If some folks want to join a strictly dogmatic church-bashin’ non-joiners club, then good luck to them. It is their life, their delusion, their make believe. Just let me know if that is the case, so I won’t inadvertently threaten you with my dangerous scary ideas, horrifying form, and *gasp* years of actual service. We can even add you to the list of “Varieties of Modern Gnosticism” under Anti-Ecclesiastical Gnostics, a footnote to the Ecclesiastical Gnostics section.

If someone doesn’t join the EGC, that doesn’t necessarily mean they want to join a “strictly dogmatic church-bashin’ non-joiners club” either. Maybe they just want to do their own thing.

“with us or against us” - even Bush has abandoned that stance - its not helpful

Who is claiming this, btw? Out of curiousity. Is anyone claiming this who has any kind of serious presence within the Logosphere? I haven’t noticed it myself. Most people who claim some kind of opposition to “organized Gnosticism” seem to be of the opinion that it’s fine for others but not for them personally…

Word to that. There’s obviously some kind of miscommunication going on here. Let me get something out of the way. I think Revs. Troy and Gil have put a lot of hard work and heart into their ecclesiastical ministries, they have clearly done a lot of good, and kudos to them for that. I can only really speak for myself, of course, but I think most everyone else here would second this: I both respect and appreciate that viewpoint and what they bring to the table. I think what Tim and others including myself have said about Gnostic churches has unfortunately been taken as an attack on all that hard work, dedication, and the perspective of the church-goers. From what I can tell, that’s totally not the case.

As economic success became more and more important to people, rather than spiritual gratification, sacrifice-based religions, especially in western and european cultures, faded. This follows why many churches (mine own included) are slowly losing congregants and dying out. Our format has ceased being relavent to the current generation.

So, looking for “up-to-date” spirituality isn’t bad bad thing, it’s the most important thing. We cannot grow without change.

it’s also kind of unwarranted when you consider that these churches act like great big vehicles for gnosis but don’t seem to offer anything in the way of a specific system for achieving it.

Is that true? asking honestly as I don’t know.

There was a period back in the late 90s when I was being “courted” for lack of a better term by a lot of orgs to join the rosicrucians or the thelemites or whatever… but the more i looked into it, the less it really seemed i might get something out of it - just didn’t interest me in the end.

Emma Goldman: “If i can’t dance i don’t want your revolution”

Lately I’ve been feeling like an artist again instead of an ideologue - reading the “head high holy hoo-ha” original comment over on JPs blog made me realize that - to really see you can’t be committed to any ideology other than your own experience.

Sure there’s danger there - that unguided appraoch - but ideological art is notoriously boring and anyway, as long as I have nobody else to be responsible for, why would I want to restrict myself to coloring inside the lines demarcated by someone else?

The groovy thing about all of this ecclesiastical activity on the web is that I tried all of that community building-mailing list-respectability mongering stuff in the late 90s and it got old fast.

A lot of other people are doing that now, gnosticism doesn’t need any more pushing to get in the public eye. So i can worry about more fun things like cartooning, magazine article writing etc instead of running webrings, writing letters to the editor and boring stuff like that.

Some wiliam blake quote which eludes me… oh yeah “I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man’s; I will not reason and compare; my business is to create”

But anyone who does want to reason and compare, hey more power to’em!!!! Go for it!!!!!! Glad someone’s doing it!!!! Organization-building is teh cool!

No one is claiming a church is the only way to go, some folks are claiming it is not a way to go at all, not only not Gnostic but anti-Gnostic.

Who is claiming this, btw? Out of curiousity. Is anyone claiming this who has any kind of serious presence within the Logosphere? I haven’t noticed it myself. Most people who claim some kind of opposition to “organized Gnosticism” seem to be of the opinion that it’s fine for others but not for them personally….

If you want to do your own thing, not only don’t folks in Gnostic churches care, but we do our own things as well. It is when someone attacks a Gnostic church for being a Church, attacks the book for the cover of the book not the contents, like just another self-righteous ass, that we come to difficulties.

No one is claiming a church is the only way to go, some folks are claiming it is not a way to go at all, not only not Gnostic but anti-Gnostic. And, frankly, all that is is a dogmatic ideological claim. That isn’t Gnosticism. That has nothing to do with Gnosis, nothing to do with reality, it is just another land of make believe that is up there on a shelf with Fundamentalism, or Liberal Protestantism. The saying about reflections does come into play, doesn’t it?

The “against the ecclesiastical heretics!” rant has nothing to do with us. Let alone legitimate concerns involved with coming together in any form or within any sctucture. It is a shadow play.

If some folks want to join a strictly dogmatic church-bashin’ non-joiners club, then good luck to them. It is their life, their delusion, their make believe. Just let me know if that is the case, so I won’t inadvertently threaten you with my dangerous scary ideas, horrifying form, and *gasp* years of actual service. We can even add you to the list of “Varieties of Modern Gnosticism” under Anti-Ecclesiastical Gnostics, a footnote to the Ecclesiastical Gnostics section.

Or, we can all look at reality together. You know, the place where our assertions and opinions aren’t necessarily the case. Where we might try to “see what is in front of our faces,” as some wacky old book once said.

there is a part of me that wants to stay an enemy , not just represent postmodern Jungian feminist newage Christianity but instead put forth a vision of something undomesticated, alien, unassimilable, troubling, disturbing.

I love the commentary of Rev Max because he f**king rocks! And I love the word simulataneous.

Too much food for thought! I love that phrase, because the more food you eat the more you have to shit. Reminds me of the time I ate scones and watched an abject horror film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078935/

gnostic churchiness is silly, imho. but if people want to be that way, it’s fine. it does get me a bit when they act like anyone who doesn’t is raining on their ecclesiastical parade. part of the problem is that the self-seriousness of gnostic churchiness lends itself to a decidedly un-gnostic attitude (again, imho, though i might get screamed at or called a tire-kicking hipster for having a contrary opinion). it’s also kind of unwarranted when you consider that these churches act like great big vehicles for gnosis but don’t seem to offer anything in the way of a specific system for achieving it. i’m sorry, but i don’t think a modified catholic mass is going to bring enlightenment. some nice holy moments, sure, but it hardly seems like the same thing.

another thing that gets me is how the word “egotism” gets thrown around in situations like this. pleeeeeaase. these are blogs, for fuck sake. egotism is the name of the game. if you have a blog, you’ve already capitulated to it. and anyway, using that term as a rhetorical weapon to smite one’s opponents seems a bit… egotistical… to me.

Does there really have to be a conflict between these revivalist organizations and individuals who want to explore gnosticism on the web though? I wonder.

Joseph Chippus mentioned something similar on his own blog a while back, that modern gnosticism seems to be mostly a revival of the tame Valentinian school and the wild and contrary vision put forth by the Stehinas was mostly being swept under the carpet (or something along that line). I do agree with him there.

OTOH you can’t live in a state of permanent revolution - it becomes to wearying, there is a place for community.

In a very similar way there are initiatory lines in African religions as well, you can’t just decalre yourself a Quimbandero or whatever, you have to get jumped in. Those rleigions don’t have “solitary, eclectics” like w. the wiccans.

There might be people who are solitary and eclectic, but still, they did get initiated by someone - you can’t just self-initiate to become a witchdoctor,, its too dangerous.

Then again the analogy doesn’t really carry over because anyone can experience gnosis.

Man too much food for thought here.

Speaking for myself: having been raised in Roman Catholicism, I am in no hurry to trade one ‘-ism’ for another, just so I can bury myself in the snuggly comfort of common group-think. I surely do not consider myself a follower of ‘Gnosticism’ or any other other spiritually-specific ‘brand’… as it all, eventually, seems to get bogged down in dogmatic pissing contests. Nor do I ascribe to the ala-carte methodology of picking & choosing what ever ‘feels good’ from any number of religions. However, the overlapping regions of religion and philosophy are fascinating to me.

I freely admit I am in search of something… just not sure what it is at the moment (I get the sense that is the case for alotta folks). Call it my own personal gnosis, perhaps… minus the ‘Gnostiscism’. Personally, I find myself attracted to philosophical Taoism, as it seems a healthy way to relate to what is fundamentally unknowable. At any rate, I’ve been listening to & reading alot of Robert Anton Wilson lately & it has me contemplating the self made-boundaries (or ‘reality tunnels’ in RAW-speak) we create for ourselves…

Eh… freakin’ labels…

Hope you continue to enjoy your vacation!

Dude, as someone priveleged to consider you a good friend, I don’t think the estimable Rev. Gil really “gets” where you’re coming from. There’s serious danger when you belong to an organization, no matter the good work you do, of being overly dismissive of other peoples’ experiences and approaches to their own explorations. That’s why we have all these stodgy-types who want to insist that megachurches are somehow invalid religious expressions, or that honest seekers who move from path to path are somehow just being “hipsters” instead of going through the healthy process of exploration that creates a valid spiritual life. What the hell is wrong with that? IMHO, and in all due respect to Rev. Gil and others who do indeed serve most wonderfully, berating curious seekers who have valid questions isn’t necesarilly the best way to represent the Gnostic Path.

But what always makes me feel better is to focus on the good that enemies.com actually has done, people who have actually been been helped by it in some weird way that i don’t quite understand and can’t take responsibility for.

WHat’s going on with gnosticism right now actually makes me think a lot of the gay rights movement.

For a long time homosexuality was underground. Then it was above ground but a mental illness. Then it became the object of a PR campaign w. attendant parades, awards, etc.

Now there is a split between the folks who wnat to assimilate and get married, have kids, etc and a white picket fence, proudly proclaiming “we can be republicans too! we’re just like anyone else” and the leather daddies who resist assimilation and instead want to drop ecstasy tabs, dance all night to bad disco and have anomymous sex with multiple partners.

In the big picture though the people who want to resist assimilation and stay outsiders have the luxury of making that choice because of all the work by the people who wanted to make it respectable though.

Ot not. I dunno. I don’t have all that much insight into the internal politics of this stuff but it seems to me that there are folks who are eager to churchify gnosticism and domesticate it and remove the wild element so that it can become another choice in the marketplace like Episcopalian, Catholic, Gnostic, Baptist whatever.

That doesn’t interest me at all but I guess I’m glad someone’s doing it.

Not that you asked but’s kind of why I decided to go back to enemies.com and abandon secretbible.com, there is a part of me that wants to stay an enemy , not just represent postmodern Jungian feminist newage Christianity but instead put forth a vision of something undomesticated, alien, unassimilable, troubling, disturbing.

That kind of vision seems to reach a different kind of person than the people who get excited about episcopates and collection plates. But, what the hell do i know?

i know i didn’t actually answer your question, sorry.

Blog posts - every insight becomes a mirror of a sort.

If you’re truly interested in your own personal progression, you will not care what anyone else is doing unless you can form a “school” around shared principles. This will allow for faster progress for all concerned, because it is all very difficult to do all this on one’s own. But if it is all being done as a way to try to make yourself look better in front of your friends, I’d bet you that no one is getting anything constructive out of the situation.