Orthodoxy versus heresy
From Marvin Meyer’s The Gnostic Discoveries:
But what are orthodoxy and heresy? What is the source of the authority of the “orthodox” texts in the canon of scripture? From an historical point of view, orthodoxy and heresy may be understood as rhetorical constructs, as Karen King states, fashioned in the arena of political debate. Understood in this light, orthodoxy and heresy have little to do with truth and falsehood and everything to do with power and position. In a vote, the majority defines what is orthodox, and the minority is charged with being heretical. Among competing political factions, the dominant force dictates what is orthodox; those less powerful are designated as heretical. And the winners define the Bible.
3 comments so far
Leave a reply
I don’t propose to argue with this, which is simply a common-sense position. But I ought to mention, first and generally, that this statement implies that there is no more at work than the mere power of the majority. In fact, there are doctrinal and scriptural matters involved which are subject to rational appreciation, and with respect to which one can indeed make an assessment of where the truth lies. In the early church, it wasn’t true because the majority voted for it; the majority voted for it because they were convinced, on good grounds, that it was true.
And second and more specifically, this is a description of how decisions were made. Note that past tense? These decisions were made and are no longer open questions. You’re free to be a Gnostic if you want to be, but if that’s what you are then you’re not a Christian, and you have no right to call yourself such. The Christian church condemned Gnosticism as heresy, and as a result you have to pick one.
First off, this is simply a paragraph taken out of the context of a study of the so-called “gnostic texts” from Nag Hammadi which, of course, you understand. The development of the Christian church goes far beyond that of a single vote — there had been plenty of relatively scholarly and theological debate in the years and decades before the final documents were declared through the court of Constantine and the councils of Nicea.
However, before that time, there was definitely an uncertainty to the substance and spirit of Jesus Christ, and a wide range of beliefs were expounded throughout the known world.
These documents prove a purging of information and Christian wisdom which took place upon “heretical” doctrines, a purging which could not have occurred had it not been a clear majority of support for one way of thinking over another.
People can label others however they choose, and far be it for me to say one path is More True than another. I don’t consider myself a gnostic in the true sense, and I believe I had lost my Christian faith some time ago.
I do know, however, that just because the books and doctrine of “Christianity” had been set long ago, it does not mean the faith has not evolved, and to a more gnostic bent, I might add.
In John and through the writings of St Paul, it is only through Jesus (and, by extension, his apostolic successors) that we may see God. Yet today many people, especially North Americans, claim a personal intimacy with God the Father, if not also through the risen Jesus. And they do not believe we need a human interloper to do so.
For that matter, consider the Mormons, who claim to be Christians but also believe that they themselves are saints on this earth, that in them is a divine spirit. This is a Gnostic philosophy, plain and simple.
Claims of heresy have been bandied about by the Christian church for millennia, and many times it has been so as an expression of power or dominance. I do believe that this was the case of the organized church against the gnostics, and I am simply calling them upon this fact.
Thanks for the comment, and your patience with my reply.
The conflict with gnosticism took place at a time when the Christian church was disreputable and persecuted. It was over well before the church became established. It wasn’t a matter of power and dominance, but of a correct understanding of God’s will as Jesus had expressed it. The Nag Hammadi library was indeed purged, but in the 5th century, long after gnosticism had faded away. By that time people who would earlier have been attracted to gnosticism had the option of Manichaeism, which was altogether more conceptually elegant and satisfying, and while friendly to Christ did not purport to be Christian.
The belief that the divine spirit is in one is not a distinctive gnostic belief. It’s mainstream Jewish and Christian, and it turns up in a lot of other religions too. Mormonism isn’t gnostic. It’s neo-Arian, and departs from Christian teaching in its understanding of the nature of God and of Jesus. In its understanding of the relationship of man and creation to God, and of the role of Christ as saviour, it’s quite Christian and decidedly not gnostic.
None of this affects anybody’s right to believe what they want to believe; but you have no right to call yourself a Christian unless you actually are one. I gather that creates no particular difficulties for either of us. You just go easier on the neighbours than I do, and good for you; hope you can keep it up when you’re as old and grumpy as I am.