Taking Off With Canary's Comments
The challenging Canary in her comments to my last post has me thinking further on the Pagels book and its ideas. Yes, the gnostics had many esoteric practices as Canary notes but it was a very diverse movement. Pagels says that making generalizations about gnosticism and reaching consensus as to what it was about is difficult.
I am not particularly interested in gnosticism per se. I read people such as Pagels to further my understanding of religion, in general, and Christianity, in particular. The theological motto "faith seeking understanding" appeals to me.
I also have Pagels' first book The Gnostic Gospels (Vintage, 1981) which received widespread acclaim when it first came out in 1979. In her conclusions at that time she said that in writing the book it did not mean that "I advocate going back to gnosticism - much less that I 'side with it' against orthodox Christianity" but she found the debate interesting not only as an academic historian but as a person concerned with religious questions. One of the key questions is what is the source of religious authority? what is the relationship between religious authority and one's own experience?
For example, the tradition asserts a literal resurrection event. Pagels states that Christianity would likely not have survived and become the powerful and appealing world religion that it is today without this assertion. If the gnostic manuscripts being studied by Pagels had come to light earlier than the 20th Century they would have been considered "madness, blasphemy and heresy" because the gnostics understood "resurrection" in much more spiritual terms. The gnostics (in general) talked of encountering the Risen Jesus spiritually in the present. Sounds like many leading thinkers and theologians today!
But what does any of this matter anyway? I think Canary would agree that there was little in gnosticism that had to do with moral and ethical concerns. Isn't it more important to feed the hungry/ clothe the naked/ visit the sick/ care for the poor and love one's family and one's neighbour, the everyday "cross-bearing and cross-sharing," than it is to enter into trance like states, see visions and have so-called "religious" experiences?
I do like the point of Pagels book (Beyond Belief) that what matters in religious experience involves much more than what we believe or say that we believe when we recite the creeds. What is it that we love? What is it about our faith that we couldn't do without? What draws us to Church on a regular basis? What attracts us?
I am not particularly interested in gnosticism per se. I read people such as Pagels to further my understanding of religion, in general, and Christianity, in particular. The theological motto "faith seeking understanding" appeals to me.
I also have Pagels' first book The Gnostic Gospels (Vintage, 1981) which received widespread acclaim when it first came out in 1979. In her conclusions at that time she said that in writing the book it did not mean that "I advocate going back to gnosticism - much less that I 'side with it' against orthodox Christianity" but she found the debate interesting not only as an academic historian but as a person concerned with religious questions. One of the key questions is what is the source of religious authority? what is the relationship between religious authority and one's own experience?
For example, the tradition asserts a literal resurrection event. Pagels states that Christianity would likely not have survived and become the powerful and appealing world religion that it is today without this assertion. If the gnostic manuscripts being studied by Pagels had come to light earlier than the 20th Century they would have been considered "madness, blasphemy and heresy" because the gnostics understood "resurrection" in much more spiritual terms. The gnostics (in general) talked of encountering the Risen Jesus spiritually in the present. Sounds like many leading thinkers and theologians today!
But what does any of this matter anyway? I think Canary would agree that there was little in gnosticism that had to do with moral and ethical concerns. Isn't it more important to feed the hungry/ clothe the naked/ visit the sick/ care for the poor and love one's family and one's neighbour, the everyday "cross-bearing and cross-sharing," than it is to enter into trance like states, see visions and have so-called "religious" experiences?
I do like the point of Pagels book (Beyond Belief) that what matters in religious experience involves much more than what we believe or say that we believe when we recite the creeds. What is it that we love? What is it about our faith that we couldn't do without? What draws us to Church on a regular basis? What attracts us?
posted by mamie @ 10:25 AM
3 Comments:
At 10:08 PM,
canary said…
Yes, Pagels and other scholars recognise that is was a very diverse -even contradictory - movement while many who "take it up" don't even know really what it was.
Your seeking, my questioning. Same thing I think?
Re:The source of religious authority - hence the search for what Jesus really said and did so we can follow his example (for us in our Christian tradition -not that it is the only one for us to delve in) Science to me is also a source, God = truth: Hence seeking God through his creation in all its forms. After that my "beliefs" are based not so much on what I feel (experience) but on what I understand people wiser than I and whom I admire have discovered. These are people of some weight (e.g. C. S. Lewis) but also people I have met (e.g. a saintly man in my own community)
Yes, I do agree that LOVE which often translates into feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, careing for the poor and loving one's family and one's neighbour, trumps most everything. God = Love. But sometimes the truly loving action is not so easily recognised or discerned.
Re: what pulls us to the spiritual - I think our very being does. And as we get older our awareness of our mortality. What pulls us to a certain faith tradition is a different thing, I think. My religious upbringing is important for those almost pavlovian connections - which is why I so bitterly lament my own church's trashing of its traditions in favour of some newly minted (and therefore for me unconnected, counter-productive) liturgies.
As for the resurrection: Paul who was the earliest writer to our Lord, who wrote before the fall of the 2nd temple (c. 48-51 CE), who met Jesus brother James(and other family no doubt, as well as apostles such as Peter) is an authority in my mind; He was utterly convinced of the resurrection - whether spiritual or physical. What he doesn't talk about is as notable - NOT about the virgin birth, not about Jesus' early life, not about miracles.
Thank you, Mamie, for this conversation. It is not often that one has a chance to discuss such matters.
At 3:44 PM,
mamie said…
Canary, your taking the time to write so thoughtfully (and openly) is much appreciated!
Yes, Paul! I think it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that the Pauline writings are the earliest of the NT. And he certainly did believe in the resurrection - "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 15:14) - among many other statements.
You're quite correct that Paul doesn't write anything about the birth of Jesus, no stories of angels appearing to shepherds and wisemen coming from afar. We know all that was added later and is probably largely mythical. (But WONDERFUL just the same, don't you think?)
At 7:27 PM,
canary said…
Yes, wonderful. Dickens inspires more than Adam Smith.
I know what you are going to say - but I reply - Dan Brown isn't Dickens.
Post a Comment
<< Home