Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism and the Need for Evangelical Reflection

One of the papers I am finalizing this semester is one on Gnosticism. I am looking at Irenaeus's response to Gnosticism as expressed by Valentinus, and then noting the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, followed by theological and missiological reflections for engaging Neo-Gnosticism in the twenty-first century.

The study has been interesting as I reflect not only on how to interact with with increasingly popular and influential Neo-Gnosticism, but also how this expression of spirituality provides opportunities for evangelicals to see our own blindspots. Harold O.J. Brown, in his classic book Heresies, states that in the early history of the church "Gnosticism actually performed a service for the church, by compelling it to think the Gospel through and work out its implications." I think we still have some thinking to do and I'd like to suggest a few areas.

One of the defining features of second century Gnosticism was its dualism which emphasized the spiritual realm and viewed the material world as evil and corrupt as a product of the inferior deity of the Demiurge. I wonder whether many evangelicals might have adopted their own forms of dualism that rival those of ancient Gnosticism. Consider the following:

First. our understanding of soteriology in general, and particularly in connection with new religions and "alternative" spiritualities in the West, tend to be doctrinally and intellectually focused, a form of special gnosis. We tend to articulate a series of doctrinal propositions, sometimes several and of great theological complexity, and if these are embraced we connect this with a relationship with Christ and salvation. I recognize that soteriology and faith in Christ include cognitive dimensions, but perhaps we have made the knowledge issue primary at the expense of another facet. Gary Trompff, writing on the historic oscillation in the West between the esoteric and exoteric, writes that,

"[S]ince in [John's] Gospel Jesus is found saying 'I am the Reality (aletheia)' (8:46), the radical implication presents itelf that truth is found in the personhood of the Christ, not in the propositional thought of the philosophers, and that true freedom arises from relationship, indeed befriending discipleship, rather than correct epistemology."

Is there room for evangelicals to rethink the relationship between the cognitive and the relational in the Christian faith? How might theology be able to dialogue with sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, and missiology to reframe our current perceptions?

Second, evangelical attitudes about the body tend toward the Victorian and Puritanical. We tend to lack a theology that connects the body, its nakedness and "genderedness," to the goodness of God's creation and reflecting sacredness as a part of what it means to be an embodied creature reflecting the divine. Is this our own form of Gnostic emphasis on the spiritual at the expense of evil matter?

Third, many evangelicals tend not to be involved in environmental causes and lack a theology of the creation and God's involvement with and within it beyond the creation-evolution debate. This is made even more problematic when this lack of care for the creation is tied to certain eschatological systems of "end-times" which anticipates redeemed humanity's removal from the created order and its pending destruction and recreation. How might we rethink a theology of creation in terms of its sacredness in connection with the creator rather than abandoning it to decay and our abuse?

Fourth, related to number three above, our most popular eschatology, particularly that popularized in the Left Behind novels, appears to be pseudo-Gnostic. Brown, writing on Marcion's views of the Old Testament, states that,

"Marcion's idea that the church really is not part of world history appears again, centuries later in a more orthodox form, in the view of J. N. Darby (1800-1882). Darby and the dispensationalists who follow him consder the church to be in a kind of parenthesis that really is not part of world history."

Do evangelicals really value the historical process, God's outworking of his telos for and within the created and historical order? And are these salvific purposes extended not only to humanity, but to the whole creation as well? Our most popular "end-times" scenario casts doubt on this. And to make matters worse, some of the methods used to arrive at these scenarios seem to resemble forms of numerology and hidden code deciphering that might have made many Gnostics and hermeticists blush.

In addition to the concerns above that I hope we can revisit in fresh ways, I wonder whether our engagement with Neo-Gnosticism has not only caused us to miss out on critical self-reflection, but has also been largely defensive rather than truly engaging. A few of the academic sources I have interacted with for my course paper have noted that while the early church put forward a defense for the church it failed to engage the questions that the Gnostics were asking and for which they provided answers that emerging orthodoxy saw as heretical. Are there ways in which we can not only recontextualize the faith, just as Paul reframed it for the Hellenic environment, but also take Neo-Gnosticism's quest seriously and engage the key issues of Western culture in the twenty-first century?

I hope we can answer these questions in the affirmative. But at times I think evangelicals are more Gnostic than the Neo-Gnostics.