Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Apostle John, in an ancient story, hurries from a building because he discovers inside a man named Cerinthus. John, so the story goes, believed that the bathhouse might fall in “as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth” was within. ¹ Cerinthus, an early second century Gnostic, taught a distinction between Jesus and Christ. He believed that Jesus was simply a man who received the Christ at his baptism. He also taught that the Christ could not be crucified and so withdrew as Jesus died on the cross. F.F. Bruce explains that the three epistles of John address problems caused by teachings resembling this kind of “docetic” Gnosticism that separates Jesus from Christ.² For this reason John emphasizes the real body of Jesus Christ. He reminds his readers that Jesus Christ is the one he and the other Apostles have “seen with our eyes,” “looked at and touched with our hands.” (I John 1:1) He also encourages them to be discerning, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” (I John 4:2) Gnosticism grew in complexity and scope in the next several centuries, and the Church Fathers wrote about the Gnostic’s beliefs in order to counter the heresies. 

Renewed Interest in Gnosticism

Today there is a renewed interest in Gnosticism due in part to the discovery in 1945 of a large collection of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi. The renewed interest can be seen in several areas. The first area is among some Radical Feminist thinkers who look to Gnostic texts that feature women or feminine themes as proof texts for the validity of women’s importance in early Christianity. They also insist that Gnosticism was simply one alternative view among many diverse Christian communities. The second area is the new quest for the historical Jesus as it is focused in the Jesus Seminar. They refer to the Gnostic texts as alternative forms of early Christian accounts. Also, many of the Jesus Seminar writers use the Gospel of Thomas, an early Gnostic text, as one of the earliest gospels. The theologians involved in the quest, probably unwittingly, have developed theologies with some similarities to docetic Gnosticism. Finally, there are groups and individuals who consider themselves to be Gnostics in the older sense of that word. They adhere to a kind of esoteric Christianity and even create liturgies using the Gnostic texts. They are either individual adherents or they belong to Gnostic Churches. In this paper I will explain the common features of Gnosticism, and then explain how such teaching affects both members of the new quest for the historical Jesus and Radical Feminism.

Gnosticism's Most Common Feature

Although ancient Gnosticism was diverse the different groups held some beliefs in common. The most common feature was a dualism that separates the material world from the spiritual. The material world was seen as evil while the spiritual world contained the good. This understanding affected much of their worldview. It also affected how they related to orthodox Christianity. This understanding shaped their view of creation, Jesus Christ, salvation and death.  It even affected their view of procreation and community.

A great many of their creation stories are long and complex. Their main god is generally a spirit that is unnamable out of which all spiritual beings are emanated. In this view God does not create out of nothing, his creation comes from his own being. (In contemporary terms this is Panentheism; the understanding that the world is a part of God.) The creation stories are filled with hierarchies of spiritual beings usually referred to as aeons. On the other hand, all material creations, which they see as evil, are caused by the error of some of the spiritual beings.

 For instance in The Apocryphon of John, Sophia of the Epinoia, an aeon, brings forth a creation out of herself without permission and the creation is named Yaltabaoth. He is a caricature of the biblical God, Jehovah. He is evil and an archon and with the help of other archons, which he created, forms a human. However, the human does not live until Yaltabaoth blows into his face. What Yaltabaoth does not understand is that his power to give life really belongs to Sophia who gave birth to him. The new man shone so from Sophia’s power that a material body was made for him which imprisoned and hid the divine spark. This is then a stage set for a dualistic world. The human’s exterior is created of lifeless evil material formed by an evil archon that ignorantly believes he is the only god. But within the human form is the spark of divinity blown there by Yaltabaoth who does not know the power of life really belongs to his mother.³ The entire material universe is seen by Gnostics as evil and a prison for the spark of divinity within humanity.

Jesus' Death and Resurrection Not Redemptive

 The Gnostics believed the entire material world lies in ignorance and darkness. Humans are unaware that they are a part of divinity. They also believed that a kind of intuitive self-knowledge was required for salvation. This could be defined as a spiritual awakening in which the seeker realized their inner light or divinity. If Christ came to save it was by giving secret knowledge to his followers. The knowledge was to help them find the light within themselves. In the Gospel of Thomas when Jesus asks his disciples who he is “like” the answer of Thomas is the correct one. Thomas says, “Teacher, my mouth cannot bear at all to say whom you are like.” Jesus then sees that Thomas has acquired the right knowledge for himself. He is not dependent on Jesus but rather has become like Jesus in his knowledge. Jesus tells him, “I am not your teacher. For you have drunk, you have become intoxicated at the bubbling spring that I have measured out.”⁴ It is merely the words of Jesus that aid in knowing the self, His death and resurrection are not understood in a redemptive way. In fact, for the Gnostic, resurrection is equated with enlightenment. In the 51st saying of Thomas the disciples ask Jesus when the resurrection will come and he tells them, “That (resurrection) which you are awaiting has (already) come, but you do not recognize it.”⁵

Not only did Christ’s death not count for salvation from sin, but some of the Gnostic adherents believed that Christ did not die a physical death. In the Acts Of John, as Jesus is supposedly crucified, John runs to a cave where he encounters Christ who shows him a cross of light and tells him, “but this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest his (or a) voice.”⁶ Other Gnostics believed that Jesus Christ did suffer, however not for sin, but to impart knowledge and to overcome death, but not physically. 

No Physical Resurrection

Since Gnostics believed the material world was evil they saw no reason for a physical resurrection. The body was simply seen as a prison house in a world that held no beauty or goodness. As Elaine Pagels, Professor at Princeton University and author of The Gnostic Gospels, writes, “The resurrection, they insisted, was not a unique event in the past: instead, it symbolized how Christ’s presence could be experienced in the present. What mattered was not literal seeing, but spiritual vision.” ⁷ Pagels goes on to enumerate the various post crucifixion appearances of Christ in Gnostic texts.⁸ She explains, “ What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed to the ‘historical Jesus’ was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present.”⁹ Because of this difference of belief in the resurrection the Gnostics made fun of the early martyrs of the Church.

The Ideal of Androgyny 

Gnosticism and its inherently strong disregard for the material world created problems in practical ways. Not only were Gnostic adherents unable to see goodness in the created world they were unable to affirm the birth of children. They did not affirm women as mothers. In many cases giving birth to a child was seen as trapping the divine spark within the prison of the body. The ideal Gnostic model seemed to be either male or an androgynous being complete within itself. The Gospel of Mary, which focuses on Mary Magdalene, places her as a leader of the Christian group and pictures her as a favorite of Jesus. However, although in the translation of the Jesus Seminar’s The Complete Gospels, she and the other disciples are pictured as one in which “the seed of true humanity” exists; the text in the Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (Akhmim Codex) translates that they are one in which the “Son of Man” exists.  In The Complete Gospels Mary Magdalene tells the other disciples, “Rather let us praise his greatness, for he has joined us together and made us true human beings.” But in the former translation Mary says “but rather, let us praise his greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.”¹⁰ In the Gospel of Thomas when Peter asks Jesus to make Mary go away because, “women are not worthy of life.” Jesus says, “Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male, so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you. (But I say to you): ‘Every women who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’”¹¹ The female disciples function, as do the male disciples, as persons without physical attributes, needs or realities. The world of their visions is extraordinary; the material world they inhabit is sterile.

Radical Feminists Seek Affirmation in Gnosticism

 Some Radical Feminists are seeking affirmation of women’s experience and ministry in Gnostic texts. The debate is wide and varied. Two possibilities emerge. One is the belief that early Gnostic communities were part of a diverse Christianity thereby justifying alternative doctrines in contemporary Christian communities. The other is connected with the first; that Gnostic communities provided a place for women to hold leadership positions and that women were honored as persons of wisdom and divinity in the Gnostic texts. While Karen King, Professor of New Testament studies and the History of ancient Christianity at Harvard University, includes examples of women in leadership using both canonical scriptures and Gnostic texts, she nevertheless concludes that the Gnostic texts are not helpful. In Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, a book that she has edited, King makes the observation that “it seems to me that even when the feminine is highly valued, it is often done so at the expense of real sexuality. It also seems as though gnostic mythology and gender imagery often affirm patriarchy and patriarchal social gender roles.”¹² The first possibility: “early gnostic communities were part of a diverse Christianity thereby justifying alternative doctrines in contemporary Christian Communities” is probably the direction radical Feminism will take. Radical Feminists believe they have the option of choosing alternative forms of Christianity based on women’s experience although not necessarily gnosticism. As Elaine Pagels at the end of her book suggests the question now is “what is the relation between the authority of one’s own experience and that claimed for the Scriptures, the ritual, and the clergy?”¹³ It is well known that most radical Feminists pick from many religious texts those portions they believe affirm women and reject the rest. 

The Jesus Seminar and Gnosticism are Similar

The more mythological and esoteric portions of ancient Gnosticism has fed into the more esoteric religious movements of the nineteenth century as well as contemporary movements including Theosophy and various Occult groups. Philip Jenkins, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University, in his book Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way documents much of this in an interesting chapter entitled “Fragments of a Faith Forgotten.”¹⁴ But there is a far more serious intrusion of Gnosticism into the theology of those who consider themselves biblical scholars. While not so flamboyant as occultism the move away from orthodox doctrine by the Jesus Seminar and others is more damaging to the Church. 

The Jesus Seminar, founded by Robert Funk, consists of a group of professors from various universities who in the past have gathered to talk about and vote on the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings. They not only include the canon of scripture but also the Gospel of Thomas, which many of them believe is older than the earliest canonical gospels. Their decisions are always publicized causing them to gain more attention then other scholars. In their books about Jesus one finds many of the same theological themes as the early Gnostics. The similarities consist mainly of their redefinition of the being of God and their docetic view of Jesus Christ. 

Panentheism - All Creation is part of God

One widely read author, Marcus J. Borg, Professor of Religion at Oregon State University, when writing about the being of God makes a case for a Panentheism. Insisting that the orthodox view of God, “affirms only the transcendence of God and neglects the immanence of God,” he believes Christians should see God in terms of Panentheism. What he is saying is that orthodox Christianity only sees God as out there, (transcendence) but Panentheism sees God at work in the world caring for the world, (immanence).¹⁵ He really misrepresents both views since orthodox teaching affirms both transcendence and immanence while Panentheism sees God’s presence in the world only because it defines the world as a part of God. Orthodox teaching insists that the Creator is not a part of His creation, but He cares and tends His creation. The theological belief in Panentheism is like Gnosticism in that the Gnostics believed the universe emanated from the Creator. For the Gnostic all existence was a part of God. 

Panentheism limits the power of God since all of human experience is a part of God. On the other hand, in Biblical theology, Jesus Christ, fully human and fully God, has experienced what it is to be human. Thus one person has in His being shown the compassion of God while allowing God’s power to work for humanity in His life, death and resurrection. Panentheism sees human experience as the shaper of God placing upon individuals the imperative to be moral for the sake of God’s being. The biblical view allows the redeeming work of Christ to enfold sin weary individuals into the community of the Church that He alone is shaping. 

Jesus Merely a Teacher of Wisdom

In the same way as the Gnostics, members of the new search for the historical Jesus tend to separate Jesus from Christ. They do this because they are basically religious. They want to hold on to the Christ but accept little of the scriptural understanding of Jesus. As   Paul J. Achtemeier has explained about the early beginnings of the new search, they believe faith must be placed in the proclamation of the word but not in historical events, thus thwarting their own search.¹⁶ They feel that little of the sayings attributed to Him in scripture are historically truthful. They see Jesus simply as a wisdom teacher who may have healed some people but who was killed for His concern with justice and who did not resurrect physically from the grave. But most believe in a post-resurrection Christ. As Borg explains: 

My position is that experiences of the risen Christ as a continuing presence generated the claim that “Jesus lives and is Lord” and that statement “God raised Jesus from the dead” and the story of the empty tomb may well have been generated by those experiences.

Heresy:  Jesus and Sophia are Manifestations of The Cosmic Christ

The heresy grows deeper. One author, Sea Raven, writes, “”Jesus and Sophia are manifestations of the Cosmic Christ – possibly the most powerful and universal metaphor of all.” And, “The man Jesus, the pre-Easter Jesus, was not the Christ. Jesus became the Christ or was revealed as the Christ after his death.”²⁰ Another writer, James M. Robinson, of Claremont University, quoting Mark 10:18 states: “Jesus apparently had no Christology.” He goes on to suggest that we need to find a Christology that will fit our “often changed conditions. He then attempts to wed Sophia to Jesus in a chapter entitled “Very Goddess and Very Man.”²¹

Conclusion

How different is the purity and truthfulness of the Word of God. To belong to the One who is both God and man, the Incarnate One who entered history for our sakes is the ultimate joy of life. Jesus Christ’s willingness to live among us sharing our humanity gives affirmation to a loved creation. His awful death on the cross and His resurrection give hope to a fallen creation. (Rom.8:19-25) His redemption embraces all of our humanity forgiving our sins and giving us hope for a physical resurrection. (Phil. 3:7-21) He has gifted us with the Holy Spirit who comforts and guides by turning us toward Jesus Christ and away from the stranger’s voice. (John 16:5-15; 10:27-29) Jesus Christ has given us His Word where we find a real picture of real people and the story of God’s redemption. (Matt 5:17-20) He placed us in His Church, a community of the redeemed. And within that community He has provided for His creation by leading us in ministries of compassion and justice, evangelism and mission. (Matt 28:18-20) 

It is the unanimous opinion within the Church, that God is never for us in the world, that is to say, in our space and time, except in this His Word, and that this Word for us has no other name and content but Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is never to be found on our behalf save each day afresh in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. One is not in the Church at all if he is not of a mind with the Church in these things.

  Karl Barth, Theological Existence To-Day, 1933

1.  Eusebius’, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine, trans. Christian Frederick Cruse, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House 1976), chapter XXVIII, 114.

2.  F.F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1970), 25.

3.  The Apocryphon of John, trans, Federik Wisse, from James M. Robinson, Ed The Nag Hammadi Library, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990, [www.gnosis.org/naghamm//apocjn.html].

4.  Gospel of Thomas, Saying 13:4b, 5b, trans by Berliner Arbeitskreis fur koptisch-gnostische Schriften as modified by Stephen Patterson and James M. Robinson. In The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International 1998), 10.

5.  Ibid. Saying 51, 1b, 2b.

6.  The Acts of John, from, The Apocryphal New Testament, trans & notes M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924) 99. at The Gnostic Society Library, [www. gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm]
“This text has a docetic Christology, and has been interpolated with a Gnostic piece that forms an interpretation of the suffering of Christ.” P.J. Lalleman, “Apocryphal Acts and Epistles,” Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter, Downers Grove, ILL.: InterVarsity Press 2000), 68.

7.  Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Random House 1979), 11.

8   Pagels mentions: Gospel of Mary, Apocalypse of Peter and  aTreatise on Resurrection as well as Gospel of Philip. Ibid. 11,12.

9.  Ibid. 12.

10.  The Gospel According To Mary, at, The Gnostic Society Library, Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments, [www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm]. 2; and The Gospel of Mary, trans & intro, notes, Karen L. King in The Complete Gospels, ed.Robert J. Miller, (Sonoma , CA: Polebridge Press 1992) 351-360.
In note4:5 King states: “seed of true humanity: This term is translated elsewhere in SV as “son of adam.” It is rendered differently here because it has a different connotation in the Gospel of Mary: it refers to the archetypal Image of humanity within each person.” 356. It should be pointed out however, that an archetypal Image of humanity coming from a Hellenized culture would probably be male.

11.  Thomas, Trinity Press, Saying 114.

12.  For Kings affirmation of Gnostic texts see, Karen king, “ Women in Ancient Christianity: The New Discoveries,” on Frontline, “From Jesus To Christ The First Christians” [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html] 1-9; For her negative views see, Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, Ed, Karen L. King, Studies in Antiquity & Christianity 1988, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International 2000) xvii.

13.  Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 151.

14.  Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001).

15.  Marcus J. Borg & N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 1999), 62.

16.  See Paul J. Achtemeir, “Is the New Quest Docetic?” (Theology Today vol 19 No.3) October 1962. [http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1962/v19-3-article3.htm.]  This article deals with an earlier beginning of the new quest for the historical Jesus, but because the Jesus Seminar is linked to Claremont and to Rudolf Bultmann it is very relevant. 

17.  Borg & Wright, Jesus, 137.

18.  Stephen J. Patterson, The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus & the Search for Meaning, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International 1998) 213-240.

19.  See note 7.

20.  Sea Raven, “Jesus Is Our Sophia: The Historical Jesus and the Cosmic Christ,” [http://www.gaiarising.org/cosmic.html] 1998.

21.  James M. Robinson, “Very Goddess and Very Man,” in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, Ed. Karen L. King, Studies in Antiquity & Christianity 1988, (Harrisburg, PA 2000),114