Gnosticism, pro and contra
Observing a couple Gnosticism-oriented fora (here and here), I'm already (it's only been a few days) doubting that Gnosticism per se is the right religion for me. Recognising that "Gnosticism" is an umbrella term in the same sense that "paganism" is an umbrella term, all the examples I've seen don't really appeal to me in toto. There are some aspects of it that I really like, but some others that are real turn-offs.
What I like about what I've seen so far:
- No pressure to conform to orthodoxy.
- No or little emphasis on sin; instead, the focus is on enlightenment.
- Broader sense of what constitutes scripture and how to approach and use it.
- The status of Jesus is more fluid, less codified by creed and more open to interpretation by the individual.
- Willingness to draw inspiration and spiritual value from other traditions.
- Perhaps a willingness to take religious belief a little less seriously. I've only seen a little bit of this so far, so I don't know whether it's typical or just one or two unusual individuals. Time will tell.
What turns me off:
- Holy elitism, Batman! ("We're so awesomely enlightened; orthodox Christians are teh stoopit. Ha ha! Sucks to be them! We rawx!") It's a variation on One-True-Wayism, as much as they deny it.
- Hatred of the world. Modern Gnostics downplay this, but it's still there, in the belief that the world was created by the ignorant and/or evil and/or stupid Demiurge. I guess I just fundamentally don't believe that Creation is flawed. If one believes that the purpose of Creation is somehow human-centred, then there are issues, but I don't really believe humanity is the reason for Creation, so things that are disadvantageous to humans aren't necessarily flaws. Besides, "good" and "evil" are human concepts that don't apply even to other animals, let alone the whole universe.
- Self-centredness. One site I read said that Gnostics only work to improve the world in the sense of improving themselves through gnosis. I get the sense that their religion is distinct from the rest of their lives. There's no sense of social justice or charity or even love, which I think are fundamental to true spirituality. If one recognises the divine within oneself, then one has to choose either to believe that others have the same within them, or to believe that they're inferior. Gnostics (at least Christian Gnostics) seem to choose the latter, which is a shame.
- The G isn't pronounced. It should totally be called Guh-nosticism. Silent G is boring.
And, not so much a turn-off as a concern: There's a heavy emphasis on direct knowledge -- the gnosis from which the religion gets its name -- that may be the same kind of vision or mystical experience of which I've been ever incapable. If I can't do that part, perhaps I can't actually be a Gnostic.
So I think Gnosticism will be useful as one of the building blocks -- or, more appropriately, stepping stones -- and it may even become one of the largest ones, but it seems to me too extremely inward-looking. What's needed is a balance between inward and outward focus. Gnostic-Christian-Sufi-Discordianism, perhaps. Gnochrisudianism. Or Christognosuferisianism!