Whose Church is the 'True Church'? - 3

[Guest guest]

Whose Church is the 'True Church'?

 

(P.125) As we have seen, these `enemies' of the gnostics followed the church

fathers' advice in asserting the claims of the clergy over gnostic Christians.

Also, they treated `unrepentant' gnostics as outsiders to Christian faith; and

finally, they affirmed the value of ordinary employment and family life over the

demands of radical asceticism.

 

While catholic Christians and radical gnostics took opposite stands, each

claiming to represent the church, and each denouncing the others as heretics,

the Valentinians took a mediating position. Resisting the orthodox attempt to

label them as outsiders, they identified themselves as fully members of the

church. But the Valentinians engaged in vehement debate among themselves over

the opposite question – the status of `catholic' Christians. (P.126) So serious

was their disagreement over this question that the crisis finally split the

followers of Valentinus into two different factions.

 

Were catholic Christians included in the church, the 'body of Christ'? The

Eastern branch of Valentinians said 'no'. They maintained that Christ's body,

the church, was 'purely spiritual', consisting only of those who were spiritual,

who had received 'gnosis'. Theodotus, the great teacher of the Eastern school,

defined the church as 'the chosen race', [61] those 'chosen before the

foundation of the world'. [62] Their salvation was certain, predestined – and

exclusive. Like Tertullian in his later years, Theodotus taught that only those

who received direct spiritual inspiration belonged to the 'spiritual church'.

[63] But Ptolemy and Heracleon, the leading teachers of the Western school of

Valentinians, disagreed. Against Theodotus, they claimed that 'Christ's body',

the church, consisted of two distinct elements, one spiritual, the other

unspiritual. This meant, they explained, that 'both' gnostic and non-gnostic

Christians stood within the same church. Citing Jesus' saying that 'many are

called, but few are chosen', they explained that Christians who lacked 'gnosis'

– by far the majority – were the many who were called. They themselves, as

gnostic Christians, belonged to the few who were chosen. Heracleon taught that

God had given them spiritual understanding for the sake of the rest – so that

they would be able to teach 'the many' and bring them to 'gnosis'. [64]

 

The gnostic teacher Ptolemy agreed: Christ combined within the church both

spiritual and unspiritual Christians so that eventually all may become

spiritual. [65] Meanwhile, both belonged to one church; both were baptized; both

shared in the celebration of the mass; both made the same confession. What

differentiated them was the level of their understanding. Uninitiated Christians

mistakenly worshiped the creator, as if he were God; they believed in Christ as

the one who would save them from sin, and who they believed had risen bodily

from the dead: they accepted him by faith, but without understanding the mystery

of his nature – or their own. But those who had gone on to receive 'gnosis' had

come to recognize Christ as the one sent from the Father of Truth, whose coming

revealed to them that their own nature was identical with his – and with God's.

 

To illustrate their relationship, Heracleon offers a symbolic interpretation of

the church as a temple: those who were ordinary Christians, not yet gnostics,

worshiped like the Levites, in the temple courtyard, shut out from the mystery.

(P.127) Only those who had 'gnosis' might enter within the 'holy of holies',

which signified the place 'where those who are spiritual worship God'. Yet one

temple - the church – embraced both places of worship. [66]

 

The Valentinian author of the 'Interpretation of the Knowledge' agrees with this

view. He explains that although Jesus came into the world and died for the sake

of the 'church of mortals', [67] now this church, the 'place of faith', was

split and divided into factions. [68] Some members had received spiritual gifts

– power to heal, prophecy, above all, 'gnosis'; others had not.

 

This gnostic teacher expresses concern that this situation often caused

hostility and misunderstanding. Those who were spiritually advanced tended to

withdraw from those they considered 'ignorant' Christians, and hesitated to

share their insights with them. Those who lacked spiritual inspiration envied

those who spoke out in public at the worship service and who spoke in prophecy,

taught, and healed others. [69]

 

The author addresses the whole community as he attempts to reconcile both

gnostic and non-gnostic Christians with one another. Drawing upon a traditional

metaphor, he reminds them that all believers are members of the church, the

'body of Christ'. First he recalls Paul's words:

 

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the

body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ ... The eye cannot say to

the hand, 'I have no need of you,' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no

need of you.' [70]

 

Then he goes on to preach to those who feel inferior, lacking spiritual powers,

who are not yet gnostic initiates: ... Do not accuse your Head [Christ] because

it has not made you as an eye, but a finger; and do not be jealous of what has

been made an eye or a hand or a foot, but be thankful that you are not outside

the body. [71]

 

To those who are spiritual, who have 'gnosis', and who have received 'gifts', he

says:

 

.... Does someone have a prophetic gift? Share it without hesitation. Do not

approach your brother with jealousy ... How do you know [that someone] is

ignorant? ... [You] are ignorant when you [hate them] and are jealous of them.

[72]

 

(P.128) Like Paul, he urges all members to love one another, to work and suffer

together, mature and immature Christians alike, gnostics and ordinary believers,

and so 'to share in the (true) harmony'. [73] According to the Western school of

Valentinian gnostics, then, 'the church' included the community of catholic

Christians, but was not limited to it. Most Christians, they claimed, did not

even perceive the most important element of the church, the spiritual element,

which consisted of all who had 'gnosis'.

 

From the bishop's viewpoint, of course, the gnostic position was outrageous.

These heretics challenged his right to define what he considered to be his own

church; they had the audacity to debate whether or not catholic Christians

participated; and they claimed that their own group formed the essential

nucleus, the 'spiritual church'. Rejecting such religious elitism, orthodox

leaders attempted instead to construct a 'universal' church. Desiring to open

that church to everyone, they welcomed members from every social class, every

racial or cultural origin, whether educated or illiterate – everyone, that is,

who would submit to their system of organization. The bishops drew the line

against those who challenged any of the three elements of this system: doctrine,

ritual, and clerical hierarchy – and the gnostics challenged them all. Only by

suppressing gnosticism did orthodox leaders establish that system of

organization which united all believers into a single institutional structure.

They allowed no other distinction between first- and second-class members than

that between the clergy and the laity, nor did they tolerate any who claimed

exemption from doctrinal conformity, from ritual participation, and from

obedience to the discipline that priests and bishops administered. Gnostic

churches, which rejected that system for more subjective forms of religious

affiliation, survived, as churches, for only a few hundred years.

 

The Gnostic Gospels, Pg. 125-128

Elaine Pagels

Phoenix Publishers - St. Martin's Lane, London

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

 

References:

 

[61] Clemens Alexandrinus, EXCERPTA 4.1.

 

[62] ibid., 41.2.

 

[63] ibid., 24.1-2.

 

[64] Heracleon, Frag. 37-8, in Origen, COMM. JO. 13.51-13.53.

 

[65] Irenaeus, AH 1.8.3-4.

 

[66] Heracleon, Frag. 13, in Origen, COMM. JO. 10.33. For discussion, see E.

Pagels, 'The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis' (Nashville, 1973), 66-74.

 

[67] 'Interpretation of the Knowledge' 5.33, in NHL 429.

 

[68] ibid., 6.33-8, in NHL 429.

 

[69] For discussion, see Koschorke, op. Cit., 69-71; Koschorke, 'Eine

neugefundene gnostische Gemeindeordnung', in 'Zeitschrift fur Theologie und

Kirche' 76.1 (February 1979), 30-60; J. Turner and E. Pagels, introduction to

`Interpretation of the Knowledge' (CGXI, 1) in 'Nag Hammadi Studies' (Leiden,

1980).

 

[70] 1 Corinthians 12:14-21.

 

[71] 'Interpretation of the Knowledge' 18.28-34, in NHL 433.

 

[72] ibid., 15.35-17.27, in NHL 432-3.

 

[73] ibid., 18.24-5, in NHL 433.