![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Episco-Pagelian Gnosticism
If I had to guess, I’d say the writing of Elaine Pagels has been probably the single-biggest driving force bringing people to modern gnosticism. She wrote The Gnostic Gospels as well as some other very popular books which successfully brought these old ideas to a new modern audience.
In my experience, your experience of gnosticism has everything to do with how you’re exposed to it. It becomes sort of a wrapper for the ideas themselves. Personally, I enjoy and respect Pagels work, but compared to what I’ve called Phildickian and Anarcho-Gnosticism, I find her approach to be a little bit bland and toothless. But whatever works for you, go for it.
One of the infrequently remarked aspects of Pagels’ Gnostic Gospels is that they actually sound extremely similar to Unitarian Universalism. Pagels herself is a practicing Episcopalian, as far as I know. The UU website offers a few items as a rundown of their beliefs that are very closely aligned with Pagels interpretation of gnosticism:
“I want a religion that respects the differences between people and affirms every person as an individual.” […]
“I want a congregation that cherishes freedom and encourages open dialogue on questions of faith, one in which it is okay to change your mind.”
“I want a religious community that affirms spiritual exploration and reason as ways of finding truth.” […]
The official beliefs of the Episcopalian Church are a little different, but in actual execution, they tend to value a similar diversity among their congregations. For the most part, Pagels paints a picture of traditional gnosticism being sort of a pre-cursor to this type of religious organization. They focused on diversity, inclusion and individual exploration and importance. Since traditional gnostics were an extremely eclectic mix of groups, this is a pretty reasonable assessment of things, I think. Pagels does an excellent job of highlighting how this tradition meshes with comparable modern traditions, especially as evidenced by Unitarianism and Episcopalianism (though she doesn’t mention either by name in the Gnostic Gospels). In honor of her, I suggest we use the name “Episco-Pagelian Gnosticism” to describe this modern day variety of gnosticism.
While I think this is a great interpretation, I personally find it a little blah. One of the things I cherish about gnosticism is the crazy language and metaphorical concepts that it espouses. Things like: archons, aeons, demiurge, materia, Sophia, the Logos, VALIS, the Black Iron Prison, the homoplasmate. Maybe I’m just a weirdo, but I really get off on all that stuff in a big way. I don’t necessarily believe (or dis-believe) in any of it literally, but I find the metaphors and language to be extremely valuable and stimulating tools.
Pagels, in my limited experience of her work, tends to down-play this crazy sci-fi element of gnosticism that I find so appealing. The same also applies to other Episco-Pagelian works, like Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, and the femi-gnostic works of Margaret Starbird. In most of these works, instead of examining and dismantling the illusions of the archons, we’re treated to a lot of wanking about “the Sacred Feminine.” I do, of course, agree that the “lost” feminine aspect is extremely important in balancing out our religious views. So for that reason, I think it’s great. And it certainly seems like it’s opened a lot of doors for people in their own private understanding of spirituality. I just think gnosticism can be a lot more exciting and , dare I say, revolutionary than that.
Jennifer Emick and I were talking about this Episco-Pagelian gnostic phenomenon in an email recently, and she made what I thought was a humongously important point. She said that the biggest followers of this line of thinking tend to be Christian women who like the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had kids. Seems like it makes him a little more human for some people, a little easier to relate with. Jennifer also suggested that what we were going to see is that many of the people who would a few years ago have gone into Wicca as a reaction against patriarchal spirituality are instead going to remain safely inside Christianity-at-large, but with a kindler, gentler, gender-inclusive focus.
I don’t really want to make a value judgement against people on this track though, even if I don’t subscribe to it myself. Personally, I think that’s fine for them. And hopefully it will have a trickle-down effect to the rest of Christianity. More than likely though, for gnostics on other tracks, the next few years are going to be flooded with Episco-Pagelians trumpeting from every rooftop and coffeeshop that their’s is the “true” interpretation of Gnosticism. We’re also going to unfortunately see this co-opted by the pre-existing New Age movement. Soon (probably already, in fact) you’ll be able to sign up for weekend spa-retreat workshops about “Getting In Touch With Your Inner Gnostic.” It’s bound to happen, and it’s not so much bad as it is an opportunity for the rest of us to really speak up even louder about other possible approaches.
- Thelemites Not Gnostics?
- Gnostic Essays
- The Tao of Gnosticism
- Is Gnosticism Corruptible?
- The Sethian Gnostics
- Prev: Anger is a gift. Merry Christmas!
- Next: Gnostic Essays
June 16th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
yeah, pagels definitely opened the doors for a lot of people. there’s like this little sort of cabal of gnostic scholars who happened to get lucky because they happened to know coptic and work in ivy league schools when the nag hammadi texts broke into the big time. pagels is certainly the most accessible, but there’s also james robinson, marvin meyer, bentley layton (the best of the bunch, imho), etc. the problem i’ve always had with these guys & pagels’ work in particular is that it’s still being written from a non-gnostic standpoint, and they tend to be very objective about a necesarilly subjective system. and, yeah, their scholasticism can make their books pretty bland.
i don’t really see it to be that much of a problem, either, tho’ i really don’t look forward to the day when we start seeing gnostic evangelists and proselytizers declaring that Gnosticism is The One True Way. that’ll defeat the whole purpose.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
In most of these works, instead of examining and dismantling the illusions of the archons, we’re treated to a lot of wanking about “the Sacred Feminine.”
*********************
UGH. The same thing has happened with Tantra in the US, all of the dark & heavy psychological processes have been stripped away - Kali , vamamarga, aghora, etc - just leaving only this vague wash of California sunshine with no blood or death in sight.
STill valid I guess but not exactly awesome (or awful) as there has to be some awe before something can be anything but safe and vaguely naughty.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
are you guys familiar with a book called the colbrin bible?it is an ancient text proported to have been kept by a sect for centuries and has now been made available for jim mccanney to diseminate.i sense a sort of cult emerging out of all of this.especially since another person,who`s name escapes me,has published the text as public domain.considering the alledged age of the book,i see the man`s point.
the text deals with descriptions of a returning agent of global catastrophe,ala velikovski,that will wreak havok on humanity.the conspiracy angle to this is that,supposedly,nasa knows all about this and is covering the info up.sounds like,um,you know what,but the text seems interesting.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Jennifer also suggested that what we were going to see is that many of the people who would a few years ago have gone into Wicca as a reaction against patriarchal spirituality are instead going to remain safely inside Christianity-at-large, but with a kindler, gentler, gender-inclusive focus.
I don’t really want to make a value judgement against people on this track though, even if I don’t subscribe to it myself. Personally, I think that’s fine for them. And hopefully it will have a trickle-down effect to the rest of Christianity.
Precisely. Personal anecdote: I might have become a Wiccan, but Wiccans annoy me for the reasons you mention below in a previous post. Now I’m a lazy Episcopalian whose belief system is more Buddhist (although you and your friend at Fantastic Planet might convert me yet to Gnosticism). I will say this: I can assure you that Episcopalians have absolutely no “trickle-down” influence on other Christians. Most Xtians of the American variety don’t even really think of Episcopalians as “Christian”. You know: Gene Robinson, gay marriage and all.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
hm, you might have a point there. whats more likely to happen though is that episcopalians will influence non-denominational spiritual people, who will influence the culture at large, which will *eventually* influence other types of christianity
anyway, i dont hope to make anybody a gnostic. i dont really even go around calling myself one. its just one of many story-systems that i really like. i also really like batman. know what i mean?
June 16th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
The sacred feminine is not all roses and lovey dovey stuff. The power of Kali is absolutely awesome in a terrible and psychological way. When a women who has been brought up in a dogmatic and ‘this is your role get used to it’ meets Kali, it is not a sweet and lovely wankyfest. Kali is the destroyer. She kills. When a women meets her, it is not ‘well thank you very much that was sweet.’ It is more about a knowing that you could absolutely kill and making the decision not too. I have experienced her power in relation to protecting my children, but she is also one step — a very small step to going over the line in other ways. I have also been in the situation where I have told a man well if you do that, you had better kill me, because I will get you, if you don’t.
The Greeks called her Medusa. So my point is if a connection is made between the sexes as to Mary Magdelene, then that is a huge step up. If women are getting into Wicca, that is also a big step. This is not a linear, reductionist, intellectual tome. When people have been repressed, it can be a huge explosion when that has been realized. Directing it to gnostic thought is in my opinion a valid way to go. So throw your flames, I have my tin hat on. Actually, I have to get dinner now.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Rev: that’s also a good point about tantra, or hinduism in any variety in general. especially on the internet. its SO FREAKING HARD to find good information about it online. which is part of my “quest” i guess with gnosticism. i think we got into the game earlier enough that we’re all already having an impact on the shape this information takes on the internet. i think we just need to keep putting it out there, especially establishing it before other sources flood the market. the more we have before that happens, the less they will be able to push us out
June 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I’m not sure how important it is that Elaine Pagels is an Episcopalian, since Philip K. Dick was also a practicing Episcopalian. They provide access to traditional Christian sacraments — that’s why Philip K. Dick became a convert — without all the enforcement of beliefs and behavior that the Catholic church has.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
i totally dig where you’re going with that rhondda. and you’re totally right that things that seem boring to me are really explosive for other people. and things that seem really explosive for me, would probably leave other people out in the cold. i dont want to categorically dismiss anything, but at the same time, i dont want to restrain my own reactions to these things just because other people don’t see it the same way. one of the things thats always really bored me with spiritual inquiry is when people just say everythings totally great, don’t judge, etc. there’s definitely a point where all the judging can get to be too much and tedious and petty, but theres other times when it can really help you and others refine what it is that you’re after, and articulate why one thing is more useful for you than another.
i also agree that a lot of sacred feminine stuff is really cool. i was HUGE into barbara walker’s woman’s encyclopedia of myths and secrets for a long time. it really smashed open my views on a lot of religious and mythological stuff. however, i definitely think there IS a lot of “lovey dovey” “let’s all be happy” stuff in most of the sacred feminine literature thats beginning to saturate pop culture.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Hey Tim, I know you aren’t “trying” to convert people to Gnosticism. I’m just saying that your exposure of the subject (as well as Jeremy’s) has been enlightening and provides some interesting to solutions to problems for which (my interpretation of) Buddhism can’t really provide satisfactory answers.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Mary Magdelene, then that is a huge step up.**
I’m not so sure it’s a “step” anywhere, except into ego stroking. I’m all for an egalitarian approach to spirituality, but I’ve met just too damn many “I’m a goddess, hear me roar” crap to take it seriously as a *movement.*
I started off being very sympathetic to this pov, but not any more, because it’s shaping up to be a two-edged sword. First, because this information is not hidden, and hasn’t been for a long time. Sure, it’s nice that the “Da Vinci Code” is bringing the curious to the table, but at the same time, I smell an agenda shaping up.
A prime example of this (and I’m really not trying to hurt any feelings here) is the “dark Kali” stuff. First, Kali is NOT “dark.” Kali embodies a specific Tantrik idwa, which is being bastardized into this ‘dark mother’ nonsense that is just as destructive as the loving mother Mary crap. She’s not a representation of the female gender, or any of the other ego-identification stuff that’s going around in the ‘divine feminine’ crowd.
The push to popularize it is going to do to Gnosticism what Wicca did to ritual magick. The original will be pushed to the back like a distasteful relative while the evangelizers do newspaper interviews about why they’re ‘misunderstood.’ I don’t think I have the patience to listen to any more self identification with deity, or attempts to ‘balance’ religion, which is uterly missing the point. It’s a bad concept borrowed from Wicca, and it’s destroying the deeper mystical symbolism intended. It looks like a big wet hug, but it’s the archons wearing a “powerful priestess” or “loving mother god” costume, and it’s just as much bullshit as the 1.0 model. The idea that these are *symbols* gets hosed and we’re left “feeling good about ourselves.”
June 16th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Yes, I agree with you Tim. I think people get stuck in the lovey dovey stuff because it feels good. Actually that is my point. You can’t stay there. You have to go into the dark stuff too, but you cannot do that without having some feel good stuff to help you through it. What Elaine Pagels etc are doing is gently exposing this stuff. Who really knows what they are thinking now. This is only what they have presented publically. Like your stuff. I would have never read any Philip K Dick if you have not publically wrote about him. However, where you are at in your deepest self is not going to be here yet unitl your are ready to say it. So, some people are at the the beginning. I have read Walker’s stuff too. She helped alot. Unfortunately, she is not as good a fiction writer as she is a compiler. Pagels, as an academic, is just going where she can in good faith. Nobody can convert someone to gnosticism. It doesn’t work that way. You come to it on your own, because other ways are not anwering the questions you have. Where ever you are on the path is where you should be, but there always have to be questions. As Leonard Cohen says there is a crack in everything. I want to go into those cracks—the gap as the Buddhists’say.
June 17th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
who is to say what kali is.surely kali is what anyone picking up the archetype needs her to be.granted there is a ground objectivity to any archetype but flexibility is a necessary approach to life,i believe.without it we snap under pressure.whenever we follow we need a clear picture of what we are following.part of the clarifying process comes from our preconcieved ideas about what we need from the process.we don`t just do this with archetypes,we do this with spouses and with consumer products and with baseball teams.that`s why life is wide open.we make it up as we go along.and we can let people have thier perceptions of what the archetypes mean to them,unless they are being damaged by it.y`know,like wearing little gold torture devices around thier necks.
June 17th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
[…] h magic(k), etc. To me, the main contender (at least in the US) is what I called yesterday Episco-Pagelian Gnosticism. While that strain of thinking doesn’ […]
June 19th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Rev: that’s also a good point about tantra, or hinduism in any variety in general. especially on the internet. its SO FREAKING HARD to find good information about it online.
————
CHeck out http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/tantra/
I found this to be very interestng as well http://www.indiadivine.com/mystical-secrets-tantra-kerala1.htm
The latter some will ridicule as sensationalistic I’m sure but OK, people like this really do exist and do these things too, there is some wisdom there for those willing to see it
June 19th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
i have read of similar texts that talk of vimanas.nuts and bolts flying machines with energy ray weapons and nukes.i`m not sure if i`m ridiculing the article so much as saying that our culture certainly doesn`t support this kind of consensus belief,or things like voodoo either.maybe that`s why we can`t quite get the spells to work.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
[…] coulda, shoulda slept with… oh well! Tim talks elsewhere about something he calls Episco-pagelian gnosticism, contrasting it with his own interest in the […]