Whose Church is the 'True Church'? - 1

[Guest guest]

Whose Church is the 'True Church'?

 

(P.115) For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered

orthodox writings that denounce the gnostics, while suppressing - and virtually

destroying - the gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain

texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how gnostics

denounced the orthodox.[1] The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes

against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the

gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says:

 

.... we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant [pagans],

but also by those who think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they

were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.[2]

 

The Savior explains that such persons make an imitation of the true church,

'having proclaimed a doctrine of a dead man and lies, so as to resemble the

freedom and purity of the perfect church (ekklesia)'.[3] (P.116) Such teaching,

he charges, reconciles its adherents to fear and slavery, encouraging them to be

subject themselves to the earthly representatives of the world creator, who, in

his 'empty glory', declares, 'I am God, and there is no other beside me.'[4]

Such persons persecute those who have achieved liberation through 'gnosis',

attempting to lead them astray from 'the truth of their freedom'.[5]

 

The 'Apocalypse of Peter' describes, as noted before, catholic Christians as

those who have fallen 'into an erroneous name and into the hand of an evil,

cunning man, with a teaching in a multiplicity of forms',[6] allowing themselves

to be ruled heretically. For, the author adds, they

 

blaspheme the truth and proclaim evil teaching. And they will say evil things

against each other ... many others ... who oppose the truth and are the

messengers of error ... set up their error ... against these pure thoughts of

mine...[7]

 

The author takes each of the characteristics of the catholic church as evidence

that this is only an imitation church, a counterfeit, a 'sisterhood' that mimics

the true Christian brotherhood. Such Christians, in their blind arrogance, claim

exclusive legitimacy: 'Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which

they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the truth

belongs to them alone.'[8] Their obedience to bishops and deacons indicates that

they 'bow to the judgment of the leaders'.[9] They oppress their brethren, and

slander those who attain 'gnosis'.

 

The 'Testimony of Truth' attacks ecclesiastical Christians as those who say 'we

are Christians', but 'who [do not know who] Christ is'.[10] But this same author

goes on to attack other gnostics as well, including the followers of Valentinus,

Basilides, and Simon, as brethren who are still immature. Another of the Nag

Hammadi texts, the 'Authoritative Teaching', intends to demolish all teaching,

especially orthodox teaching, that the author considers 'un'authoritative. Like

Irenaeus - but diametrically opposed - he says of 'those who contend with us,

being adversaries',[11] that they are 'dealers in bodies',[12] senseless,

ignorant, worse than pagans, because they have no excuse for their error.

 

The bitterness of these attacks on the 'imitation church' probably indicates a

late stage of the controversy. By the year 200, the battle lines had been drawn:

both orthodox and gnostic Christians claimed to represent the true church and

accused one another of being outsiders, false brethren, and hypocrites.

 

How was a believer to tell true Christians from false ones? Orthodox and gnostic

Christians offered different answers, as each group attempted to define the

church in ways that excluded the other. (P.117) Gnostic Christians, claiming to

represent only 'the few', pointed to qualitative criteria. In protest against

the majority, they insisted that baptism did not make a Christian: according to

the 'Gospel of Philip', many people 'go down into the water and come up without

having received anything,'[13] and still they claimed to be Christians. Nor did

profession of the creed, or even martyrdom, count as evidence: 'anyone can do

these things'. Above all, they refused to identify the church with the actual,

visible community that, they warned, often only imitated it. Instead, quoting a

saying of Jesus ('By their fruits you shall know them') they required evidence

of spiritual maturity to demonstrate that a person belonged to the true church.

 

But orthodox Christians, by the late second century, had begun to establish

objective criteria for church membership. Whoever confessed the creed, accepted

the ritual of baptism, participated in worship, and obeyed the clergy was

accepted as a fellow Christian. Seeking to unify the diverse churches scattered

throughout the world into a single network, the bishops eliminated qualitative

criteria for church membership. Evaluating each candidate on the basis of

spiritual maturity, insight, or personal holiness, as the gnostics did, would

require a far more complex administration. Further, it would tend to exclude

many who much needed what the church could give. To become truly 'catholic' -

universal - the church rejected all forms of elitism, attempting to include as

many as possible within its embrace. In the process, its leaders created a clear

and simple framework, consisting of doctrine, ritual, and political structure,

that has proven to be an amazingly effective system of organization.

 

So the orthodox Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, defines the church in terms of the

bishop, who represents that system:

 

Let no one do anything pertaining to the church without the bishop. Let that be

considered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by the person

whom he appoints... Wherever the bishop offers [the eucharist], let the

congregation be present, just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the

catholic church.[14]

 

Lest any 'heretic' suggest that Christ may be present even when the bishop is

absent, Ignatius sets him straight:

 

It is not legitimate either to baptize or to hold an 'agape'[cult meal] without

the bishop ... To join with the bishop is to join the church; to separate

oneself from the bishop is to separate oneself not only from the church, but

from God himself.[15]

 

(P.118) Apart from the church hierarchy, he insists, 'there is nothing that can

be called a church'.[16]

 

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, agrees with Ignatius that the only true church is

that which 'preserves the same form of ecclesiastical constitution':

 

True 'gnosis' is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the

ancient constitution ['systema'] of the church throughout the whole world, and

the character of the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, by

which they have handed down that which exists everywhere.[17]

 

Only this system, Irenaeus says, stands upon the 'pillar and ground' of those

apostolic writings to which he attributes absolute authority - above all, the

gospels of the New Testament. All others are false and unreliable, unapostolic,

and probably composed by heretics. The catholic church alone offers a 'very

complete system of doctrine',[18] proclaiming, as we have seen, one God, creator

and father of Christ, who became incarnate, suffered, died, and rose bodily from

the dead. Outside of this church there is no salvation: 'she is the entrance to

life; all others are thieves and robbers'.[19] As spokesman for the church of

God, Irenaeus insists that those he calls heretics stand outside the church. All

who reject his version of Christian truth are 'false persons, evil seducers, and

hypocrites' who 'speak to the multitude about those in the church, whom they

call 'catholic', or 'ecclesiastical'.[20] Irenaeus says he longs to 'convert

them to the church of God'[21] - since he considers them apostates, worse than

pagans.

 

Gnostic Christians, on the contrary, assert that what distinguishes the false

from the true church is not its relationship to the clergy, but the level of

understanding of its members, and the quality of their relationship with one

another. The 'Apocalypse of Peter' declares that 'those who are from the

life...having been enlightened',[22] discriminate for themselves between what is

true and false. Belonging to 'the remnant ... summoned to knowledge

[gnosis]',[23] they neither attempt to dominate others nor do they subject

themselves to the bishops and deacons, those 'waterless canals'. Instead they

participate in 'the wisdom of the brotherhood that really exists ... the

spiritual fellowship with those united in communion'.[24]

 

The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' similarly declares that what

characterizes the true church is the union its members enjoy with God and with

one another, 'united in the friendship of friends forever, who neither know any

hostility, nor evil, but who are united by my 'gnosis'...(in) friendship with

one another'.[25] (P.119) Theirs is the intimacy of marriage, a 'spiritual

wedding', since they live 'in fatherhood and motherhood and rational brotherhood

and wisdom'[26] as those who love each other as 'fellow spirits'.[27]

 

Such ethereal visions of the 'heavenly church' contrast sharply with the

down-to-earth portrait of the church that orthodox sources offer. Why do gnostic

authors abandon concreteness and describe the church in fantastic and

imaginative terms? Some scholars say that this proves that they understood

little, and cared less, about social relationships. Carl Andresen, in his

recent, massive study of the early Christian church, calls them 'religious

solipsists' who concerned themselves only with their own individual spiritual

development, indifferent to the community responsibilities of a church.[28] But

the sources cited above show that these gnostics defined the church 'precisely'

in terms of the quality of interrelationships among its members.

 

Orthodox writers described the church in concrete terms because they accept the

status quo; that is, they affirmed that the actual community of those gathered

for worship 'was' 'the church'. Gnostic Christians dissented. Confronted with

those in the churches whom they considered ignorant, arrogant, or

self-interested, they refused to agree that the whole community of believers,

without further qualification, constituted 'the church'. Dividing from the

majority over such issues as the value of martyrdom, they intended to

discriminate between the mass of believers and those who truly had 'gnosis',

between what they called the imitation, or the counterfeit, and the true church.

 

The Gnostic Gospels, Pg. 115-119

Elaine Pagels

Phoenix Publishers - St. Martin's Lane, London

ISBN 13: 978-0-7538-2114-5

 

 

References:

 

[1] For excellent discussions of gnostic polemic against orthodox Christianity,

see K. Koschorke, 'Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum'

(Leiden, 1978); P.Perkins, 'The Gnostic Revelation: Dialogue as Religious

Polemic', in W. Haase, 'Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischer Welt' II.22

(Berlin/New York, 1980); also P.Perkins, 'The Gnostic Dialogue' (New York,

1980).

 

[2] 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' 59.22-9, in NHL 333-4. For analysis, see

J.A. Gibbons, A Commentary on 'The Second Logos of the Great Seth' (New Haven,

1972).

 

[3] ibid., 60.21-5, in NHL 334.

 

[4] ibid., 53.27-33, in NHL 331.

 

[5] ibid., 61.20, in NHL 334.

 

[6] 'Apocalypse of Peter' 74.16-22, in NHL 341.

 

[7] ibid., 74.24-77.28, in NHL 341-2.

 

[8] ibid., 76.27-34, in NHL 342.

 

[9] ibid., 79.28-9, in NHL 343.

 

[10] 'Testimony of Truth' 31.24-32.2, in NHL 407.

 

[11] 'Authoritative Teaching' 26.20-21, in NHL 280.

 

[12] ibid., 32.18-19, in NHL 282.

 

[13] 'Gospel of Philip' 64.23-4, in NHL 139.

 

[14] Ignatius, 'Smyrneans' 8.1-2.

 

[15] ibid., 8.2.

 

[16] 'Trallians' 3.1.

 

[17] Irenaeus, AH 4.33.8.

 

[18] loc.cit.

 

[19] ibid., 3.4.1.

 

[20] ibid., 3.15.2.

 

[21] ibid., 5, 'Praefatio'.

 

[22] 'Apocalypse of Peter' 70.24-71.4, in NHL 340.

 

[23] ibid., 71.20-21, in NHL 340.

 

[24] ibid., 79.1-4, in NHL 343.

 

[25] 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' 67.32-68.9, in NHL 337.

 

[26] ibid., 67.2-5, in NHL 336.

 

[27] ibid., 70.9, in NHL 338.

 

[28] C.Andresen, 'Die Kirche der alten Christenheit' (Stuttgart 1971), 100ff.;

see also Jonas, 'Gnosis under spatantiker Geist (Gottingen, 1964), 'Solipcismus

und Bruderethik', I.171.2.