July 08, 2008
Against the Falsely So-Called Gnostiticism
(Jimmy Akin)
Longtime readers of this blog may know that I don't like the word "cult," at least as it is commonly used (i.e., bad religious group). The reason that I don't like it is that, although every "cult researcher" will try to formulate a definition of what a cult is, these definitions invariably include elements that are (a) arbitrary (e.g., if you don't believe in sola fide, you're a cult), (b) objectively unverifiable (e.g., saying that a group is "too" this or "too" that, which makes it a matter of opinion), or (c) applied selectively to groups that the user doesn't like but not to groups that he does (e.g., did you know that those Christians are supposed to be willing to give up their lives rather than deny the founder of their group? and that they're supposed to believe all of his teachings? and that he's God? How cultlike!).
In the end, I find that using the term "cult" (in the "bad religious group") sense adds more heat than light. It just starts arguments over who is or is not a cult, stirs up bad feelings, and in general distracts from a discussion of the merits or demerits of whatever religion is under consideration.
As far as I can tell, the word "cult" in its colloquial sense is just a term of contempt used to refer to religions that one doesn't like. "Cult" = "religious group I don't like," esp. "smaller, newer religious group I don't like."
(BTW, yes, I know all about its other, historical, positive use, but that's not the usage I'm concerned with here.)
Another term I don't like--but that is often used in "cult studies" is "mind control." This is a scare word introduced by "cult researchers" to refer to what historically has been referred to by the word "persuasion."
But we can go into those topics in more detail another time.
I'm writing today to talk about another word that is commonly misused: "Gnosticism."
Today I was reading the excellent publication Catholic World Report, which is very much worth reading, and I recommend that you subscribe if you haven't (SUBSCRIBE HERE).
As readers may know, I get almost all of my information electronically these days, and so for me to actually read a print publication says something very special about it. Catholic World Report is one of a handfull that I even bother with, so it's quite special indeed.
And the July 2008 issue has a very nice article on Reiki by Anna Abbott (whose name has the interesting quality of having all of the consonants doubled, making it very easy to spell; kudos to her parents and ancestors!).
The article is quite well done, and I especially like the way Anna uses a particular passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show the incompatibility of Reiki with Catholic practice (it's paragraph 2117, in case you're wondering), and I'd highly encourage you to get the July issue just to read this article.
But it does have one part about which I have concerns. That comes when the article states:
Reiki appears to be a form of Gnosticism. Its practitioners assert "secret" knowledge, despite the fact one can find the symbols of it on the Internet with a few clicks. A Reiki practitioner in Calistoga, California reported to me that when she looked at one of the "power symbols"--which bears an uncanny resemblance to the musical treble clef--she perceived it differently than I did because she's initiated.
After the first sentence, my spidey sense was going off, because, unfortunately, it is very common for writers in the religious press to label things as being "Gnostic" or as "Gnosticism" when, in fact, they are totally unrelated to the historical heresy of that name. As soon as someone claims something modern to be Gnosticism, I cringe, because it's usually wrong.
The second sentence doesn't improve my confidence level. It appears to be justifying the claim that Reiki is Gnosticism based on the fact that "its practitioners assert 'secret' knowledge."
This is not enough. All kinds of people claim secret knowledge--or at least knowledge that other people don't have. That doesn't make them Gnostics.
I think the root of the problem may be that historical Gnosticism was a pluriform heresy that didn't have just a single set of beliefs. As a result, it is difficult to say "This is what a Gnostic believed" in the same way that it is hard to say "This is what a New Ager believes" or even "This is what a Protestant believes." There was no single, official statement of Gnostic belief--no Catechism of the Gnostic Church--any more than there is an official Catechism of the New Age Movement or an official Catechism of the Protestant Church.
To really say what Gnostics taught, you have to note that certain ideas were characteristic of different Gnostic groups but that not all Gnostic groups shared them. You have to do the same thing with the New Age Movement and Protestantism, too, since they also are doctrinally diverse groups that have certain common characteristics among their different branches but do not have a single, official position on their distinctives (e.g., not all New Agers believe in reincarnation, and not all Protestants understand sola fide or sola scriptura the same way).
Talking about what makes someone a Gnostic thus involves a decent bit of hard work and historical research, and many authors trying to do that work encounter oversimplifications of what Gnosticism was.
Often, rather than describing in detail the content of Gnostic thought, authors will oversimplify and try to explain what a Gnostic was by focusing on the name "Gnostic."
It's easy to point out that the name is based on "gnosis," which was one of the Greek words for knowledge--which, back then wasn't really secret either because the Gnostics talked and wrote all about it--and the Church Fathers critiqued it! (What was secret was not the content of the knowledge but more the way it had allegedly been preserved from Jesus' time.)
Merely claiming to have knowledge that other people don't have doesn't make you a Gnostic. Christians claim that. We call that knowledge "revelation."
Even claiming that you should act on this knowledge that other people don't have in order to be saved isn't Gnosticism. Christians claim that, too.
You can even have knowledge that you don't share with outsiders. That doesn't make you a Gnostic. That just makes you secretive.
What was distinctive about the Ghostics was not that they claimed to have knowledge that others didn't, it was not that they thought you should act on their knowledge in order for things to go well for you, and it wasn't that they were in some measure secretive.
That describes every organized group of humans in world history!
Every group thinks that it has, if not the master key to the universe, at least a piece of knowledge that is true and that not everybody shares. Every group thinks that this knowledge should be acted upon in some way (even if it is by sitting passively by while Cthulhu eats up the world, in hopes of being eaten last). And every group has privileged or proprietary information that it doesn't share with just anybody (like what the local pastor's credit card number is, for example).
What made the Gnostics Gnostics was the content of their belief system--their views about God and the world and death and life and how to be saved and what salvation means.
If a modern author wants to declare a modern thing to be "Gnosticism," he needs to show more than that a movement claims to have some sort of privileged information that should be acted upon. Every diet book salesman claims that.
Instead, one must be prepared to show that the modern thing--whatever it is--has multiple (not just one or a few) points of contact with the content of the beliefs of the historical Gnostics.
And the article on Reiki doesn't provide that.
Neither does the fact that a particular Reiki practitioner may say that a symbol means something different to her than to a noninitiate. Christians have had their own symbols historically, like the Chi-Rho and the Ichthus and, most of all, the Cross, that mean something different to them than to outsiders. In fact, during the age of persecutions, some of these symbols were used precisely because outsiders didn't know or didn't always know what they meant.
As part of my apologetic discipline, whenever I read claims about another religion, I try to turn it around and see if the same claims could be made about my own religion. It's a way of being fair to other religions and weeding out unjust arguments against them (and it's one of the reasons I don't like the terms "cult" and "mind control" in their contemporary senses, because the definitions offered for them frequently are so vague that they can be turned around and applied to Christianity, evangelization, and apologetics).
So let's take a look at how the paragraph quoted above might be rephrased:
Christianity appears to be a form of Gnosticism. Its practitioners assert "secret" knowledge that other religions don't have, despite the fact one can find the symbols of it on the Internet with a few clicks. A Christian in Calistoga, California reported to me that when she looked at the Cross--one of the Christian "power symbols"--which bears an uncanny resemblance to the letter "t"--she perceived it differently than I did because she's a Christian.
I wouldn't think that this establishes that Christianity is Gnosticism, and so I don't think that the paragraph as originally quoted establishes Reiki as Gnosticism.
I'm no expert in Reiki, but from what I have read about it, it doesn't seem that Reiki practitioners have an elaborate cosmogony or message of how to have things go right for you after death that reads like the Nag Hammadi manuscripts with the names changed.
So I don't, from my own knowledge, see Reiki as Gnosticism. Instead, I see it as a bunch of New Age snake oil that engenders superstitious beliefs about a mystical life/energy field for which there is no scientific evidence and that in its healing efforts combines the placebo effect with the facts that it is pleasant to relax and be touched by another person.
To conclude, the article on Reiki in the July issue of Catholic World Report is a good article, and I'd encourage you to read it. It's only the three sentences dealing with Gnosticism that I find unpersuasive.
My compliments to the author!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (0)
As Yourself - and - WALL-E's Dystopian Vision
(Tim Jones)
MSNBC reports on research that - shockingly - concludes that we judge our own moral lapses more leniently than those of others.
We tend to give ourselves a break when it comes to our moral failings, where we tend to shake our heads and "tsk, tsk" the same kind of things in other people. This is why it is no mere cliché when God says to "Love your neighbor as yourself". If it were easy, He probably wouldn't see the need to repeat it over and over. Part of living that command is bringing the same kind of understanding to the sins of others that we bring to our own, to cut each other a little slack... not to call black white (or the ever popular "gray"), but to be ready with compassion and forgiveness. This is not a matter of making all moral choices equally valid (in which case there could be nothing to forgive) - just the opposite. It is a matter of confronting sin in genuine love.
----------------
I just finished reading Steven Greydanus' fine review of Disney/Pixar's WALL-E, and it reminded me of this post about futurist David Zach. It reminded me specifically of the fascinating talk he gave at the recent annual G.K. Chesterton Conference, because it sounds like in the WALL-E movie, the writers make a common mistake that people make when thinking about the future; that is, they look at recent trends and follow them into the future in a straight line. So, if Americans have been getting fatter, lately, then they trace that development into the future as if we will all just continue getting fatter and fatter. the same goes for our media habits and lack of interaction with one another. The movie assumes these things will continue ad infinitum.
Now, I call this a "mistake" on the part of the creators of WALL-E, but I don't think it was, really. If they were seriously presenting their ideas of what the future will be like, then it might be a mistake, but what they are doing is actually fine and good for storytellers. They are just exploring recent trends in our society and are using the future to pull them apart and show them to us... using the future as a kind of mirror on our lives.
I'm no tree hugger, I remain a Global Warming skeptic, but I have no problem with the moral that we need to pollute less and waste less and be more responsible. I applaud the movie makers' critique of our media habits and our tendency to ignore relationships with real flesh and blood people. Why, instead of doing things, would we rather sit on our cans and watch other people do things?
I haven't seen WALL-E, but I hope to this weekend. Pixar are a bunch of geniuses (or is it genii?).
Visit SDG's Decent Films Guide for film reviews from an intelligent, Catholic perspective.
Visit Tim Jones' Blog Old World Swine)
Posted by Tim Jones in Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (10)
June 30, 2008
Here's a Scary Thought . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
CBS News reports:
In describing the reasons he believes the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president would be better prepared than the Democrats' to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.
"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
Let's hope he's wrong about that.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (89)
June 25, 2008
Now Playing - Catholic Answers Live Movie Reviews
(SDG)
Just a quick post to let y'all know I'll be appearing on CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE tonight at 3pm Pacific (6pm Eastern) discussing current movies, including WALL*E, which I recently caught a screening for.
Does it contribute to the trend of noted in my previous post about 2008 being a better-than-average year for family films?
In a nutshell: Oh yeah.
Hope you can tune in.
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (4)
June 23, 2008
A Conversation With Justice Scalia
(Jimmy Akin)
Below is an hour-long video interview with Justice Antonin Scalia which was aired on the Charlie Rose Show.
Charlie Rose comes across at numerous points not as a serious journalist as a hard leftie who thinks he's a serious journalist and who insists on viewing every issue through an ideological lens--although in fairness to him he does at times try to view things from what he takes to be Scalia's perspective.
Despite the annoying Rose-factor, though, the interview is still well worth watching due to the remarkable candor and insight of the man being interviewed.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Law | Permalink | Comments (31)
June 21, 2008
Prayer request
(SDG)
Half an hour ago, as our family was on a walk/bike-ride in the park across the street from our house, five-year-old Anna lost control of her bike and rode off the embankment of the watercourse running through the park, falling with her bike eight feet onto solid stone with hardly any water. Suz saw it coming and screamed but wasn't close enough to do anything.
At this moment Anna in an ambulance in front of our house with Suz, wearing a neck brace and strapped to an immobilizing board. They'll be heading to the emergency room soon. I'll be staying here with the kids.
Anna's left arm is broken. Thankfully, that seems to be the worst of it. She's wet and dirty with a bloodied nose and various cuts and abrasions, but she did not lose consciousness and there's no reason to think she has suffered any serious injury.
Anna just turned five yesterday. She's our fourth of five, and this is our first visit to the emergency room, so you could say we're about due.
Prayers appreciated. Updates to come.
UPDATE (8:58pm): I just heard from Suz. The good news: After the first set of X-rays, the doctor has cleared Anna's neck, so the neck brace can come off. That's a huge relief to Anna comfort-wise as well as a good sign overall. The not-so-good news: They haven't decided whether to put her under general anaesthesia, which would require a five-hour wait since she last ate... so they're not coming home any time soon.
UPDATE (12:27am): Anna is home. Her arm is in a temporary cast and a sling. She was in good spirits and fell asleep almost immediately on being put to bed. Thanks to all for prayers.
Eight feet is a really big drop -- for anyone, kid or adult. It could so easily have been worse. Thanks be to God.
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (26)
June 20, 2008
Beyond the Nanny State
(SDG)
This seems beyond outrageous, almost beyond parody.
Apparently, a Canadian judge has effectively ruled that parents can't impose disciplinary measures for pre-teen children that judges find excessive. (Yankee cap tip: First Things; see here and here for more commentary.)
The plaintiff: a twelve-year-old girl. The defendant: her divorced father.
The plaintiff's offense: using a friend's computer to visit social websites disallowed by dad — and posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself on dating sites, among other infractions.
The defendant's verdict: grounding, and specifically missing a 6th-grade camping trip (apparently, a big deal in Canada).
Note that, apparently, the girl is the plaintiff and the father is the defendant. I'm no lawyer, but usually when the severity of a verdict in relation to an offense is appealed to a judge, isn't it the defendant doing the appealing? And if so, wouldn't that be because judges ordinarily hear appeals in legal cases — not domestic, non-legal disciplinary decisions of law-abiding parents? (Lawyers, help me out here.)
Here, it would seem, we have a young girl with a troubled youth engaged in risky and inappropriate behavior, and a dad struggling to protect his daughter from her own mistakes and maintain a level of responsibility and discipline in a troubled house.
We also apparently have a girl who has apparently been the subject of a bitter custody dispute for most of her life, who has been around lawyers and judges as long as she can remember, who has seen lawyers and judges making family decisions regarding her future and her parents' rights, and has come to view this as the natural order of things.
Worse, we have a lawyer willing to take the girl's side.
Worst of all, we have a judge — Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court, for the record — who was not only willing to hear the "case," but in fact took the girl's side against her father, ordering him to permit her to go on the trip.
It seems there was no question of anything criminal here — no physical abuse or anything of the sort. The judge simply thought the father's punishment was excessive.
Is there any ordinary, non-insane human being whose immediate response to this is anything other than: Who cares what she thinks? Even if she's right, what business is it of hers? Since when did domestic, non-legal disciplinary decisions of law-abiding parents become subject to judicial review?!
The camping trip is now over, but the father is moving to have the ruling overturned anyway, arguing that his moral authority with his daughter has been undermined. No flipping kidding.
The phrase "nanny state" doesn't begin to capture it, since, at least in non-Crazy Town, parents overrule nannies, not the other way around.
Any lawyers want to comment?
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (65)
