Careful Thought

UPDATE:  I was cautioned not to judge too harshly based on experiences with one church.  Makes sense.  In addition, I was reminded of the results of Barna’s surveys of giving in America: 

Born-again Christians are still among the best givers: 77% gave to churches last year, and they averaged giving $1,166, 80% higher than the average adult, but down 19% from 1999 levels.

Evangelicals scored higher.  Of the subset Barna classifies as evangelicals, 81% contributed to churches, and they averaged $2,097.

ORIGINAL POST:  At the risk of alienating just about everybody, I’d like to throw an unusual proposition on the table: that evangelical, fundamental Christianity is based, at least in part, on Gnosticism.  [In the interest of disclosure, I have been a member of a conservative ‘fundamentalist’ church for the last eight years, until being asked to leave because of my belief in old-earth creationism. I still generally consider myself to be a conservative Christian.] 

Two key aspects of Gnostic thought are 1) its distinction between the physical realm, which is evil or flawed, and the perfect spiritual realm; and 2) the concept of “salvation” through special knowledge, or gnosis.

There are various flavors of Gnosticism, but most hold that the physical world is inferior to, or a poor reflection of, the spiritual.  The extreme view in this context is that Christ could not have been fully God and man, because the flesh was evil, and God could not inhabit evil flesh.  Marcion, one of the chief early proponents of this view held that “the Son of the Father did not actually take sinful flesh but only appeared to do so.”

The modern conservative, evangelical church likewise emphasizes the primacy of spirit over flesh in several ways.  For example, its insistence on a young-earth and consequent denigration of scientific observation.  This is a topic many disagree on and while I hold a different view, I would not break fellowship over this.  Additionally, the relatively recent notion of pre-tribulation eschatology shows the same eagerness to get past this troublesome physical earth.  Witness the popularity of the Left Behind series.  Ambrosia De Milano, commenting at Sharp Iron, puts is this way:

The 20th century was a dangerous time to be alive–and an equally exciting time. However, for the period from 1918 through 1945 (and beyond) the average person faced a cycle of deep poverty, cataclysmic war, political uncertainty–and this cycle repeated itself–culminating in the horrific events of Vietnam, and eventually the 911 attacks (I know, that’s the 21 century–but I’m on a roll here). It was natural to look for an escape.

So, as the need for escape grew, so did eschatological schemes. As the schemes grew in popularity, intellectual voices from seminaries (and other sources) joined the debate. Unfortunately, many evangelicals adopted the attitude “when the trumpet sounds, I’m out of here!” and other sloganized doctrines.

For me, the most troubling evidence of Gnostic disdain for the physical within evangelicalism is the lack of concern with meeting the needs of the needy.  My concern is the simple Gospel injunction to care for the needy.  I’m not talking about setting up homes for illegal aliens or advocating homosexual rights or other “social justice” issues, but basic feed-the-hungry, clothe-the-naked issues.  Churches are quick to beat the drum against abortion or to decry the loss of freedom of religion, which is fine, but Christ asks, “What have you done for me lately?”  My last church had no organized program to help the needy, save an occasional single-moms oil change.  [Maybe that was my fault, since I was nominally the outreach guy.]  They did have an active effort to preach and teach young-earth creationism, though.  Christ didn’t tell Peter to preach creation age, but just said, “Feed my sheep.”

Lastly, the Gnostic theme of special knowledge - and I’ll go back to Ambrosia for this one:

[The] Eastern Church was very gnostic – interested in mystical relationships and trying to guess the nature of God.  [Ralph Gore of Erskine Seminary] says, in counter to the East, that the West was more concerned with the judicial relationship between God, the judge, and man.

Okay–we think the judicial triumphed–but I would argue otherwise.

Modern evangelicals place the judicial relationship as the initiation rite into the body of believers. Nothing particularly mystical happens, except the rebirth (however that works). The rest of the time is spent trying some form of mysticism or another. All of the mysticism, whether pentecostal on one extreme, or those who reject and say the Bible is the means of God speaking on the other extreme, is earned (that’s right, I said earned) on the basis of righteous living. The cleaner the vessel, the reasoning says, the more insight into God (or from God).

So where does that leave us?  I don’t think the modern evangelical church is in danger of bringing back Marcion, but because they buy into many Gnostic precepts, they are wandering further and further from basic Gospel truth.

Possibly Related Posts...

• No Related Post