Summer Harvest

Let’s turn the Panopticon inside-out for a moment, and instead of looking out in all directions, allow all directions to view us simultaneously. There are certain qualities displayed by many modern Gnostics and Gnostic organizations that reflect incredibly poorly on all of us. I include myself and the organizations with which I am involved in these critiques.

1. Rampant Judgementalism/Fundamentalism

One of the more despicable qualities exhibited by modern “Gnostics” is their attitude towards traditional religions and those who find spiritual meaning in other religious paths. At best, there is often a kind of patronizing pat on the back, or an insistence that some path or another needs to be “saved” from itself. At worst, there is a sneering disdain that often emerges as (for instance) audience laughter during recorded speeches (People, why are you laughing at other people? That’s plain rude, and looks pretty bad on us.), supremely superior attitude on forums and bulletin boards, and a disturbing level of confrontationalism that often borders on bigotry.

Remember the old racist trope about how Christians are “Perfected Jews” and Jews need to accept Christ or they’re “broken,” an argument most recently put forward by conservative arch-Harpy Ann Coulter? Well when someone claims to be Gnostic, and that having achieved gnosis they are “perfected” and are better than “orthodox/Catholic/literalist” Christians, they are behaving like bigoted fundamentalists. And it happens among many modern Gnostic groups, all.the.time.

To repeat: Hey Gnostics, When you claim that Gnosticism is better than (insert your favorite canonical church here), you are using the same odious argument employed by Ann Coulter to talk about Jewish people. Do you want to be like Ann Coulter? I do not think so.

Isn’t it better to be for things than against them? Isn’t time better spent building things instead of destroying them? Isn’t it more difficult and more valuable to compare our worst qualities to their best, rather than vice-versa? Gnostics shouldn’t be chortling at how other peoples’ houses are painted. We should be building up our own houses, and inviting other people over for conversation and wine and fun, reaching out to other faiths instead of wasting time criticising them.

*Whispers* (Hey, here’s a big Gnostic secret handed down from Valentinus himself: Don’t be an asshole!

2. Not Enough Emphasis on Historical Gnosticism/Scholasticism

Although it’s been said a million times, it’s never been said often enough: Gnosticism *is* something. It’s a tradition with a precedence, and this often gets missed even by people who are involved in the movement. It’s all well and good to claim that all the ancient Gnostics left us was a bunch of old dusty texts and we should be ‘doing our own thing,’ but if we do that, why even bother to call it Gnosticism?

We’ve always been a scholarly tradition, and more credence needs to be given to those among us who are students of the tradition, a tradition about which more information is available on an almost daily basis. As new discoveries come to light, we need to be open to changing the way we approach our tradition. The Nag Hammadi texts are the perfect example. Before the NHL, Gnostic practice had to be based on the information available at the time, in a large part that provided by heresiologists. When the NHL was discovered, the field of Gnostic studies turned on its ear, but, with a few notable exceptions, Modern Gnosticism did not. What gives?

Also, as should go without saying, modern Gnostic discourse has been polluted by a good number of bad ideas, most of which seem to involve (for some crazy reason) shapeshifting reptiles or hallucinogens or sex magic. Whereas there’s nothing inherently *wrong* about these ideas, and whereas there is no real reason to waste time debunking them, there’s pretty conclusively nothing about them in historical Gnosticism. Does it mean these theories aren’t appropriate for *modern* Gnosticism? That’s up for debate. What it *does* mean is that our communities gain shared perspective through our historical predecessors, and for this reason the study of Gnosticism is incredibly important.

It’s important to constantly reinvestigate our own assumptions about our tradition, and we do this via scholasticism. While it’s true that myth is more important than history, myth is more powerful when historically informed (and vice-versa).

3. Too Much Emphasis on Historical Gnosticism/Scholasticism

A common Gnostic grousing point is that we’re often asked to explain what is something of a complex belief system in the space of ten minutes or so. At the same time, many of us have a bad habit of jumping down the throats of those new to Gnosticism for not knowing (say) the difference between Valentinianism and Sethianism, or for assuming that the Gnostics didn’t have priests and deacons, etc. Gnosticism has always taken a long time to “understand,” and I suspect this may be part of the reason it used to be a “secret tradition.” When we castigate gnewbies for “not getting it,” or for mistaking it for something else, we do a disservice to both the gnewbie and the tradition.

That said, it’s also worth emphasizing that Gnosticism has always been a syncretic tradition, and by nature expands to fill the zeitgeist in which it finds itself; indeed, the Gnostic message is living information. There’s nothing wrong with understanding Gnosticism as something constantly renewing itself. In fact, it’s preferable. We owe it to ourselves and to our fellows to allow the Gnostic Renascence to evolve and grow. With all of the disinformation out there, however, it’s important that we cultivate a patient attitude towards those who don’t understand our tradition, but would like to.

This isn’t to say that Gnosticism equals gnosis, nor that we need tolerate what are obvious egoistic, value-judgement-based exploitation of our tradition. There is a difference between allowing experimentation and dependence upon personal experience, and raising personal experience to the level of a collective religious paradigm. Indeed, the deification of personal experience is de facto worship of the Demiurge. It’s perfectly okay to say “I’m a Gnostic, and my belief system is informed by the Cathars and my practice by Buddhist meditation.” It is not, however, okay to say “Based on my gnosis, Jesus was a Buddhist, and the Cathars practiced Zen.” Gnosis does not contradict History or Tradition, it serves to Augment them.

4. Too much Priest, not enough Pastor

Again, there are substantial exceptions which serve to prove the rule. While sacramental practice and ecclesiastical structure are commendable, and undeniably Gnostic, too many so-called “Gnostic” organizations focus so much on the inner life that they ignore the outer, and do so at their own peril. We need Gnostic spiritual and grief counselors, Gnostic scholarships, Gnostic food drives and Gnostic service organizations. Although these are happening within certain communities, we need more. We need more Radical Compassion taught in our churches and on our websites.

5. Too Many Stupid Pissing Matches

Rather than worrying about who gets to serve sacrament in what part of town, and who is stepping on the toes of whom, and who recognizes whom as a “valid” Gnostic church, and whether an “internet church” is stupider than a “real” church, and whether one church is an “imitation” of another, and the list goes on and on and on, it would behoove us once again to urge all modern Gnostic organizations to practice radical ecumenicism.

Churches within the tradition of Apostolic Succession should recognize and celebrate those which do not consider themselves part of this tradition, and vice-versa. Organizations that consider themselves “Valentinian” should recognize and celebrate those that consider themselves “Sethian.” Organizations should respect the decisions of those who choose to practice independently, and individuals who prefer to practice as independents should respect and regard Ecclesiastical Gnostic organizations as valid expressions of Gnosticism. Traditional forms of Gnostic worship should welcome and embrace non-traditional forms which will arise in the coming years, and vice-versa.

It’s important for extant organizations to accept the fact that not everybody will be comfortable with their particular tradition. I, for instance, am uncomfortable with Gnostic churches that have close historical ties to Theosophy and C.W. Leadbeater, for my own reasons. I have great respect, however, for those who find value in these traditions and their expressions.

People, if we can’t do this, we will die out. It may seem idealistic, but it can happen, and needs to.

6. Not enough focus on gnosis.

We like to talk a real lot, but we sure have a hard time talking about gnosis. This is the cornerstone of our tradition. This experience can be cultivated and expressed, and even quantified. If we want to really get the Word out without proselytizing, we need to focus on the experience and let that experience speak for itself. We should be encouraging people to experience gnosis with every single breath we take, encouraging them to keep trying until they have it, until they recognize the Kingdom that’s unraveling all around us.

One of the reasons this is really, really, especially important is that a lot of people are out there telling others they can acheive gnosis via psychedelics or sex magic or UFOs or shapeshifting reptiles or talking to the dead or just about any old thing. Those of us who know better should be talking it up, offering people ways they can do it, experimenting with processes, holding workshops, and just plain working that gnosis as much as is possible.

———–

Again, I am guilty of these just as much as anyone else; the finger is pointing right back at me. Plus, there’s the big honkin’ fact that I’m just a guy with a website whose opinion doesn’t really amount to all that much in the long run. Nonetheless, there are some things that occasionally need to be said, regardless of whether anybody’s actually listening.

See also Jordan’s post from some time ago.