I re-read Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels, Pagels, and the overall subject matter someone I have read and talked about in the past. The length of time I have read this subject might be suggested by the fact I saw her give a lecture at Drew University while a student. Let's say this was some time back.
I think this provides a good basic summary of Gnosticism, which has various complexities and still confuses me somewhat. A basic thought I had re-reading this little book (first published in 1979, this was a later printing though without a new introduction or something) was to wonder what exactly is the "knowledge" (gnosis) people sought out here.
The basic idea is clear enough, as far as it goes, regarding those "in the know" about the true nature of existence. But, what is the value of it all? So, you figure out that the world is corrupt in some form and there is some true understanding to be had about the spiritual world. So what?
My summary at the link argues that the basic idea is that gnostics are aiming for a form of self-knowledge and self-actualization. Pagels, though she tacks on at the very end an assurance she is not taking sides here, clearly finds some aspects positive. This includes recognizing male and female qualities in the creative force and an open-ended approach to finding knowledge.
She does suggest certain aspects that can be problematic. There is a certain elitism to the idea that membership in the club (or a special group in a wider club) requires special often esoteric knowledge. Want to know why gnostic works are not in the New Testament. Part of it is that they are clearly (other than perhaps the Gospel of Thomas) late; the other part is the esoteric nature of the main texts.
There is also an inner focus for many in the movement. Orthodox Christians had various issues, but (this might be a bit surprising to some) were more comfortable with the world overall. At least this is how she frames it in this book. This is seen in the sacraments that mark various moments in our lives (birth, marriage, death, etc.). It is not all anti-sex and so on.
As Pagels notes, there is a place for different aspects of Christian thought, and it is seen in the gospels as well. Jesus speaks of secret knowledge as well as teaching the crowds basic truths. Jesus speaks of marriage as well as rejecting family in his name. The gospels are like the Bible in miniature bringing together a bunch of stuff, some that are contradictory.
===
Just before Christmas, I offered a message to the country — a message that is at the heart of the Christian faith, but yet is universal — a universal message of hope, of joy, of love.
Whether you’re Christian, whether you’re Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other faith, or no faith at all, it speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this Earth primarily to care for our — one another; look — look out for one another; and to love one another. And it’s not always easy. It’s hard. But that’s — that’s our — our mission.
President Biden is a religious guy and is comfortable with the use of faith and religious language. The last two Democratic presidents in their own ways (Obama chose black Christian faith as part of his social justice work; Clinton was comfortable in the Southern Baptist tradition) were as well. Hillary Clinton was able to relate with black Christian groups as well and spoke in her own at times new age-y religious ways.
Trump used religious groups (and vice versa) for his own purposes. Biden has a more honest relation to religion. The more important thing for me is that Biden uses religion in a more positive way. Some think "religion" itself is bad. I disagree. Religion is an open-ended part of human existence. It has positive and negative aspects.
Pagels noted that some use Christian themes, including the resurrection of Jesus, in symbolic ways. That is part of my sentiment. Religion to me is often a type of poetry. This is the case with prayer, surely, which often is clearly a form of poetry.
The immediate reason for such thoughts is the annual National Prayer Breakfast, which has led to various concerns because of the secretive and right-leaning nature of the group behind it. The historical Kevin Kruse recently reminded people about his writings on the origins of the breakfast, which provided a more blatant mixture of church and state.
Freedom From Religion Foundation (again I'm not as much FFRF as freethinking and freedom of illegitimate mixing of church and state) continues to be wary about the whole thing. The female co-host of their radio/television programs was somewhat glad about efforts to separate the core of "The Family" from the politicians taking part. But, she still was dubious and we hear about "subterfuge," including some connections.
The link is to a podcast by a Baptist religious liberty (leaning toward traditional liberal separation views from what I can tell) group about the breakfast. The podcast does not discuss the concerns (spelled out in more than one book) about the backers but is wary about the implication of an "official" mixture of church and state. This is suggested by one Democratic chair noting how benign and "nonsectarian" a group is and then blithely noting it is Christian. Sure. All religions are invited!
The prayer breakfast has had various benign people involved. My senator (Gillibrand) was a co-chair. Liberal speakers, including one strongly against the death penalty and for criminal justice, spoke. The founding group does have some troubling aspects. The public pushback -- not just neutral reasons like convenience as some members cited -- surely was involved in trying to separate them from the rest.
And, even if we might be upset that Congress is not a true cross-section of a growing non-official (about 30%) religion-supporting country (no open atheists, a handful of non-Christians cited in a poll of membership), it is appropriate for government officials like everyone else to show their religious side. A "national prayer breakfast" has a certain implication, but it is not truly official. It is not a "national day of prayer" authorized by congressional legislation and official presidential pronouncement.
I continue to find that firmly inappropriate.
===
And, there is that Republican troll, Rep. Matt Gaetz, trolling.
Gaetz led an effort to say the Pledge of Allegiance before each House Judiciary Committee hearing. The House already each day leads off with the Pledge, even when there is a few minute pro forma session.
Schoolchildren do not say the Pledge before each class. This is just a bit of theater. One Democrat on the committee suggested an amendment, not passed, that anyone who committed insurrection should not lead the saying of the Pledge. Overall, this is an empty, and on some level insulting and hypocritical, a bit of political theater.
Kevin Kruse also reminds us that the Pledge of Allegiance also played a part in the mixture of church and state and our "Christian Nation." The same president (Ike) that was the first one to take part in a prayer breakfast was part of the effort to add "under God" to the Pledge. This was part of the effort not only to compare our "religious" nature to godless communism but clearly to offer a certain conservative Christian flavor.
A few years earlier, in the famous flag salute case, Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren were recognized to have a right to not salute a flag. The main opinion argued that it was a matter of freedom of expression. Concurring opinions also noted that freedom of conscience was involved, including the banning of so-called "test oaths" that in English history included a religious statement agreeing to the official church.
I can unite all there here. The gnostics got in trouble with the orthodox ("correct opinion) Christians for being so-called "heretics" (interestingly, literally, "choosing" or "able to choose") that challenged the official leadership. The official leadership had certain ceremonies (including meals) and declarations of belief [which clashed with Roman ones] that gnostics refused to go along with, adding a bit of irony.
The Pledge of Allegiance (the "under God" part aside) is overall a benign statement of our national values. It might not be something for everyone to pledge to a flag, but the flag is a symbol of values. This Republican Congress might want to do some introspection about upholding them instead of repeating the words of statements of faith more often.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!