An Honest Debate.com

By Mark L. Carlton 

Several years ago at a pastor’s conference I had the privilege of speaking on the first chapter of the Book of Colossians.  As a part of my message I warned that there was a revival of Gnosticism occurring in Liberal Christian Seminaries and that The Da Vinci Code – which was still early in its run as a runaway bestseller — was a popular expression of this movement. 

To my delight the evangelical community in the country was ready and met the challenge posed by the book and the movie.  In fact, the church’s response to The Da Vinci Code was so effective one syndicated columnist, Jim Pinkerton, even suggested that it may redound to the benefit of orthodoxy:  

“Some 45 books have been published in response to “Code,” most of them denouncing its ‘Mrs. Jesus’ premise. In addition, there have been innumerable sermons, conferences and websites; it’s hard to remember a time when Christianity has enjoyed more discussion.One cliché of our age is that Americans have ‘narrowcasted’ themselves into obliviousness, even ignorance, about larger events. But for Christians of all kinds, the Code-troversy is a ‘teachable moment’; the book and the movie have grabbed everyone’s attention.”

I think it is no doubt true that though Satan intended Dan Brown’s book and Ron Howard’s movie for bad, but God can – and is – using it for good.   However, lest we be lulled into thinking that the battle is well in hand, you should know that the Code is just the first attack in a battle that is sure to rage for many years to come. 

Jim Pinkerton expresses the hope that “Lots of people will get the idea, from the ‘Code,’ of writing a bestseller about religion and religious history.   But if they are serious about doing so,” he adds, “they will have first to learn about Important Things – history, theology.”   

Pinkerton is partially correct.  Dan Brown himself has contracted to write a sequel to the Code, and no doubt other books are being written.  As I write, documentaries are on the drawing board and Sony, to name just one studio, has announced plans to produce more films like The Da Vinci Code.   

Pinkerton is also correct when he says the “Code” has spawned a new interest in early Christianity.  However, this new interest may not help us as much as Mr. Pinkerton hopes, because in this postmodern era the histories modern seekers turn to may not have a legitimate factual basis.  Also, today’s postmodern reader comes to the study of history with the assumption that history is a social construct, “written by the winners,” and reflecting their biases.   This being case, alternative views of history, no matter how far fetched, are gaining an unprecedented persuasive power.    Surely we are living in a time when men are turning their ears away from the truth and turning aside to myths.[1]  

Another reason the new interest in early Christianity may not be the blessing some anticipate is that many of the most prominent and visible “experts” in the field of early Christian studies are themselves a part of the Neo-Gnostic movement.  And while some of these experts have joined with us in criticizing The Da Vince Code, they have agendas of their own and they will surely be on the other side in days to come.

For example, one of the best responses to the Code from our point of view was Darrell Bock’s book, Breaking the Da Vinci Code.  But for some inexplicable reason he solicited and included a forward by the Dean of theSchool of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of American, Professor Francis J. Moloney.   But as you read the Forward to Bock’s excellent book you soon discover that Moloney is very open to other Christianities, particularly Gnostic forms of the faith:

“Scholars of second-century Gnosticism have rightly 

(emphasis in the original) insisted on the need to recognize that

many expression of Christianity have existed and have given life

to generations of believers.  I would argue that we need to

accept that no single theological or ecclesial ‘system’ can

exhaust the richness of the Christian ‘story’.  My brief

indications of the different presentation of Jesus’ entry into the

human story in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and then John are

but one indication among many that there is a degree of  

difference in the proclamation of the Christian message from its

birth.

[2]

But who are these scholars of second-century Gnosticism Moloney applauds, and what are these other expressions of the Christianity that we should be open to?  To answer this you need to be aware of the Neo-Gnostic movement.  Moloney makes it clear that he is at least open to it if not an actual part of it.  One has to wonder what Dr. Bock was thinking when he asked such a man to write the forward for his book.

The origins of the Neo-Gnostic movement can be traced back to the German Theologian, Walter Bauer (1877-1960).   In Bauer’s most influential work, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, he argued “that the early Christian heresies were once widely held forms of the Christian religion.  Orthodoxy was the product of the centralizing of the Church establishment which overcame the less co-coordinated version of the Christian message.”[3]   The Neo-Gnostic movement can also be traced to Psychologist, Carl Jung, who advocated retaining the symbols of Christianity while re-interpreting the faith along Gnostic lines.  But Neo-Gnosticism became a movement when the revisionist history of Bauer and occultic spirituality of Jung came together in the publication of an influential book by Princeton professor, Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels. 

Pagels’ book spawned a movement that includes many of the leading names in Early Christian studies, and it has inspired Dan Brown and many others to embrace and posit a variety of new stories concerning the origins of Christianity, all of which are based on Pagels’ Big Story (metanarrative). 

Pagels’ interpretation of history is a classic example of postmodern literary and historical analysis.  In fact, in order to really understand the neo-Gnostic movement a working knowledge of postmodernism is imperative.   To gain this understanding I would highly recommend the book, “The Death of Truth,” edited by Dennis McCallum.   The following analysis of Pagels argument is drawn from the 13^th chapter of this book.[4]  I have italicized the following paragraphs because they are either direct quotations or my paraphrase of material from The Death of Truth.

In spite of the speculation of Bauer, and the theological musing of Jung, Historians have traditionally viewed the Gnostic gospels and other Gnostic writings as only a marginal challenge to the authenticity and authority of the New Testament.   In fact, most scholars have viewed Gnostic literature – all of which was produced well after the New Testament documents – as having nothing to do with the origins of Christianity.  Elaine Pagels changed all of this.  Elaine Pagels ’, The Gnostic Gospels, was an immediate hit (receiving of the National Book Critics award) and has become “the gospel” for the neo-Gnostic movement.   In it she used classic postmodern assumptions and methodology to deconstruct the gospels and the writing of the post-apostolic fathers to spin an entirely new story of Christian origins.  In short, Pagels argues that Gnosticism represents a valid Christian tradition which was oppressed by the powerful MEN of the orthodox church because its views challenged the authority of the emerging hierarchy.  So to Pagels, Gnostic spirituality was squelched for political rather than doctrinal reasons.  In Pagels’ universe the orthodox church used apostolic authority and teaching as an instrument of repression.  She argues that once we understand the politics of orthodoxy, the doctrine of orthodoxy loses its force.  Dennis McCallum and Jim Leffel point to Pagels’ treatment of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection as an example of her deconstruction of orthodoxy.  Speaking of the orthodox teaching of the bodily resurrection Pagels wrote:“When we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of the bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership in the church…”Having said this, Pagels then goes on to discount the testimony of the witnesses of the resurrection.  She claims that the authority of the apostles is tied to their witness of the resurrection, and that the early orthodox movement subsequently restricted apostolic authority to those who had seen the resurrected Christ.   This meant that official doctrine was permanently rooted in a small band whose members had incontestable authority.   So Pagels discounts their testimony to the resurrection, viewing it as a calculated devise to aid the exercise of ecclesiastical power.  To Pagels and other neo-Gnostics, the Gnostics offer a refreshing contrast to the evolving dogmatism of the patriarchal orthodox faction of Christianity, because the Gnostics had a different source of authority – direct mystical union with Christ.   Consequently, Gnostic faith wasn’t mediated through an official body of doctrine.  The direct experience of the gnosis gave individuals their own apostolic authority.   Thus, according to Pagels, the Gnostics insisted the resurrection 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 the literal seeing of the resurrected Christ, but spiritual vision.”  (emphasis added) So in Pagels’ view, Gnosticism placed the authority of individual experience on an equal plane with the testimony of the Apostles.  This being the case, no body within the church had greater authority than any other.  Neo-Gnostics claim that in response to the Gnostic view of authority, the leaders of the orthodox faction had to suppress them in order to maintain and justify their own claims to power.   So in the end, the apostolic teaching of the resurrection was all political.  I think it is obvious that Ms. Pagels’ revision of early church history accords well with the general spiritual sentiment of our day.   By proclaiming Biblical authority as rooted in political self-interest neo-Gnostics are calling for a return to Gnostic style spirituality where mystical experience stands over and above the truth. Pagels has also created a great deal of sympathy for the ancient Gnostics by portraying them as a sect oppressed by the totalistic system of emerging orthodoxy, but all the while closer to the center of authentic spirituality (emphasis added).   The result of this is that all orthodox views are discounted as political oppression, and radical mystics are transformed into persecuted martyrs.  But perhaps most disturbing for those of us who value the scriptures, Pagel has linked the New Testament documents to later church politics.  In doing this she implies (and others, such as Prof. Bart Ehrman explicitly state) that the  first century church teaching lacked a clear consensus on doctrine.

It should be obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of early church history that Pagels has made her case without any documentary support, and her views of ancient Gnosticism are themselves at variance with actual Gnostic teaching.   Darrell Bock has pointed out that if the ancient Gnostics were to read her accounts of their teaching they would probably renounce her as a heretic.   Nevertheless in a postmodern culture in which the very concept of an historic fact has been abandoned, and in a time when the manufacturing of facts out of inference and speculation has come to be viewed as being as good as eye witness testimony, it is very hard to respond effectively against neo-Gnostics like Pagels.  But we must respond nevertheless. 

It should also be noted that neo-Gnostics are a minority among those who specialize in the field of early Christian origins, so we do have allies in academia,  BUT neo-Gnostics are a noisy and popular minority. 

Take for example the fact that any television program dealing with the New Testament, whether it be on one of the networks, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, or PBS, will feature the views and perhaps even the faces of Pagels and her fellow travelers.   This kind of exposure ensures that neo-Gnostics will have an  influence far greater than their mere numbers warrant. It is my conviction that in order to be prepared to battle for truth in the days ahead we are going to have to study our church history, postmodernism, and Bibleology.  From my own study I would suggest the following resources:

The Death of Truth – Dennis McCallum, general editor (This book is available for just $10 at McCallum’s ministry’s website www.kenos.org )

Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication – By Bart Ehrman — This resource is available in two formats.   Dr. Ehrman has produced a lecture series by this title which is available through The Teaching Company, www.teach12.com 

Lost Christianities: The battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew.   (Bart Ehrman is an interesting source.  He was raised in a strict fundamentalist home.  He attended both Moody and
Wheaton before losing his faith.   He describes himself today as a happy agnostic.   He is not, therefore, not a neo-Gnostic in the strict sense of the term.  He is, however, a fellow-traveler of Pagels and accepts the Bauer/Pagels revision of early church history.)  Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament – Bart Ehrman (In my opinion it’s worth wading through this stuff just to increase your credibility.  I’ve found it very effective when someone is asking me about some “lost gospel” to be able to say, “I’ve read that, and most of the other Gnostic literature too.”  

Hidden Gospels – How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way – By Philip Jenkins (Jenkins is a Professor of History and Religious Studies atPenn. State.  He is, as nearly as I can tell, not in our camp.  Nevertheless he is a very articulate critic of Pagels and the neo-Gnostic movement and provides us with some great ammunition.  This is also a good book to put in the hands of someone who is giving credence to neo-Gnosticism.)

The Illness We Are – By John P. Dourley.  (This book — by a Jungian Analyst and Roman Catholic priest — presents the Jungian Critique of Christianity.   Warning: Don’t let the fact that Dourly is a priest fool you.  He rejects orthodoxy and is an open advocate of Gnostic Christianity.)

Breaking the Da Vince Code – By Darrel L. Bock (Of the five books I’ve read, this is the best of the critiques of the Da Vinci Code from our point of view.   The introduction my Professor Moloney that I’ve referred to is worth reading in its entirety, as is his discussion of Pagels and his glossary.)  
   

[1] I Timothy 4:4

[2] Breaking the Da Vinci Code, by Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D.  p. xvii

[3] Routledge, Who’s Who in Christianity, by Lavina Cohn-Sherbok

[4] I am quoting directly from or paraphrasing large portions of chapter 13 of The Death of Truth.  This chapter was contributed by Dennis McCallum and Jim Leffel