Thursday, December 06, 2007

RUAHeretic?

We started a class today at the church I serve as pastor entitled "RUAHeretic?" We've been learning about the Early Church, how things grew and developed and how it all effects how we are and who we are together as Church today here in the East Bay.

Thought I'd upload as much of our class/discussion to my blog for others who might be interested:

Take the "Are you a heretic?" quiz at quizfarm.com HERE.

Our Discussion today was about Gnosticsm:

Gnosticism is an esoteric religious movement that flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and presented a major challenge to orthodox Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christians in the early church. The term Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis ("revealed knowledge"). To its adherents, Gnosticism promised a secret knowledge of the divine realm. Sparks or seeds of the Divine Being fell from this transcendent realm into the material universe, which is wholly evil, and were imprisoned in human bodies. Reawakened by knowledge, the divine element in humanity can return to its proper home in the transcendent spiritual realm.

Gnosticism was a religious philosophical dualism that professed salvation through secret knowledge, or gnosis. The movement reached a high point of development during the 2d century AD in the Roman and Alexandrian schools founded by Valentius. Scholars have attributed the origins of gnosticism to a number of sources: the Greek mystery cults; Zoroastrianism; the Kabbalah of Judaism; and Egyptian religion. The early Christians considered Simon Magus (Acts 8:9 - 24) the founder of gnosticism. His doctrine, like that of other gnostic teachers, had nothing in common with the knowledge of the mysteries of God that Saint Paul called wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7).

Christian leaders looked upon gnosticism as a subtle, dangerous threat to Christianity during the 2nd century, a time marked by religious aspirations and philosophical preoccupations about the origins of life, the source of evil in the world, and the nature of a transcendent deity. Gnosticism was perceived as an attempt to transform Christianity into a religious philosophy and to replace faith in the mysteries of revelation by philosophical explanations. (These descriptiions come from this helpful site.)

In our discussion we arrived at the conclusion that Gnosticism affirms the contrast/dualism between material vs. spiritual whereas "orthodox" Christianity affirm a dialectic/integration of the spiritual and the physical in that God in Jesus saves and redeems everything, giving every aspect of life infinite meaning and glory. Of course maybe the group that gathered at church today is all heretics too? :)

More online material (HERE)

If you liked the quiz try this one recommended by Deborah: The Belief O Matic: personality quiz about religious belief (HERE)

If you have thoughts or results from the quizes share them with the community by leaving a comment below!


4 comments:

Monte said...

HERE'S MY SCORE.
See you at the pyre!

Are you a heretic?
You scored as a Chalcedon compliant
You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Chalcedon compliant
100%
Pelagianism
75%
Monophysitism
67%
Monarchianism
33%
Modalism
33%
Apollanarian
33%
Adoptionist
17%
Nestorianism
17%
Socinianism
8%
Albigensianism
0%
Donatism
0%
Arianism
0%
Docetism
0%
Gnosticism
0%

Sophia Sadek said...

Thanks for the posting.

Aside from the matter/spirit dualism that characterized the difference between the Gnostics and the orthodox, a major difference also seems to be one of discipline. The Gnostic texts reflect a much higher degree of discipline than the orthodox literature.

Unknown said...

Well of course the Gnostics were a threat - they didn't subscribe to the idea that there is an intermediary with god (i.e. the Pope and the Church (with a big C) hierarchy. Knowledge was direct between man/woman and god. So there was no need for a "Church".

That reminds me - the Church was brutal in its persecution of those who didn't follow their beliefs - non-trinitarian Christians and women in particular. Before the Council of Nicene when this was "worked" out - women had a lot of influence in Christianity. The bishops that didn't believe in the trinity were at the least marginalized if not executed. Lots of Christian martyrs went by the wayside that didn't go with the teachings of what was becoming established as the power of the Trinitarian, hierarchical, patriarchic Church that "won" at the Council of Nicene.

Monte said...

Roxie,
I agree. What's interesting is that we're so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water...assuming that everyone in the church community has always been against women in minsitry or this or that. The story of the church is one of diverse and different trends, perspectives and practices...yet there is always a dominant one that wins out (of course it's like that in every aspect of human civilization).

We've been talking about this reality in our discussion at church...actually the main reason we first dived into the history of the early church and are now talking about heretics/orthodoxs. Part of the fun and also an essential part of the dialogue for us to know, claim and articulate how we are church together today in Oakland.

Of course it does go both ways....the Da Vinci Code makes the Nicene Creed out as a bunch of facist hacks...yet the other side did the same thing in their initially victorious support of Arius in the ancient pre-nicene debates.

If you can...come join us on a Wednesday from 3-4:30pm for our discussions at the church! 2735 Macarthur Blvd.