[DISCLAIMER: Very difficult to do this sort of thing without resorting to clichés, so bear in mind that most "orthodox" perspectives are extremely well reasoned by some of the greatest thinkers of Western Civilization over millennia and are not to be dismissed out of hand. This is merely a shorthand for pointing out some of the key differences between Gn interpretation and "traditional" interpretation.]
19 comments:
Jordan+, this is very helpful indeed. It effectively summarizes things in a really accessable way. And to further solidify my rep as a heretic, I am emailing this link to some people I know :)
Peace to you,
C
Fantastic; I love diagrams.
Cheerfully, RK
Great diagram - one nitpick. I wouldn't label the two sides "orthodoxy" and "Gnosticism," but rather "psychic worship" and "pneumatic worship." I know a handfull of orthodox practitioners who are well situated in the right-hand column, and Gnostics who can't get their brains away from literalism (left column).
I think it is quite useful provided the disclaimer accompanies it at all time. Quite good, in fact.
Though sparkwidget's point is well taken, I think the use of psychic/pnuematic worship would only confuse. Especially since psychic from the Greek actually means 'soulic' and I'm not sure that's whats going on in Orthodox C.
Now what I'd like to see is a similar diagram that maps it out over many other world religions. This is an old saw of mine, Jordie, so please don't take offence. All I ever seem to see is comparisons of Gn vs Orthodox Ch. I mean, 90 percent of the time it seems (keyword is 'seems' I think, but it is still something to acknowledge) as if that is the only comparison worth discussing, and if we would put ourselves in the shoes of non-Gnostics and non-Christians more often, we might want to ponder how that looks to the rest of seekers (and for want of a better phrase, 'experienced seekers or practitioners') at large.
Y'know what I mean, or do you think I'm just being rude, again? See, I just think to those practitioners of the Spirit who are not steeped in the Gn or Ch traditions that a cryptic phrase such as 'no bamboo in the garden' roughly translates to 'no blacks at this water fountain.' Okay, so I've exaggerated it to illustrate a point of view, it is in fact more subtle, but it doesn't always seem that way. Sometimes it seems like a dialogue stopper.
Anyway, sorry for meandering off the topic a bit there. I do find your diagram useful (with disclaimer), and would like to see similar kinds of things expanded out in a wider field. I do realize it would be much more difficult, since categorizing aspects of other traditions would no doubt draw some fire and challenge from those involved in those traditions, which would be expected since you haven't been steeped in them personally.
But the outcome of such challenges could prove enlightening.
Doug Friesen :-)
Doug - I think you're on to something, but can you give me an idea of what this would look like? I'm not really qualified to do a broad "comparitive religions" chart...
J
*lol* Dang, back in my court. To be honest, I haven't thought it out past the concept of having a comparative chart. I've seen a few similar types of charts that usually are more descriptive of the cosmologies of various traditions. Quite interesting in themselves, but the kind of diagram you've come up with is more 'interpretive of principles' - which I think is more to the heart than a mere comparison of cosmologies.
I shall contemplate it, though, and see if I can't discover some kind of sketch that might at least be useful as an exercise.
I appreciate your response quite a bit, though. Thanks!
Doug :-)
I think this is a useful shorthand overview. My only reservation concerns the "body" synopsys position for the Orthodox column. I was raised RC and was never taught that I was my body...I was taught that I had an immortal soul, that my body would one day die, but that my soul would live forever.
But come to think of it, I was also taught that eventually there would be a resurrection of the dead, and I would "get my body back again", so maybe the Orthodox position really can be described best with the "you are your body" description, because (so far as I know) the Gnostic view doesn't buy into the (corporeal)resurrection.
'
But come to think of it, I was also taught that eventually there would be a resurrection of the dead, and I would "get my body back again"
That's exactly to which I was referring, yeah.
Most helpful. I have tried a comparison of traditions too, focusing more on the Trinity. You can see here if you wish:-
http://christananda.blogspot.com/2006/10/russelljis-christian-gnostic-advaitic.html
Just thinkin' out loud because its so interesting... hmmmm
The body:
Orth C - you are the body
Gn - you are not the body
Certain Eastern Trads (elaborated at a later date) - you are soul
-----------------------
Soul:
Orth C - you _have_ an immortal soul
Gn - ??? (you are a spark of the Divine? or is it, you _have_ a spark of the Divine within you?)
Eastern Trads: - You do not _have_ a soul, for if you did it would be possible to lose it - you ARE soul. Soul 'has' (or can have) a mind, a body, various temporal sheaths.
-----------------------
Re-incarnation:
Orth C - Rejected except for the final ressurection of the dead.
Gn - Acknowledged, even accepted (I think), though not explored deeply in praxis. (as far as I can tell) I wonder if Gnostics see 'the ressurection of the dead' as a poetic symbol for re-incarnation.
Certain Eastern Trads - Accepted and explored quite deeply in certain practices.
-----------------------
Salvation:
Orth C. - faith
Gn - enlightenment
Eastern - spiritual liberation (jivan muhkti)
------------------------
Critical Value:
Orth C. - obedience
Gn - curiosity
Eastern - bold adventure (well... some are more passive)
------------------------
Just playing with the format a bit - risky business. ;-)
DF
Actually, let me put the charts and graphs aside a moment. (too fragmented for now).
This falls under the heading of Ask a Gnostic Priest:
Jordan, where _does_ re-incarnation fit in with Gnosticism? I haven't seen it discussed much - though I do seem to recall seeing it acknowledged in a few places. Is it part of the grand scheme in Gnosticism? If so, to what degree? Explored as myth, perhaps? (myth meant in a most positive sense) Or have I misunderstood, and its not really on the table, so to speak?
Curious,
Doug F
Hi Jordan,
Love your site as always - The diagram . . . .erm . . .well . . .no . . .sorry, it does not work.
My disclaimer (he he he) is: 1) I'm an Eastern Christian, and 2) I'm a good ole' fashioned OC/IC boy having declared my interest . . .
Platonism is an important element in "orthodox" or patristic Christianity. Yes, God is personal, and historic, which is a distinction between the two traditions - but platonism is important to both.
The boxes on "Christ" hmmm this one is tricky. Which school of classic gnosticism are you using for your base reference here? In any event, I would not say that "Christ" is external and exclusive in the "orthodox" sense - though it has become so in contemporary Christianity. We who are baptised are all Christs - and we are all one with Christ - sharing in what you would call the "divine spark" and striving toward theosis (enlightenment - but more than enlightenment). . . .does this make me a gnostic (he he he)?
Salvation - "faith" vs "enlightenment" sorry does not work, as I understand it - in the classical gnosticism of say Valentinian or Marcion, you must "realise" that you have the divine spark, in in that moment of realisation you still have to have faith that it is a true understanding. What is more - in the process of striving for theosis we must all "trust" (have faith) that voice/urging of the spirit - of Wisdom because in second guessing her we pay the price.
ORIGINAL SIN is a fallacious invention of the Roman Church. There are any number of theological problems with the Roman doctrine of "original sin" non of which match Patristic thinking.
Eve's mistake was to second guess Wisdom - to not see that she was being duped by the argument of the Serpent. The end result was a set back for enlightenment/theosis. With Christ, the problem is . . ."fixed" without infringing upon the central doctrine of free will (enquirey and curiosity) thus the constant patristic refrain: "Eve is healed".
Scripture . . .ugh. . ."Word of God" is so . . . very protestant. Look at, for example, St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation - I think it's book 5, or Proklos of Constantinople Homily 4, and you'll see Christian mythology - "orthodox" mythology at work and it's great stuff too! Poetry, Ephrem the Syrian, Psalms, and the tropars and kondaks of Romanos.
Scripture is best understood not as "the Word of God" but as a collection of reflection on our historical ancestors' response to God in their lives.
Source of Evil: sorry it's not Satan - a quick survey of historic patristic sources will show that indeed we share the same point of entry here - the source of Evil is ignorance, and through that ignorance utilising things that are in themselves good by nature, out of context.
Critical Value - not sure what your chart means here - "obedience" is the popular perception, but it is not true to the tradition. Curiosity, reason, discernment, but obedience . . .ugh.
Actually, it works extremely well the purpose is to fuel debate and challenge assumptions! Obviously this is extremely simplistic, but you cannot in fairness say that, for example, the idea of Original Sin is NOT an "orthodox" position, or that Satan is not responsible for evil in the orthodox view, *generally speaking*.
Don't "ugh" me, I know the difference between Protestant invention and the "historic faith". That being said it is in fact perfectly fair to characterize the orthodox perspective on Scripture as the "word of God" to contrast it with the Gnostic view. It's a chart, not a dissertation.
YES we can talk subtlety and nuance - and I hope to do so! - but does this demonstrate the gulf in interpretation between two distinct schools? I think it does so, and fairly. And disputing the core value of obedience in historic Christianity seems dishonest.
And didya READ the disclaimer?
I LOVE your blog, btw, and promise to never "ugh" you.
Hi Jordan,
first let me apologise I in no way intended to cause friction and it appears that I have.
the "ugh" was not aimed at you - it was . . .just "ugh" the reason being that "obedience" is one of those ideas in "orthodox" christianity that is over used, and abused - that is to say it is in my opinion indefensible. Christ taught us freedom of intellect, freedom to discern, and challenged us via many examples to approach each experience with an open mind, and an open heart.
I did read the disclaimer! I don't comment unless I have read a post at least twice - I can't stand it when people comment on blogs without having "read" what the author is saying - its simply dis-respectful.
You've said, in the disclaimer that you're aiming to point to key distinctions between the two traditions - no easy task to be sure.
My point I think was to say - that while recognising that it is not easy to create such a chart - and yes, it is as you say a chart and not a dissertation - that there is both a great deal of mis-understanding and a great deal of overlap between the two traditions making the task of said chart all the more difficult.
Does it fuel debate & challenge assumptions - yes - it made me sit & think that's for sure.
Sorry, I can in all fairness say that the Roman Doctrine of Original Sin is not strictly speaking orthodox. It is certainly not patristic, and even contemporary Eastern Orthodox scholarship takes issue with it.
I think here it is useful to distinguish between Eastern "orthodoxy" and Western "orthodoxy" their respective approaches to the theology of being human are quite different, and thus their respective response to the idea of Original Sin is different.
Subtlety & nuance - I'm all for it - there's not enough effort put into great conversation, exploration and re-evaluation in the indie movement let alone wider christianity, I find I enjoy reading your blog, and the blogs of other gnostic folk (both when I agree and when I disagree) because you're not afraid to do it and generally do it well!
Bravo & thank you!
If I were a bird,
And you were a fish,
What would we do... ?
Roger Miller ;-)
As a short-hand guide, I don’t find your chart too horribly objectionable, Jordan, even if it is brtually limited.
God section – good.
Christ section – good.
Salvation section - I have to agree with Alexis that there are some problems here. Are you defining what salvation is or what brings about salvation, or both? In either case, “Faith” falls flat on the orthodox side of the coin. “Theosis” is better, whether you intend to describe a process or a state (salvation being, according to canonical NT scripture to “become partakers of the divine nature” -2 Peter 1:4).
Humanity section - problematic. On the Gnostic side you want to define what we are (“sparks of the divine”) whereas on the Orthodox side you want to describe our condition. This seems an imparity, apart from any objections I may, and do, have to your reliance on an essentially Augustinian-Scholastic concept of Original Sin here. What we are according to an Orthodox position is freely-created freely-determined creatures beloved of our Creator. We languish in a state of alienation and brokenness brought about through sin.
Scripture section – curious. The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ. This is more commonly a Protestant designation for the scripture. From an Orthodox POV, scripture is inspired of God but this does not mean that it is always to be read literally, and God certain speaks in scripture through the use of poetry and myth as well as historical and personal witness.
Body section – good enough for government work, except that from the Orthodox side, though you are never fully you or fully realized without your body, you are not simply your body. In Genesis, it is the body and the breath of God (“spirit”) that makes Adam “a living soul” not merely one or the other. Minus either and we are broken: either not ourselves or not alive in the fashion appropriate to us. ---As an aside for the comments above, it’s worth mentioning that, technically, from an orthodox and Patristic side, we are not immortal spirits. We do not and cannot exist in ourselves, but are held in being at all times by the love of God.
Eve section – Yes, and No. It is allowable to read the story of the creation and the fall in non-literal terms in either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox orbits (the Fathers did both). It doesn’t much matter. We do say that it was her disobedience (coupled with Adam’s participation in it and shifting of the blame to her) that brought sin into the world, a disobedience reversed by the Second Eve’s (Mary’s) obedience. But “obedience” is a loaded word for a lot of people here, I know. What our first parents were disobedient to (and Mary obedient to) was not a pointless rule but the very love of God that would raise us up into spiritual maturity and freedom to share in the divine life. In their sin in the Garden, Adam and Eve are representative of our rebellion in wanting to become gods apart from God.
Source of evil section – I agree with Alexis that this is unsatisfactory, but I disagree that ignorance, simply stated, is acceptable on the orthodox side. The ignorance of a child, for example, is not a source of evil. Similarly the ignorance of mankind before the Fall is not culpable, but a condition of spiritual immaturity. And Satan is not an evil principle in orthodox terms. Nor is evil a thing (Satan), but rather evil is a lack. Described positively, evil is Pride, arrogance, alienation, rebellion. Described negatively, evil is lack of love, lack of humility, lack of trust. These are all much better terms to describe the whence of evil from an orthodox angle.
Critical value section – Pretty good, though I think humility might be somewhat preferrable.
I agree almost entirely with Ian. Thanks too for reminding me of a phrase related to the body & salvation - that as you say, without the body, the life and experiences of our created nature - the fullness of our personhood is not realised - and thus, theosis is not achieved. Just as it is God AND Man in Christ, it is the divine AND created in our own persons that empower.
Ian is also correct when he says that the immortality of our soul is contingent. Death in the patristic sense is the state of non-being, that is the moment when both the body and the spirit cease to exist.
I also agree with Ian that "obediance" is a loaded word - one that often carries much baggage in our contemporary society - thus, Jordan, my "ugh" that upset you so. He is also right when he says that "ignornace" simply stated is not the cause - I confess I had not fully considered that when I wrote last - thank you Ian.
Well I generally agree with him, too, and am always grateful for his insight.
Please understand that I'm not saying that ignorance is evil per se, but in the Gn world view ignorance is the CAUSE of evil.
"Who put this evil here? Satan? No, ignorance."
This is an interesting discussion about evil. I think its one of the deeper questions that festers among those on the path of many religions. Even atheists. 'If God is good, why is there evil, and what is its origin?'
And is there a way to gestault and disown it? I think many would prefer it that way at times, so it at times seems necessary to put a face to it (Satan) which hopefully isn't our own face. But which came first, the evil (ignorance if you prefer), or the face?
I think many Eastern philosophies try to grapple with it, and grow into an understanding of it in 2 ways. (I also sense that Gnosticism tries to do this as well). The labels for these 2 ways of looking at good and evil are my own invention (though most likely not that original). They are 'laterally' and 'vertically.'
Laterally, evil is paired with its opposite, good. And as a paired syzygy, you can't really annihilate one without annihilating the other. (sorta like, you can't hacksaw the negative end off the battery, and still expect the flashlight to work)
Vertically (and the term is only for convenience, as a distinguisher from laterally), we start perceiving 'degrees of enlightenment' (or degrees of ignorance if you prefer) Degrees of detachment which allows the Presence of the Divine to become known or revealed. Expressed through our own being and lives. And from this enlightenment, or heiros-gamos, we begin to understand that the Divinity never was opposite to anything - it is what all seeming opposites have in common.
The journey doesn't end there, (it never does), we still have to make our way through our own lives, with all its seeming successes and failures.
So on the Eastern side of the chart, we would probably say that the source of evil would be 'attachment' for it is also the source of varying degrees of ignorance within ourselves.
Doug Friesen
Post a Comment