelated church except that Bishop D took over from Bishop E who was one of the people ultimately responsible for Bishop A (along with C and B, although A denies E's existence despite photographic evidence). Little can be done except for Bishop D to sigh deeply. I am not making this up. But I really, really wish I was. It's always prom-bitch day at Gnostic High.
In the meantime, the people in the pews want – actually are quite rightly demanding – one coherent Gnostic Communion. And you know what? They deserve it. Visiting clergy, recognition of orders, concelebrations, professional development for clergy and church staff. The people whom these churches are committed to serving deserve nothing less than the immediate recognition by all Apostolic Gnostic churches of one another for the ministering of the sacraments. I don't care about the history of the egos and who said what to whom: denial of this recognition is an insult to the tradition which unites us. It's two fleas arguing over the dog they live on.
So where the hell is the College? The only mechanism we have in place for such a declaration is the North American College of Gnostic Bishops, which represent about a third of all Gnostic denominations including the largest, the AJC, but not the second largest (and clearly most established), the EG. The College has the ability, and therefore the responsibility, to address this very real and very limiting problem. A unilateral declaration of recognition of all Apostolic Gnostic Churches would demonstrate a maturity so desperately wanting in this debate. I reject the idea that this should take a year to do (despite the organization's butt-dragging history); I think the work of the College is the single most important thing that any of its member bishops have going on, even that of their own denominations. Why not draw up such a declaration by, say, All Saints? With everybody's seals on it. The All Saints Accord. It takes maybe two e-mails and a conference call. The College owes us this. It'd be historic and should embarrass non-members into serving their congregations accordingly. How dare the bishops deny our right and responsibility to learn from one another, to celebrate the gifts of the Holy Sophia together?
We are a part of the One, Holy, Gnostic, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It's past time we remembered that, and started acting like it.
Now I balance this little temper tantrum with the unspoiled nobility of the dozen or so people who showed up to Mass on Sunday; their aspirations, their integrity, the authenticity of their experience of the eucharist and their hunger for gnosis. I am profoundly encouraged that Bishop +Rosamonde has acquired a new church building and this week received permits for renovations, with a winter blessing to follow. I know in my heart that there is something worthy in our efforts and in our ideals, and I am unshakeable in my conviction that while these problems may accompany us on our journey forward, we proceed nonetheless.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Unless the AJC has some hidden parishes somewhere, I don't think it's the largest. ;)
It seems the issue of speedy ordination goes hand in hand with issues of communion. It is hard to recognize that someone from another tradition can serve as a priest in your parish when they didn't complete a remotely similar formation process. The EG and some other Apostolic Gnostic churches follow the seven year formation model, whereas others follow a much shorter route, or as you pointed out, no route at all. And that is just formation as clergy, and is in addition to issues of Gnosis.
These are just some of the issues involved, that will require a great deal of ground-work. After all, the laying on of hands is what it is about, then why not attend mainstream churches? Rather we must do the work to study formation, and develop a common model.
That is one of the directions the Gnosis Institute is working towards. The way past politics is to reality. Yet that is a lot of work that is never done, and it isn't sexy. But, I think it has to be done first. I know the idea has been and will be shot down again. Yet, the work will continue.
Msgr. Jordan, you have a way of lighting a fire under me and inspiring me to the point where I feel completely helpless to influence any of this. ;-)
I only hope that will change one day.
- Joe
Curiosly, we do have hidden parishes. I was just counting warm bodies. Whichever, there are few enough as it is.
And yes, differences in Formation: we use a similar four year model to the Anglican and Catholic churches, you guys use seven, and some "draw Pokey" on a matchbook (or am I hopelessly dating myself?). But at the core of it yes I would argue it *is* the episcopal high five *in conjunction with* praxis and education. But the parishioners don't care: they want us all to get our poop in a group and shuttle clergy around and learn from each other: they want to take communion at the Gnearest Gnostic Gnexus and just roll with subtle differences in liturgy (and while we can split hairs all day, most of the people in the pews don't notice and don't care about them).
Are we serving our ecclesiology or our parishioners? And to what degree are we willing to bend one for the other?
And yes, this is where I see tremendous value in what the Institute can be - a forum for these very questions. But if we can't start by saying "hey, dudes, we all come from one church, we're related, and if we recognize our own apostolicity we have to recognize yours" we don't stand much of a chance for dialogue, in my opinion.
We ARE children of a common mother; Sophia. Likewise our Churches are branches of one Ekklesia, even if we don't care for the taste of the fruit on the next branch over, we need to recognize our kinship.
Jordan, you're inspiring. If there's anything at all "Bishop E" can do (and maybe it's just to stay gone?) let me know.
The All Saints Accord sounds like *exactly* what I had in mind for the NACGB, and I would love to see it become a reality, even if from a distance.
Line up butts and start kicking.
"We care about how much you love, about how much beauty you can stand".
My sentiments exactly. I'd like to see more heart in gnosticism and less arguments about theology. And for myself, I am grateful to the EG that we do have a seven year formation model. Let's face it, becoming a priest or even joining the holy orders is difficult. There's a lot of shedding of the ego and growing under intense pressure.
Thanks for your post Jordan+
1) I think we need *more* manifestos, not less. I think the Church Universal is a Universe of Churches, each individual Gnostic contributing the best way he or she knows how. If part of this contribution is polemics and posturing, then I say let's do it. Otherwise, I agree that art is more important than theology-- BUT-- I also think that Gnosticism has always been a philosophical, intellectual discipline and I don't think there's any reason to toss the baby with the bathwater. Gnostics are awesome at figuring stuff out, including theology, so if it's something an individual is interested in discussing, why try to stifle it?
2) I also think that most Gnostics (myself included) don't really give a fig about issues of "Authority," or Apostolic Succession, etc. I think we're all Brothers and Sisters in the Logos and Sophia, but really, whom among us who isn't involved in formation is concerned with whether someone has gone through it too quickly? If someone feels called to formation and goes through her orders in two weeks and is a true servant of the Logos & Sophia, then what's the problem? On the other hand, many individuals who have gone all the way through Major Orders certainly have serious issues with how they exercise that Authority. If the Logos and Sophia come over a person and decide her to be a leader, or a priest, and she feels called to do so within the formal formation process, then bless her and her endeavours. If the Logos and Sophia come over a person and decide her to be a leader, or a priest, and she begins preaching on street corners and in cafes outside of the formal formation process, then bless her and her endeavours.
3) Without specific examples, this one's hard to agree or disagree with. But, we have to do the best with what we have, and getting something to look like "Lothlorien" is hideously expensive. If somebody has a church meeting planned and can only afford to make 50 black and white photocopies with hand-drawn art and lettering, that says far more than any kind of slick, high-production glossy that costs $1.60 a page to produce. We're a DIY religion-- always have been, and always will be. I say we celebrate that instead of trying to discourage it.
4) Yep, can't argue with this one at all.
5) I don't think your average, pew-sitting Gnostic (the ones I've met, anyhow) gives two hoots over whether Bishop A and Bishop C and Bishop D think this or that about one thing or the other. I think your average Gnostic is far more turned off by that kind of formal stodgy silliness. This is the kind of high-falutin' nonsense that makes people interested in Gnosticism think it's just the same damned organized religion nonsense instead of the true vehicle of the Logos and Sophia. Blah, blah, Bishop, Bishop-- it's still 75% silly men in silly hats who can't get around the concepts of simple civility and actually think that their congregants give three poops about their relationship with other traditions.
The recent ugliness to which Jordan refers really soured me on the whole "Baggage" issue-- it's all so freakin' stodgy and ego-driven and silly. Honestly, who here cares whether the College of Gnostic Bishops decide to recognize one another? What kind of ridiculous and insignificant nonsense.
Here's what I want to see:
-- I want to see reinterpreted Gnostic Scripture being read from the back of rusty pickup trucks in the tiniest towns in Northern Alabama.
-- I want to see Gnostic preachers driven to take up the Nag Hammadi texts and start sermonizing in one anothers' homes.
-- I want to see less focus on Apostolic Succession and more focus on charity and kindness.
-- I want to see a whole library full of manifestos and myths, all lovingly created
-- I want to see Gnostic lay contemplatives perform Agape feasts without worrying about whether Bishop Fitzgibbons and Lady Krebuknitz truly consider the communion valid.
I also want to see Gnostic Cathedrals, Gnostic buildings, and a huge explosion of growth within the EG, AJC, EGCA, etc. etc. etc. But, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with those of us outside of their auspices, with those of us who can't afford pretty robes or altar candles or glossy postcards, with those of us who like where we live and don't want to move someplace near a Gnostic church, with those of us who see the divine in mudboggin' and chicken farmin' as well as in paintings on cathedral ceilings.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
It would appear that in my pursuit of increased knowledge of things Gnostic I by cosmic accident stumbled on several islands of sanity in this community and miraculously avoided (and was unaware of) the acrimonious dogshit/foolishness to which you refer. In these appalling times I feel salvific gratitude that so many wise women and men are alive and their works so readily available. I have in mind, among many others, yourself, you, bro. Jeremy, you, bro. Troy. Steady as you go...
There are issues with Gnosticism today as well as much promise for the future. For as many references as there are in Gnostic texts to the seed, the unshakeable race, etc. - it is clear that the lineage is a spiritual lineage. We all know of all the efforts to deface Gnosticism and make it go away. There are "Gnostic" churches springing up everywhere: I have seen Gnostic gospels garbled and rewritten, I have seen all sorts of new syncretic traditions pop up. All these things do is actually pave a path into the future for even more confusion surrounding Gnosticism, as if there isn't enough already. This is why all churches are not the same, and the name Gnostic upon further examination does not apply. Many of those that call themselves Gnostic have not even read the NHL. There's the issue of picking and choosing and creating some kind of new agy mumbo jumbo. What doesn't help is this sudden pursuit to make money by watered down Gnostic ideas. What often is leftover is something that has been completely stripped of its essence and its potency.
Anonymous said:
Many of those that call themselves Gnostic have not even read the NHL.
Not to pick an argument, but does one neccesarily have to read the Nag Hammadi texts in order to call themselves "gnostic?" I mean, is it the practice, or the literature that makes one "gnostic?"
Careful, my friend. It is the pursuit of Gnosis that is important, not the specific steps along one's path.
- Joe
Go easy on me because I am new to Gnosticism as a religion. But I like what Jordan+ says at the end, that it's about love and how much you can stand. I don't think it's necessary to read _all_ the literature. And whether it's the NHL (go Leafs, go! ;-)) or specific Gnostic gospels, I think what is important is how whatever you read strikes and affects you that is important. How does it move you and fit in with your own gnosis? Does it inspire you to contemplate? Does it create new awarenesses? dream experiences? epiphanies? Does it allow new, often subtle creativity and change to enter your life? does it make you want to learn more? Does it make you want to 'enquire within?'
One of the things I wonder, is, outside of the sacrements, what are the 'spiritual exercises' of gnosticism? I mean, for the parishoners. Are there a set of simplified suggestion/examples for parishoners? (Dream jounals? Contemplation seeds? Mock ups? Soul travel?) Or are parishoners expected to develop all these things for themselves? Are there any 'yardsticks' (general) for folks to measure their own unfoldment, or is gnosis supposed to dawn from out of nowhere after a few years of attending services.
Again, I ask you to go easy on me. These are not critical questions, they are probing and sincere. The history of gnosticism is deeply facinating and educational. Yet, so much of the 'error' that gets focused on corecting seems to be the 'error of religion.' By that, I mean correcting the misconceptions of Christianity vs Gnosticism. That is often the 'truth' that is sought after. Yet, even if the whole truth, the _real_ story of Jesus and Mary and the Apostles and their precessors were told in unambiguous meaning, would that guarantee a drop of gnostic experience? I think it would still be like trying to squeeze a drop of rain out of an almanac.
History is just history, unless we stand Present in its Presence. What does it mean Now is the ultimate question. Gnosis can only occur 'now.'
So, I know this has rambled, and maybe strayed a bit from the intent of Jordan+'s post - but I do feel the passion and compassion that inspired it. It often seems like it comes down to a concern over survival. Will the church survive? As long as there are 2 or more gathered in ITS Presence, it will survive. It would be cool if there were programs developed for the parishoner that they could work with and talk about. Get 'jazzed' about. I could use all the Love I could stand. ;-)
Doug F.
I wrote a comment that I was going to post, but it grew mightly large. So, I decided to post it on my blog. I guess I had more to say than I thought.
Thanks
EC
One of the things I wonder, is, outside of the sacrements, what are the 'spiritual exercises' of gnosticism?
I think where the problem lies is that there are truly SO MANY different practices that no one thing is emphasized. Meditations, prayer recitals, public and private studies, mass, yoga, martial arts, etc. etc.
It all comes down to exploring your own mind/psyche. The search for truth usually leads you to the truth.
10 Gnostics are awesome at figuring stuff out, including theology, so if it's something an individual is interested in discussing, why try to stifle it?
I'm certainly not talking about actual academic research or even sincere amateur inquiry. I'm talking about the sophomoric sci-fi-quoting posturing that turns people off from the get-go. Way too many online-only "Gnostics" are knocking themselves out trying to see who can sound the most like Comic Store Guy from the Simpsons. They are uniformly loveless and pedantic. I'm suggesting these individuals read more, pray more, and type less. For a few years anyway.
2) I also think that most Gnostics (myself included) don't really give a fig about issues of "Authority," or Apostolic Succession, etc.
Well, this blog, like the modern religion it addresses, is about Traditional, Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical Gnosticism. There's certainly a gnosis-ism that, in it's inherent Protestantism, says it's legitimate to just roll your own "Gnostic" church, appoint yourself head of it, and get going. Gnosticism as I understand it is not about that and never has been. It's okay to say "what they are doing is not what we are doing" without it being a negative thing. If everyone wants to whip up a manifesto and declare themselves Grand Holy Hoo-Ha For Life, go for it: but that's not the subject of the religion of this blog.
The Gnostics I'm talking about care about the actions (and inactions) of the bishops a great deal, and want them to get their act together. "Most Gnostics" do in fact want a valid clergy, regularly scheduled local sacraments, and a proven structure there to serve them. And they deserve it.
3) "Lothlorien" is hideously expensive.
Of course not. It requires taste. It costs no more to produce something beautifully than horribly. No excuse for poor typesetting, dithered graphics and eye-gouging colours.
5) Who here cares whether the College of Gnostic Bishops decide to recognize one another? What kind of ridiculous and insignificant nonsense.
To clarify, the NACGB bishops do already recognize each other. But I'm saying they SHOULD formally recognize NON-NACGB bishops, their clergy, and their parishioners. Such an accord reminds all of us who consider themselves part of the Restoration that we all come from one common event; the apparition of the Holy Sophia to Doinel in 1889 (and to another, the bestowing of apostolic authority to those churches in 1913). Drawing the myriad threads of the Gnostic Church together may be for some "ridiculous and insignificant nonsense"; for me it is a healing and a logical way to pool resources to address common problems and serve the people we're here to serve.
http://eighthsermon.blogspot.com/2006/09/5-responses-to-criticism.html
Hey, the comments here are getting longer than the post, but I would like to offer some thoughts as a total newby to Gnosticism, without commenting too much on the other comments, or restating something that has already been said.
1.) I have been hanging out with cute Mormon girls lately, so I have been trying not to be a cad. I don't agree with a lot of their stuff maybe, but I am surprised at how much I do. It's my job to offer personal information, not hawk an ideology.
Does it really matter? For some it does, and it used to for me, but maybe I've matured a little.
Point is, being right, and making sure everyone else acknowledges it, is not worth the enemies you make.
2.) Authority. As an anarchist, I tend to not like this word at all, and my travels in the very many churches within Protestantism, and especially within legaistic and conservative churches, make me pretty gun-shy of anyone telling me what to do, especially fat old blokes in suits.
That said, I have no trouble with apostolic secession. I realized at mass (my first) the other week that your authority, Jordan+ is the legitmacy to perform the magic, not the authority to tell me what to do. What I need to do is my own responsibility, and I can't relinquish that to anyone (as you said at our first meeting). I don't mind someone lovingly pointing me in the right direction,who has been there before, however.
The authority you have I respect because of who you are--I respect your years of study, experience, passion, wisdom, and clarity of thought, and am honoured to have you as my priest, even if "priest" makes you sound way up there and me down here.
"Most Gnostics" do in fact want a valid clergy, regularly scheduled local sacraments, and a proven structure there to serve them. And they deserve it." Yeah!
I am blissfully unaware of all the 1.) internet posturing 2.) psueodo-clerical posturing that has been going on. I found out about gnosticism through your Victoria News article and have been immersing myself in Freke/ Gandy, The Da Vinci Prayerbook, The Gnostic Bible, Rumi, Merton....
Beauty?? Bring it on. It's my job to stand it. I'm a poet. But damned if I wasn't moved to tears when you recited "The Falconress Prayer" at Mass. That is almost more beauty than I can stand!!
3.) Yeah, you can't have too much good web design, I know. I am working on becoming a better designer, myself. Maybe those custom graphics DO cost a bit more--I gotta learn Illustrator! If this is the "artists' religion", then ugly is so over. We got no excuses.
4.)Hell, I have not told you about my ongoing vendetta with the fat/ happy archons at Canada Post yet. ;)
5.) Wow, I was hoping this sort of shit didn't exist in this wonderful new ancient faith I recently discouvered. Almost sounds like some bible-belt sectarian cult thing--big egos and unilateral declarations of exclusivity.
Well, even if all the other parishioners here in Vickyville are 2X my age, at least they seem like a peaceful, seeking lot....
And the priest is refreshingly self-effacing.
EG, AJC, EGM, NACGB, XYZ, WTF?!?! My parents and siblings are ultra-conservative Mennonites, and I hang out with gay buddists, evangelicals, Mormons, and Muslims (where-ever I can find 'em), so what is all this about?? Yeah, Father, I gotta agree with you there. Let's get it together here people.... I've seen--and started--enough spitting matches in my past life in Christian churches to know that it just ain't worth it.
Peace to all,
Colin
One of the things I wonder, is, outside of the sacrements, what are the 'spiritual exercises' of gnosticism?
From what I can tell, there are none. I've spent a lot of time looking at writings of modern "gnostics" and especially churches, and it seems to me that they offer nothing here. And I suspect it's because they are not actually serious about awakening/gnosis (one of the main reasons I gave up on all this stuff) as opposed to sacramental rituals (which certainly have their place, but are not the meat of the dish IMO).
I'm not going to win any friends here, but it's clear to me after a lot of searching that the gnostic churches today have very little to do with the SPIRIT (as opposed to the forms) of ancient gnosticism. I mean, come on, wanting to put a stopper on the creativity of gnostic newbies? While you're at it, why don't you just gather up all the extant translations and manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi codices and bury them in the desert again? Those ancient manifestos are just ego-driven ramblings that make Gnosticism look bad and not respectable to society (HA!). At this point you're just a few short steps from heresy hunting.
I'm sure I'll get accused of trying to claw at the venerable edifice of church gnosticism that so many have put their hard work into building up. After all, who am I to criticize when I haven't put the work into building it up myself? The answer is, someone who has absolutely no illusions that a cassock = gnosis, that building a community is somehow going to wake me up. Ecclesiastical "gnosticism" would be more aptly called New Age Catholicism.
Piece out yall,
Joe Chip
"I mean, come on, wanting to put a stopper on the creativity of gnostic newbies?"
Straw man. Who wants to do this? I've said we have a problem with some attitudes which insist on belittling others for the purposes of ego-gratification. I see this as a real problem. You may not. But it has nothing to do with stopping creativity either way.
"no illusions that a cassock = gnosis, that building a community is somehow going to wake me up."
Straw man. Nobody says cassock = gnosis. Nobody.
And building a community won't wake you up, but it can grow your heart and create a nest in which gnosis may deepen and heal.
I say this about once a week: GNOSTICISM DOES NOT LEAD TO GNOSIS and is not meant to. Gnosis happens, and what are you going to do about it? Where are you going to put that experience? How are you going to let it inform your life and lend its meaning to your community?
Go burn down your own house, Joe. We're still building ours.
I've spent a lot of time looking at writings of modern "gnostics" and especially churches, and it seems to me that they offer nothing here.
Do you propose a 12-step program? How do we know that what works for me will work for you? You can't just hand someone gnosis, nor can you just shake it out of someone.
And I suspect it's because they are not actually serious about awakening/gnosis (one of the main reasons I gave up on all this stuff)
Impatience. Why give up so easily?
I mean, come on, wanting to put a stopper on the creativity of gnostic newbies?
Funny. I read the post as "So let us make art instead of arguments." Maybe *I* read it wrong.
I'm sure I'll get accused of trying to claw at the venerable edifice of church gnosticism that so many have put their hard work into building up.
Well, yeah. Aren't you? Seems your problem is that the church didn't help you, or that you didn't let it. Why attack it? Joe, your comment seems more like an attack against Ecclesia in general than against Gnostic ecclesia.
This whole thread is missing the mark. Maybe, instead of wondering why the universe is, and the daily maneuverings of the Demiurge, and Gnostic organizational politcs, let's concentrate on making ourselves better human beings. My god, a little bit of humble self-reflecting would go a long way!
Michael the purpose of this post IS about humble self reflection, collectively.
Sigh.
I wrote a long reply addressing specific points but it got lost and I don't feel like writing again. So I'll just say these few things.
Here's a big criticism of modern "Gnosticism:" Everytime someone offers a big criticism, modern "Gnostics" get on the defensive and say people are trying to burn their house down. I've never met a group of people so interested in stirring up arguments and then so suddenly averse to the friction this causes. Why do you think some internet asshole like Joe Chip playing devil's advocate and trying to light a fire under your asses (to borrow a phrase from another commenter) has the intention of burning your chuch down? You do what you want, I will do what I want. And maybe sometimes I'll drop by to be a dick. Just for the fun of it. Because I want to. Trust me, it's good for you.
For the record, I never gave up on the Work, I only gave up on "Gnosticism." And my beef is not with Ecclesia in general, but Ecclesia when its clergy starts to get heavy-handed and wanting to define the boundaries of the movement for everyone else (in general). (And the specific example of bickering "Gnostic" ecclesiasticals today.) I see this constant groping for boundaries as just an example of second-circuit territoriality gone out of control, a desperate need to establish tribal identity and use flimsy rationalizations for these wholly arbitrary divisions.
I am a gnostic (small-g). I think your church is stupid (for me, personally). You appear to believe that those statements are somehow contradictory. I think that's stupid, too (not just for me, but stupid, period).
My main criticism of the Gnostic churches' lack of instruction in the Work is that other paths (Buddhism, yoga, that Eastern Orthodox tradition I forget the name of that means something like "self-emptying," Hermetic magick, innumerable shamanic traditions, etc.) offer clear techniques for how to get there. 'Modern Gnostics' seem to believe that you can get from here to there without a map and some instructions, but in my experience that's just ludicrous. That's why I'm left with the impression that it's not serious.
As for the "straw man" accusations, sure it looks that way when you take my rhetoric out of the context of the argument. And asking the noobs to stop writing manifestoes is, in my opinion, stoppering their creativity. You happen not to like their sci-fi aesthetic. Why not recognize it as a difference in taste and leave it at that, without believing (absurdly) that your art nouveau preference is somehow 'better' than theirs? For god's sake, practically everyone knows that one preference cannot be objectively better than another--except hipster music snobs, but that's another story. Your rants and manifestoes are every bit as ego-driven as those of the pulpy sci-fi geeks that offend you.
Ok I'm done now. Enjoy waiting.
Josephus Chippus
I was annoyed by this essay too when I first read it but it took a bit of picking around in my own skull to figure out why.
The Essay is called "5 criticisms of Modern Gnosticism" but really its all about political and organizational and public relations issues within one specific group - the Ecclesia Gnostica.
In a very similar way I get a kind of cognitive dissonance when Wiccans post online articles with titles like "5 Problems with modern Witchcraft"
Since small groups of north american "Wiccans" don't actually speak for the hundreds of cultures around the world who have been practicing shamanism and sorcery for thousands of years, what they should probably really call their essay is "5 Problems with the The Coven of Diana, LLC."
Max, not trying to be contrary, just making an observation
OTOH, It may be more like when the Rev. Jerry Falwell gives speeches on "5 problems with the Church Today".
Everyone understands - it is implicit - that he is not talking about the entire church worldwide, what he means is his own congregation and those linked to it. He is not speaking to or on behalf of peacenik nuns in South America he means other conservative evangelical megachurches in North America.
I wonder if these are just the sorts of miscommunications that arise with blogging
what we have here here is essentially the a conversation between members of an in-group, whcih is being read by outsiders
so those outsiders might not have the same assumptions as members of the in-group and so would not intepret a phrase such as "modern gnosticism" as a short hand reference to the mission of an particular organization but instead see it as an aggrandizing claim of some sort.
Max
Max - I'm NOT criticizing the Ecclesia Gnostica, I'm criticizing Ecclesiastical Gnosticism. If your thing isn't Apostolic and Traditional Gnosticism, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. I'm talking about big G Gnosicism, the religion, with clergy and rites and church rentals and people to support and inspire and care for and serve.
This blog doesn't speak to or for those groups who do not identify with the Restoration. You guys are welcome here as long as you play nice, but I've never been talking to you directly.
Amazing how some people are outraged that I'm talking about a religion to which they don't belong and for which they have only contempt.
Not talkin' bout you, Max, you're a mutant and we love you that way.
i think it all boils down to this: what did your face look like before you were blogged? criticising anybody for showing off their ego on a blog is an exercise in silliness-- the blog is pure ego, a place for the author to show off, and everybody with a blog is doing just that, myself included. it's jordan's blog, so it's his place to let it all hang out, right?
seriously, though, i think max is pretty much right on. jordan's blog is, and always has been, a place for him to discuss ecclesiastical gnosticism. his criticisms are levied at them, from within the community, and so those of us not directly involved can take 'em or leave 'em.
me, i'm more concerned with ministering to people who aren't in an organization, and my comments come from that perspective. jordan knows (i hope) how much i respect his opinion and the work he's doing, in spite of my decision to leave the churchy/stodgy set. ;) not my bag.
now, when people start saying that ecclesiastical gnosticism as it stands (cassocks candles and all) is the *ONLY* form Gnosticism can and should take, well, that's when i have a problem, 'cause i don't agree with that whatsoever (and neither, do i think, does jordan). and vice versa-- when people say that ecclesiastical gnosticism is no good for anyone and shouldn't be considered "true" gnosticism, that's utterly silly, too.
so yeah, random thoughts, but there you are.
You done made me break out my blogger account. I hope I can write something in response to the things being said here without just having it deleted. There's a whole lot of miscommunication going on. My issue is with drawing a line around the churchyard and saying "this is gnosticism" when it's much bigger than that and there are plenty of people (myself included) who self-identify as gnostic in some way but the church stuff doesn't do it for them. I mean, there are gnostic Thelemites, gnostic Weorites (is that a word), gnostic sci fi nerds, and jsut because you don't like their brand doesn't mean it isn't gnostic or even Gnostic. Again, that's my opinion, but I see this happening in the online gnostic "community" all the time where people are constantly trying to define gnosticism as being just their little group. It's so high-handed.
I never accused anyone of being an egotist for the sake of that alone; rather i was pointing out who it's hypocritical to go off on sci-fi quoting gnostics (I would also fall in that camp from time to time--if, of course, I am a gnostic at all, which may or may not be an point of contention for some (?)) for being ego-driven on a BLOG of all things, which, as jeremy pointed out, is just a big ego-soapbox.
My attention was drawn here, I saw some puffed-upness, and I decided I wanted to kick a few high horses. Tell me that's not good for all of us from time to time. I know mine got kicked a little bit when I realized I mistook the intent of the original post (though I still believe I make valid points).
That's it, I'm done. You can delete this if you want, though that would be lame.
and just because you don't like their brand doesn't mean it isn't gnostic or even Gnostic.
people are constantly trying to define gnosticism as being just their little group
From my perspective, there is Gnosticism, and then there are other ISMs, but you can't just label whatever you want "Gnosticism."
It's like me running around saying that Jesus is coming back on a space ship with Muhammad as the pilot...and then calling that "Catholicism." There's Gnosticism, and then there's not.
Consider yourself gnostic...cool. Don't chop down the Gnostic church because you don't see its purpose.
Max - I'm NOT criticizing the Ecclesia Gnostica, I'm criticizing Ecclesiastical Gnosticism.
------------
Sorry, my bad! There is a veritable minefield of acronyms associate with this quadrant of space that I've never quite been able to wrap my head around - but thats a pretty important distinction, sorry to imply otherwise.
-------------
If your thing isn't Apostolic and Traditional Gnosticism, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.
-------------
That's what confused me for a while about this blog, actually. I didn't realize this was a specific branch or brand...? And the people talking on it were basically talking shop...
The first gnostic I ever met was a liberal protestant pastor in Texas who basically just made the switch and saw his congregation drop in half.. that was in 97 or so... that was a very forward thinking act of courage and took some real commitment, maybe even deserves a big "G"
Well, anywho, I bet there are a lot of people out there who are similarly confused by this, can't keep track of the acronyms, maybe don't even realize that there is a lineage that claims apostolic descent and is distinct from (for example) the Gnostic Center... playing devil's advocate here a bit but hope you see what I mean.
WIth such an explosion of interest you guys must be really scrambling to get on top of the horse as it leaves the barn!
--------------
I'm talking about big G Gnosicism, the religion, with clergy and rites and church rentals and people to support and inspire and care for and serve.
--------------
Ah! That's a controversial statement to make methinks... OTOH...
The ATR board on alt.religion.orisha (haven't checked in in a while) was filled with smackdowns from inititaed priests who got frustrated trying to explain to people:
you can't just pick up a book and declare yourself a voodoo priest and start holding rituals... voudon is a real tradition with real energies behind it that respect or don't respect people who "claim" it... it has a real lineage that is not something to be taken lightly or masqueraded.
So I can identify to an extent (I think) with what you are trying to explain here.
--------------
This blog doesn't speak to or for those groups who do not identify with the Restoration.
--------------
Well, I could quibble and say "Really? Who says this 'Restoration' gets the big 'G'? Isn't it just one of many small g-s in a bigger G?
Like, the original gnosticism was never just one religion in the first place, right? It was dozens of religions that were all over the map in their myths, attitudes and practices so it really was an approach - small gs in a big G.
Carpocrates, Marcion, Basilides, Satorninos, Valentinus, Epiphanes, the Sethians, the Barbelites, the Ophites, the Naasenes, etc, ad nauseum...
But hey whatever, I gotta do the laundry or my wife'll kill me!
later, gator
Max
p.s. you also make me break out my blogger acct but hugs anyway m'man
P.P.S. "Consider yourself gnostic...cool. Don't chop down the Gnostic church because you don't see its purpose."
Maybe its just a generational thing (I'm 36) but I have a real problem with the word "the" in this context.
But if that's the biggest problem in my life right now then I guess that makes me pretty luckY!
FWIW, Joe, I think you have made some valid points, and I thank you for sharing a bold viewpoint to my question of 'what are the spiritual exercises of Gnosticism.' I sometimes feel like the 'noob-in-trouble' for having the nerve to ask some questions, and worse yet, to state some observations.
But it hasn't turned me off Gnosticism. I remain determined to blunder my way 'round til I find my rhythm and voice in the dialogue. Missing the intent of an initial post, mercifully, isn't an issue for me. Being able to ask whatever dumb-assed questions I need to get a handle on the dialogue, is.
Gnosis ain't all about poetry. Some of its about dumb-assed questions.
D.F.
D.F. - It's worth more than you think. When I was investigating this stuff, it got really frustrating whenever I or anyone else asked about the specific spiritual praxis of Gnosticism and were told that you need to "figure it out for yourself" or "do your own thing" or "gnosticism doesn't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to gnosticism." It flies in the face of countless traditions that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years which have developed spiritual technologies specifically for gnosis--and these technologies involve a lot of hard work and sweat and tears; they are not empty promises of tic-tac enlightenment. They are not, I repeat, NOT easy paths; the easy path is the cop out of saying you don't need systematic and hard WORK (it's not called the GREAT Work for nothing).
The issue, as I see it, is that modern Gnosticism of the über-Gnostic variety is such a young tradition that it doesn't have any techniques yet. Compounding the problem (again, as I see it) is that the members of this religion as a whole seem uninterested in developing such techniques. It seems counterintuitive, to me, that a religion exists with its stated goal as gnosis but it wouldn't offer any techniques for achieving gnosis--even though there are plenty of tried-and-true traditions out there that it could crib from if it wanted to. As such, I was left (at the end of my personal investigation) to conclude that Gnosticism had little to offer in this department and its adherents were more interested in theology and religious devotion of a psychic rather than a pneumatic variety, to borrow the terminology of the ancient gnostics.
This is not, as I have stated, intended as an attack on Gnosticism, but as food for thought, and possibly a challenge for Gnosticism to develop these techniques and to awaken. I chose an aggressive way of stating my criticisms (because I'm confrontational and tactless by nature) and was met with hostility and confusion... which leads to some more food for thought: why are modern Gnostics so defensive when confronted with strong disagreement?
Father Jordan,
I really don't want to flog this thing into the ground, anymore than we have. But I wonder if you would indulge another clarification. When you say "gnosticism doesn't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to gnosticism." are you really saying, "religion doesn't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to religion."
And just in case that leaves some traditions that don't consider themselves religions to feel left out, is it saying, "spirituality doesn't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to spirituality."
That's what I think you're saying, but it might be wishful thinking on my part, and I don't want to put words into your mouth.
One thing I have learned from experience, is that "good ethics don't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to good ethics."
Finally, I just feel like a quote - not to preach, but to contemplate. To settle me nerves and reflect on how to breathe out our principles again:
"Man does not know real freedom. His dogmas are set and imposed upon him from the outside; his religious beliefs become frozen over the centuries. They do not come from within, anymore. They belong to an outside world." Niranjan: The Tiger's Fang
Here's to the soothing thaw of the Sound Current.
D.F.
"That's what I think you're saying, but it might be wishful thinking on my part"
No, I think that's pretty good.
Perhaps the mainstream phrase would be:
"The Church doesn't lead to God, God leads to the Church."
Or, "Praxis doesn't lead to gnosis, gnosis leads to praxis."
Gnosis happens. It just does. Then what are you going to do about it? It happened to St. John of the Cross, and he struggled his whole life to explain this in the context of his Christianity. It never quite fit. It happened to Joan of Arc, and without having a framework or religious context to understand her experience, she went a tad nuts.
Gnosis happened to a bunch of Jews 2200 years ago, so they invented Gnosticism so that they and others in the future (us) could figure out what the hell just happened.
The key difference between Gnosticism and other religions is that Gnosticism was developed by people who had HAD the experience. They knew what fit, what made sense in the context of what had happened to them. So gnosis came first, then Gnosticism. That's what I've been talking about.
Dear Joe -
I've been an ass.
It was not appropriate to respond to your comments in anger as I have. Rather than answer your points I've responded ad hominem and from a place of temper, and I apologize. I do hope that you will find it within you to forgive me, but of course I understand as I have been discourteous with you. This is not why I have this blog, and I lost sight of that.
I am truly sorry.
Please understand that you are always welcome at my eucharistic table.
Yours in Holy Gnosis,
Father Jordan
Thank you for clarifying this Jordan. It really helps, and I appreciate it.
I have a great admiration for Gnosticsm and the 'gnostic movement' (if there is such a thing, and/or I'm allowed to coin such a phrase). I think (loosely) that the modern 'gnostic movement' is more fueled by the desire to reveal/discover the truth of Christianity, than the desire to uncover/discover the truth of religion as a whole. That's just a general impression, and I don't mean anything too controversial about it, although it might seem that way to some.
Gnosticism, on the other hand, seems to be about Gnosticism. In other words, it's not innately trying to be revolutionary, it's just striving to be what it is, and be recognized for that. As, I say, I have a great admiration for that, and for the Gnostic Church in general for real reasons which I can't get into at present.
I've been contemplating your response most of the day, and the most curious statement to me is:
"The key difference between Gnosticism and other religions is that Gnosticism was developed by people who had HAD the experience."
Now, I do notice you used the word 'developed' and not 'founded', but still I gotta wonder, who founded/developed all the other religions, chopped livah?
(I promised myself I wasn't going to use that line, but I couldn't resist ;-))
Didn't Buddha and his diciples have the experience? What about Christ, Muhammed? What about the Greek philosophers those Jews were contemplating? So, I still don't quite get what you mean, but I'm sure there's a story in here somewhere. Is it because so many of the ancient mystery schools were so secretive about their initiations, that little record exists about who had it, and who didn't in the area of gnosis?
I just find it curious. Yeah gnosis 'just happens.' It does. After lifetimes of preparation. We've all spent some time either in the bathhouses of Greece, or at the feet of some teacher. Persia, Babylon, Tibet, Africa, Sumeria, Turkey. Hoboken. (let's not forget Hoboken)
I dunno. Maybe Gnosticism holds the copyright on gnosis. But not on it's meaning.
The Community is large, my friend. N'est pas?
Doug :-)
First, I think one has to admit that Paul and not Jesus founded Christianity. Did Muhammed have gnosis? I haven't seen that. And your insights to the bath-houses of Hoboken are perhaps left to another blog.
;-)
I would most definitely disagree with the assertion that Gnosticism holds the copyright to gnosis; which can happen to anyone at anytime within and without any religion.
But a large Community? Hell yeah.
Pax,
J+
You might want to think this through. Generally world religions are based on one individual after that person has died; and the infrastructure and myths that eventually identify that religion were not in fact instigated by that central figure.
Also you seem to be making some kind of accusation here, while hiding behind humour, but I can't actually tell what that is. So perhaps, as other people are reading this, you could clarify your point?
Hi Jordan+
I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can. I deleted my post above because I realized I looked like an ass, which wasn't my intention. I've left an edited version of my last post below. I wasn't trying to hide an accusation behind humour, though I see now how it looked. Actually I am hiding behind a toothache (for real), and was trying to project humour beyond that pain. Pain and humour usually don't mix, and I realize I must've sounded like a jerk.
I'm not ducking your question, I just want to get it in the right words.
Caio,
Doug.
------------------------
Okay, so that's 2. I guess that constitutes all the other religions. ;-)
Well, I can think of a host of torchbearers down through
the ages who had gnosis. Some founded religions, others were less interested and let their diciples do it. Others were just great beakons who adopted an established religion and filled it with life and meaning.
Inspirations, all.
D.F.
Okay, the anbesol has subsided my toothache enough that I think I may even be able to be coherent.
Let me go back to the original statement that sparked my curiosity, for I think possibly it is there where my responses may have felt accusatory.
"The key difference between Gnosticism and other religions is that Gnosticism was developed by people who had HAD the experience."
I can agree (can't prove, but can agree) that Gnosticism was developed by people who had had the experience. What I can't agree with yet, is that the other religions (paths/philosophies/traditions/mystery schools etc) were developed by people who didn't. And that is the crux of my viewpoint, and by not explaining it succinctly, it appears that I have danced around it.
Now I may be using the term 'developed' too broadly, and now we seem to be debating whether or not religions were ever instigated by their central figures. No, you are quite right, most of the central figures never seemed interested in starting paths of their own. I would say, generally, most were interested in helping people who sought enlightenment, find it on the only path where it could be found - the one within.
Now many (dare I say the majority?) of these central figures often posed a great threat to society - ie the political/religious structure of society; those who sought to hold power/control over the masses - for they taught people how to be free and independent of the laws of the societal state. Never mind that they were also taught (often) how to live in harmony with the societal laws, the mere fact that people were learning to be less dependant on authority, was enough for the powers of state to feel threatened of their power being usurped. Okay, nothing new under the sun there, just painting the picture.
Now you make a very concise and interesting point when you say, "the infrastructure and myths that eventually identify that religion were not in fact instigated by that central figure."
Again. Agreed, for the most part. Though there are probably exceptions. But to me, that doesn't necessarily mean that the ones who had developed the infrastructure and myths that identified these religions had missed the point. (or were without gnosis themselves). In my view, its not like those left behind after the central figure had left, were without understanding, and therefore could only offer a dim pale reflection of what the cetral figure had taught them. It seems more to me like they developed the myths and the infrastructure as a veil - not to hide, but to encrypt, and keep them from being destroyed by the social/political forces that would always seek to eradicate them if they could.
So, this is basically where my viewpoint is coming from.
Now, I don't want to go into a long list of who I think had, and who didn't have gnosis. That would bore most people here, and probably myself included. ;-)
But I DO think they represent a BROAD spectrum of religion.
You may disagree, and I embrace the notion that you do. (if you do).
Disagreement is something to celebrate. Misunderstanding is not. Therefore I apologize for not making myself more understandable, when clearly I could have much earlier.
I'll blame it on The Tiger's Fang. (a joke - in reference to my toothache, and a book by Paul Twitchell which I quoted from earlier)
Pax,
DF
"Well, anywho, I bet there are a lot of people out there who are similarly confused by this, can't keep track of the acronyms, maybe don't even realize that there is a lineage that claims apostolic descent and is distinct from (for example) the Gnostic Center... playing devil's advocate here a bit but hope you see what I mean."
As someone who has become seriously interested in Gnosticism, I can testify to the confusion that all the acronyms cause. I don't have a clue who is fighting with who, or who recognizes who as valid, and I don't really care.
On the other hand, living in Utah, I look forward to attending Rev Troy's parish. :)
Thank you Jordan for your wonderful blog. I've learned so much and your words have touched me deeply.
Post a Comment