Are Conservatives the Real Gnostics?

Interesting observation Tony.

I first "came to the faith" via conservative evangelicalism as a child. Looking back on that experience, how it was encouraged and handled, and reflecting on some blog conversation I've had recently I can't help but see a curious correlation to that tradition and Gnosticism. Not only is the notion of "special, secret knowledge" present, but also a certain dualistic escapism that assumes the earth and the body are inherent evil and must ultimately be destroyed and left behind.

Scientology goes considerably further than plain old gnosticism.

They've copyrighted and trademarked their "spiritual" secrets, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for their peculiar brand of salvation.

Their FSM's (Field Service Ministers) that sell, er require "fixed donations" for these materials and services receive a 10-35 percent commission on everything the initiate purchases, er makes a "fixed donation" for.

I'm not seeing the connection to 'convervative' here. What, specifically, is the secret knowledge that most conservatives are claiming to posess?

If we're referring to salvation through Jesus alone, then I guess that makes conservative x-ians 'gnostic' in the sense you are speaking.

Certainly some are obsessed with certain phrases, practices or codes - but can we can hardly claim that most conservatives are this myopic.

I see a greater threat in a Greek-inherited, "anti-material" view of Creation, humanity, and the natural realm. Perhaps this is the gnosticism that is truly dangerous in conservative circles?

I pray in the "name of Jesus," it's biblical(John 14:12-14) and I am trying to be obedient. I guess that makes me a gnostic.

The greatest danger that Orthodox Christianity has always faced from Gnosticism is that the Gnostics were probably right.

Tony, I agree. And I've often thought about this in terms of how we handle parts of scripture - such as the epistles of Paul. Rather than seeing Paul as someone who, like us, was trying to make sense of new revelation blended with old understanding - in a real-time, presentflux kind of way, many conservative Christians - and even more specifically, many conservative, charismatic Christians - read Paul as if he offers some sort of pure, undiluted stream on "the spiritual world". Now, not only is the idea of "a spiritual world" hyper-dualistic - thus gnostic, but so too is the idea that Paul had some kind of magical way of seeing it all - as if he somehow bi-passed the human condition and didn't read it all through a particular, contextually localized worldview.

Tony...

Try cross referencing Christianity with Leo Stauss's neo-conservatism. You''ll come up with what is referred to as the "nobel lie" or "deadly truth" In order to herd Christians in the "right" direction, they need to be told nobel lies in order to conform.

Strauss has been accused of elitism by his critics, and thus can fall into the category of a modern day gnostic.

In light of events of the day, I would say the Chicago School of thought where neo-conservatism was born can be considered all but dead.

I get what your saying Tony and it could be seen that way. I tend not to think of that brand of conservativism as gnostic but just as the perfect mixture of arrogance and ignorance. Maybe that is consistent with gnosticism as well.

I think the conservative Christian subculture has its own vocabulary and exacting requirements for testing the authenticity of faith (be it specific practices or articulations of beliefs) that can appear quite foreign to the outsider. However, the gnosis of Gnosticism seems to be secret special knowledge in a more mystical/experiential sense as opposed to the open and more rationally focused knowledge of conservative Christians. I also do not find the experiential elements of conservative Christianity to be secretive, though they can appear bizarre and often have sort of a litmus test for authenticity. On the other hand, I do see parallels with Gnosticism when considering the nearly esoteric complexity/precision of conservative Christian beliefs/practices and their hyper-vigilance with identifying errors in those beliefs/practices. That can be sort of gnostic. And indeed as others have said the dualism in conservative Christianity seems gnostic-like. But as Tim B said, some biblical figures could be considered gnostic if we throw the term around too carelessly.

Albert: I think the post was dealing particularly with Gnosticism, rather than Mysticism.

From a conservative who usually doesn't agree with you--GREAT post. Spot on.

Interesting comment!
Let me add up some personal points. I was born as a Catholic. As a boy, I was raised in a convent with nuns from the age of 5 to 10 years old. Then, at about 14 years old, I started to ask some "basic" questions: What am I? Where do I come from? Where do I go after death? etc.... Pretty basic! In the meantime, I was studying astronomy. One day, I had a very special sighting: a UFO (a "real one" mind you!) I have nothing to prove on this, except that both my parents and sister saw it too! I then started to ask "deeper" questions. I went to catholic pundits to ask some questions. I searched through other mainstream religions. I even studied occultism for awhile. No one could answer my 20th century questions (except through their 2000-year old scripture!) I started a long and personal spiritual quest. I knew I had to find the answers through my OWN experiences... and I did found answers!

I believe in karma (law of cause and effect). I believe in reincarnation (not being reborn as an animal, but as a continuing process of evolution, either being reborn as a man or a woman). Above all, I don't believe that "I have" a soul, I believe "I AM" Soul, a unique entity made out of God's element.

Years later, after many personal, real, dramatic, and true experiences, I found Eckankar. Today, 37 years later, I am still a student of that spiritual path.

I do believe that each one of us has the opportunity to become greater than what we are now. For some, it can be through christianity, for others it can be through taoism, hinduism or muslism. For me it doesn't matter, each religion has its own "schooling". Even Eckankar is only a class in one school. There is more, because I truly believe that there is a "plus" factor in God's creation. There is always one more step to travel. Infinity is... infinite! And above all this, there is one principle which encompasses all: We exist as Soul because of God's love for it! The sun shines on all the pupils of God, wherever they are, whatever they are doing. If one has respect for his neighbor, and gives love to his close relatives, then all is well in school.

I guess I'm a bit confused as to how a more 'conservative' approach to Scripture (i.e. beleiving that the message of the authors constitutes a divine revelation) is the same thing as having a 'secret' knowledge, or is 'spiritual' as opposed to 'honoring creation'. Isn't the affirmation that human texts communicate divine revelation a primarily incarnational understanding of Scripture? Don't conservatives believe, in some way, that 'the message is all right there in the Bible--you can read it for yourself'?

I am not a defender of all aspects of more conservative evangelical theology, but I'm getting a bit confused as to how the concepts and terms overlap here.

Gnosticism has two core elements - elevating the spiritual above the physical and gaining secret SPIRITUAL knowledge.

Conservatives, on the other hand, teach that one must come into a relationship with Christ via spiritual and physical elements (such as using our reasoning) and believe in a fully incarnation Christ. This isn't secret knowledge either as conservatives teach that this is available to all if they so choose to accept. "Secret" knowledge is only available to those who have already been enlightened (according to Gnosticism) and a strong distaste for the physical. Though some conservatives do actually border on that, so do some emergents and liberal Christians (of course, as of late that is becoming more and more redundant).

Conservative beliefs, however, are antithetical to Gnosticism. For instance, look at how they stress the historicity of Jesus and miracles. They want to believe that he is fully human and fully God - that is antithetical to Gnosticism. The EC, however, has many adherents who deny the miracles and treat Jesus as though he were nothing but an enlightened human (such as Caputo). Thus, I'm not too sure a Gnosticism charge against conservative Christians is really warranted.

There is more than a single meaning to the word "Gnostic". A person might be talking about: 4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters. By extension, the subject would be "A person who speaks of having SUPERIOR, spiritual knowledge.

Another definition of "Gnostic" is: 1. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. Of course we all have intellectual knowledge, that might not apply to physical things. For example, "John and Mary argue constantly" or "Bill and Jerry make great music".

Scientology is about knowledge, but specifically it is method to understand knowledge utterly and thoroughly that spiritual knowledge becomes possible. This is not widely understood and people who don't understand the idea group the religion's 35,000,000 words into the first definition. "esoteric, superior, or special knowledge".