This is a high-level view of the different missons, or "faces" of the Gnosis Institute. The first in an overview of the Institute.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The Threefold Mission of the Gnosis Institute
This is a high-level view of the different missons, or "faces" of the Gnosis Institute. The first in an overview of the Institute.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Treasures in Heaven
I don't write or talk much about the service I do. I don't even think about it much. It is just something I do, like so many other people out there. But there is one thing that is fast becoming a pet peeve and that is being assured of “treasures in Heaven,” or some other kind of post-life reward for doing things here.
This is a common belief in Christianity, but I always saw it as either a persuasive rhetorical device, or in the worst case, selling someone less than a bill of goods. Pay now and find out what your going to get, and get it, so much later that you will be “the late” when it happens. In this case I don't object to buying on the disincarnation plan so much as the whole notion of buying anything. The idea of quid pro quo itself is deeply offensive.
This isn't the surface defensive ego offensiveness that we have come to almost exclusively associate with the term: what we might more clearly call being personally offended. No this is not just deeper but isn't personal, it isn't against the person but rather against the relationship.
Turning those wonderful opportunities to actually help someone into transactions of that far distant kind takes attention away from the value that lies in the relationship itself. Within the relationship is the transaction that matters, and it is a very human one. It isn't gratitude, it isn't recognition—it is what makes us truly human. It is an expression of love, but not personal love, not love of someone in particular. But rather the love that is the deep connection between all of us.
As human beings we are drawn out of the existential loneliness that is our condition, through this connection, to others. When we truly connect with one another, that bond is there. 'I' becomes 'we' for a time. A deep communion can happen.
The Epistle of John tells us that God is love, and that where love is, there is God. When we have the privilege to connect with those whose need makes them vulnerable, we can be vulnerable as well. And together, this temporary 'we' can accomplish a things for 'us.' In this, benefits for 'I' don't enter in.
This is why we serve. Not for an imaginary treasure in an imaginary heaven. But for the real treasure that lies in the heaven we touch together.
This is a common belief in Christianity, but I always saw it as either a persuasive rhetorical device, or in the worst case, selling someone less than a bill of goods. Pay now and find out what your going to get, and get it, so much later that you will be “the late” when it happens. In this case I don't object to buying on the disincarnation plan so much as the whole notion of buying anything. The idea of quid pro quo itself is deeply offensive.
This isn't the surface defensive ego offensiveness that we have come to almost exclusively associate with the term: what we might more clearly call being personally offended. No this is not just deeper but isn't personal, it isn't against the person but rather against the relationship.
Turning those wonderful opportunities to actually help someone into transactions of that far distant kind takes attention away from the value that lies in the relationship itself. Within the relationship is the transaction that matters, and it is a very human one. It isn't gratitude, it isn't recognition—it is what makes us truly human. It is an expression of love, but not personal love, not love of someone in particular. But rather the love that is the deep connection between all of us.
As human beings we are drawn out of the existential loneliness that is our condition, through this connection, to others. When we truly connect with one another, that bond is there. 'I' becomes 'we' for a time. A deep communion can happen.
The Epistle of John tells us that God is love, and that where love is, there is God. When we have the privilege to connect with those whose need makes them vulnerable, we can be vulnerable as well. And together, this temporary 'we' can accomplish a things for 'us.' In this, benefits for 'I' don't enter in.
This is why we serve. Not for an imaginary treasure in an imaginary heaven. But for the real treasure that lies in the heaven we touch together.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Illuminating the Da Vinci Code
September 12, 19, & 26 at 7 PM in the City Library in Salt Lake City
This will be a very different approach than everyone has used so far.
This seminar will look at the power and phenomena of the Da Vinci Code in our sub-cultures, in our culture, and in ourselves; to see where that leads us on many levels—including the deepest ones.
This will be a very different approach than everyone has used so far.
This seminar will look at the power and phenomena of the Da Vinci Code in our sub-cultures, in our culture, and in ourselves; to see where that leads us on many levels—including the deepest ones.
Please Help Publicize this Event!
Printable Flier
Printable Flier
Interesting Call for a Neo-Pagan Seminary
There are interesting parallels in the considerations in this article calling for a Neo-Pagan Seminary to the one's that have been bouncing around the Gnostic community. Not surprising, since there is over-lap, and a large portion of those coming to Gnosticism have had previous associations with the Neo-Pagan community.
I offer this for consideration, I like to look at similarities whenever possible, and such do not remove the differences. In this case the differences are quite deep, and I would place the proposed Neo-Pagan Seminary much closer to the mainstream ones than to the Seminary in the works at the Gnosis Institute. (So please, at least wear a hard-hat when jumping to conclusions.)
Neo-Pagan Seminary Proposal
I offer this for consideration, I like to look at similarities whenever possible, and such do not remove the differences. In this case the differences are quite deep, and I would place the proposed Neo-Pagan Seminary much closer to the mainstream ones than to the Seminary in the works at the Gnosis Institute. (So please, at least wear a hard-hat when jumping to conclusions.)
Neo-Pagan Seminary Proposal
Monday, July 17, 2006
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Seminary Program Outline Version 0.2
Modules: (3/6 to Graduate)
- Gnostic Studies – Understanding & Applying the Gnostic Tradition
History of Gnosticism – From Antecedents until Today
Engaged Gnosticism – Applying the Gnostic Approach - Liturgical Studies – Experience & Understanding of Sacraments
History & Symbolism – Comparative & Descriptive
Sacramental Theology – Historical & Creative - Pastoral Counseling – Spiritually Mindful, Psychologically Grounded Counseling
Transitional Counseling – Counseling those in Transitions & Crises
Psycho-Spiritual Development – Depth & Transpersonal Psychological Models - Pastoring & Leadership – Organizations & Relationships within Organizations
Formation Direction - Individual & Group Formation
Guidance, Leadership, & Administration - Spiritual Care – Understanding & Aiding Spiritual Development
Spiritual Direction – aka,. Spiritual Listening, and Soul Friendship
Spiritual Growth – Understanding & Respecting the Process - Stories & Symbolism – Understanding & Creatively Engaging in Mythology
Encountering Archetypes – Understanding & Experiencing Living Symbols
Transformation through Stories – Myths as Guides & Journeys
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Dimness of Crowds
Am I the only one who is hooked on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Podcasts? They have a regular radio show on philosophy, and the only more fun thing to listen to than a discussion of philosophy, is a discussion of philosophy in Australian accents. ;)
Of interest to many involved on-line, may be the latest episode of The Philosopher's Zone, as it examines, in particular, Wikipedia. It addresses the main issues, and in a fun way. Give it an ear, if you are so inclined.
Of interest to many involved on-line, may be the latest episode of The Philosopher's Zone, as it examines, in particular, Wikipedia. It addresses the main issues, and in a fun way. Give it an ear, if you are so inclined.
On Being an Intellectual Heretic
I may never live down the fact that I don't equate traditional theology with either critical thought or Gnosticism, or the fact that I don't give undue respect to the powers and authorities. So, I guess I'll just have to be a Gnostic. ;)
I wrote the following in a comment, but thought folks might miss it.
“In a real marketplace of ideas, it is the the ideas, the intellectual work, that matters. Everything should be open to honest serious scrutiny. Even the notion that all we are doing sometimes is playing a formalized game of make believe. Which also, by the way, is not saying that playing make believe has no value either. We conduct thought-experiments all the time, they are very valuable. We just distinguish between them and descriptions of reality.”
You may claim that the objections to my objection to traditional theology is of this sort. However, I do not think that they were. To be able to even approach the subject of the assumptions involved in the theological method, I had to try (in vain I might add) to get past the assumption that the norm and status quo for the studying of religious ideas that developed from the tradition that rejected Gnosticism represents the one true way to approach things Gnostic. It was a dismissal based upon the status quo in people's minds. Which lead to more assumptions than I care to think about.
At this point, I'm just going to join in and declare myself an intellectual heretic and get on with serious intellectual work that includes continuing to question assumptions, methods, and the status quo.
You're all welcome to become intellectual heretics as well. C'mon it's fun!
Seminary Program Outline Rough-Draft
Continuing on towards building a non/trans-denominational Gnostic Seminary program, I thought I'd share my current outline of a program rough-draft. (I'm going to assume that you know that a seminary doesn't ordain anyone, and that it isn't the whole of the process of formation as Gnostic Clergy. And if you didn't, I just told you.)
I don't want to construct a one-size-fits-all program. The idea of modules is appealing for that reason. One would graduate after completing a program of three out of the following modules in this rough-draft. I think that gives proper latitude for the different focuses both of individuals, and of the different Gnostic churches and organizations.
Modules: (3/5 to Graduate)
This is a very rough rough-draft. But, it does give us something to talk about. Help hammer this out.
I don't want to construct a one-size-fits-all program. The idea of modules is appealing for that reason. One would graduate after completing a program of three out of the following modules in this rough-draft. I think that gives proper latitude for the different focuses both of individuals, and of the different Gnostic churches and organizations.
Modules: (3/5 to Graduate)
- Counseling
Pastoral Counseling
Psycho-Spiritual Development - Gnostic Studies
Historical Gnosticism
Engaged Gnosticism - Liturgical Studies
History & Symbolism
Theology - Pastoring
Formation Direction
Parish/Organization Administration - Spiritual Care
Spiritual Direction
Spiritual Growth - Symbolism & Story
Archetypal Aspects
Transformational Aspects
[Edit: Added Module]
This is a very rough rough-draft. But, it does give us something to talk about. Help hammer this out.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Thinking Outside the Traditional Theology Box
One of the main reasons that I wrote the piece On the Limitations of Make Believe is to try to break open the traditional theological box. (Let's try “traditional theology” as the term for the discipline instead of simply thinking or reasoning about religious things, rather than my previous “non-trivial theology” and see if that helps with confusion.) Some may find this obstructionist. Yet, I've stated elsewhere that if someone wants to satisfy themselves that a traditional theological definition of Gnosticism is a logical impossibility, there is the wall and you know where your head is—start banging until you are satisfied.
There is an assumption that for someone to be able to use a definition in an academic setting, that it has to be a traditional theological definition. That is to say, a definition couched in the framework of the tradition of Christian theology. Yet, that would mean leaving Gnosis out of it, and frankly I've yet to see a theological term applied to Gnosticism that makes sense except as a poor analogy. Traditional theology did not grow out of a Gnostic milieu, to say the least. It's focus has always been upon doctrine, in a framework where the view is that doctrine determines beliefs.
One of the big fundamental issues is that almost (if not) all of traditional theology developed within a model of religion that grew out of the historical formation of Christian Orthodoxy. This focused on uniformity of doctrine, and beliefs. And really has a kind of “top-down” way of viewing things. You start with the assumption that the source of belief is doctrine, or with the assumption that these things you are considering exist and can be described in an authoritative way. This gives one the odd result of an “objective” religion, one without people.
Gnosticism by the very nature of Gnosis, has more of a “bottom-up” approach. Gnosis is individual, it cannot be removed from the subject having it. This leads to expressions of that Gnosis that include beliefs. It also leads to a very modified “top-down” model of someone learning about these beliefs and such, and then seeking Gnosis.
To seek a traditional theological definition, “Gnosticism,” one would need to enter into that framework, leaving the people (the subjective) behind, while forcing it into the mold of a doctrinal religion. Sure we can limit the doctrine to a small set, but that is what we will get—Gnosticism equals doctrine. Let's just say that a “Gnosticism” that doesn't involve Gnosis or Gnostics, is a bit of a problem.
Is this quest for a traditional theological definition the only approach? No. And I don't understand why this is assumed to be the case. It is far from the only form of human endeavor that can live up to “academic acceptability.” In fact, it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation among the academic disciplines.
While an academically acceptable definition truly comes down to the academicians who accept it, we can look at it in broader terms. The goal of such a definition is to limit the scope of the study, and to give meaning to that scope.
The first comes down to scope: what is inside the scope and what is outside; what it is that is studied. This is always fuzzy on the level of details, but a general consensus is required. We must remember that the definition actually comes after the consensus. It is always an inadequate attempt to formalize what those involved recognize. We can, hopefully, recognize in this the issue of trying to put gnosis into the realm of episteme. The lack of awareness of this issue is a larger issue in academia, leading to lots of cracked skulls and dented walls. Apparently, the study of religion was struggling with a rather clumsy definition that involved “superhuman beings,” for example. This lead to some mental acrobatics to get Buddhism to fit the mold (or gnosis to fit episteme.) (Buddhism and the definition of religion.)
The second issue is one of the scope being meaningful to study. By which I mean, that the conclusions about the scope or concerning relationships within the scope are academically interesting and approachable. This would mean that even the study of a clearly defined thing, may be either of no interesting, or unapproachable by the methods of academia. The latter is an area of agnosia for most of academia, it doesn't recognize it exists. So, I think we can safely ignore it in our current considerations. This leaves us with the issue of being of academic interest.
One can clearly define any number of things that do not meet this criteria, they may serve as data point in some other interesting enterprise, but are not themselves interesting. The collection of lint in my dryer, for example, just isn't academically interesting, unless it is part of a larger study of dryers or textiles.
Applied to Gnosticism, we can see the first issue as: is this or that a part of Gnosticism? And, the second issue as: is “Gnosticism” a meaningful category? These are not unrelated, yet they are distinct approaches to the question: what is “Gnosticism”? What is its scope? And, what does it mean?
When approaching the formulation of a definition for academic use, we need to bear in mind that we can come up with a definition that isn't meaningful. I would argue that the traditional theological approach can only lead to that end.
Buddhist studies makes for the closest analogy, although still very different in history, the amount of material, and the number of continuous traditions. I found this review of the book Buddhist Theology interesting. It advocates a new and specifically Buddhist theological approach. Another approach is Engaged Buddhist Studies, however that seems to be a splitting off of practical from abstract issues.
There is an assumption that for someone to be able to use a definition in an academic setting, that it has to be a traditional theological definition. That is to say, a definition couched in the framework of the tradition of Christian theology. Yet, that would mean leaving Gnosis out of it, and frankly I've yet to see a theological term applied to Gnosticism that makes sense except as a poor analogy. Traditional theology did not grow out of a Gnostic milieu, to say the least. It's focus has always been upon doctrine, in a framework where the view is that doctrine determines beliefs.
One of the big fundamental issues is that almost (if not) all of traditional theology developed within a model of religion that grew out of the historical formation of Christian Orthodoxy. This focused on uniformity of doctrine, and beliefs. And really has a kind of “top-down” way of viewing things. You start with the assumption that the source of belief is doctrine, or with the assumption that these things you are considering exist and can be described in an authoritative way. This gives one the odd result of an “objective” religion, one without people.
Gnosticism by the very nature of Gnosis, has more of a “bottom-up” approach. Gnosis is individual, it cannot be removed from the subject having it. This leads to expressions of that Gnosis that include beliefs. It also leads to a very modified “top-down” model of someone learning about these beliefs and such, and then seeking Gnosis.
To seek a traditional theological definition, “Gnosticism,” one would need to enter into that framework, leaving the people (the subjective) behind, while forcing it into the mold of a doctrinal religion. Sure we can limit the doctrine to a small set, but that is what we will get—Gnosticism equals doctrine. Let's just say that a “Gnosticism” that doesn't involve Gnosis or Gnostics, is a bit of a problem.
Is this quest for a traditional theological definition the only approach? No. And I don't understand why this is assumed to be the case. It is far from the only form of human endeavor that can live up to “academic acceptability.” In fact, it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation among the academic disciplines.
While an academically acceptable definition truly comes down to the academicians who accept it, we can look at it in broader terms. The goal of such a definition is to limit the scope of the study, and to give meaning to that scope.
The first comes down to scope: what is inside the scope and what is outside; what it is that is studied. This is always fuzzy on the level of details, but a general consensus is required. We must remember that the definition actually comes after the consensus. It is always an inadequate attempt to formalize what those involved recognize. We can, hopefully, recognize in this the issue of trying to put gnosis into the realm of episteme. The lack of awareness of this issue is a larger issue in academia, leading to lots of cracked skulls and dented walls. Apparently, the study of religion was struggling with a rather clumsy definition that involved “superhuman beings,” for example. This lead to some mental acrobatics to get Buddhism to fit the mold (or gnosis to fit episteme.) (Buddhism and the definition of religion.)
The second issue is one of the scope being meaningful to study. By which I mean, that the conclusions about the scope or concerning relationships within the scope are academically interesting and approachable. This would mean that even the study of a clearly defined thing, may be either of no interesting, or unapproachable by the methods of academia. The latter is an area of agnosia for most of academia, it doesn't recognize it exists. So, I think we can safely ignore it in our current considerations. This leaves us with the issue of being of academic interest.
One can clearly define any number of things that do not meet this criteria, they may serve as data point in some other interesting enterprise, but are not themselves interesting. The collection of lint in my dryer, for example, just isn't academically interesting, unless it is part of a larger study of dryers or textiles.
Applied to Gnosticism, we can see the first issue as: is this or that a part of Gnosticism? And, the second issue as: is “Gnosticism” a meaningful category? These are not unrelated, yet they are distinct approaches to the question: what is “Gnosticism”? What is its scope? And, what does it mean?
When approaching the formulation of a definition for academic use, we need to bear in mind that we can come up with a definition that isn't meaningful. I would argue that the traditional theological approach can only lead to that end.
Buddhist studies makes for the closest analogy, although still very different in history, the amount of material, and the number of continuous traditions. I found this review of the book Buddhist Theology interesting. It advocates a new and specifically Buddhist theological approach. Another approach is Engaged Buddhist Studies, however that seems to be a splitting off of practical from abstract issues.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Gimme That Old Time Dualism
[Edit: Due to some confusion, I'll state explicitly that the "dualism" here is a tongue-in-cheek way of describing a real issue.]
It's one of those charges made against Gnostics that gets some folks riled up, Dualism. Is Dualism a bad thing? The people run in horror from the idea are largely heresiologists, but lest we dismiss it, there are some modern Gnostics among them. Personally, if all someone means by a “dualist” is someone who can't see a way to reconcile or erase the distinction between spirit and matter, that is as good a description of the way I understand things as any other.
However, there is a distinction between simply being a dualist in that sense and being a “Radical Dualist.” Radical Dualism includes assumptions about the ultimate nature of the two things, that they are two different metaphysical “substances” or have two distinct origins in some ultimate abstract philosophical sense. As someone much more in line with the Pragmatic school of Philosophy than the Scholastic one, I have a hard time even caring what this entails as an assumption in an abstract game. People at least assume that Radical Dualism implies an exclusive-or for all relevant choices between the two things. An exclusive-or is just short hand for “either this or that, but not both this and that.” In this rather narrow understanding, one could not value spirit, and also value matter, for example. If that isn't scary in and of itself, think of how embarrassing it would be to have radical dualistic ontological assumptions kicked in your face by a Thomist on the beach.
Any limited form of dualism is incomparably better than the Radical Universal Dualism most people practice. That kind is horrifying, if you you are someone who likes to think, read, write, and discuss. And it should be embarrassing, yet there doesn't seem to be any even when people are caught doing it time and time again.
What is Radical Universal Dualism? It is being a Radical Dualist about well, everything. The turning into a universal law the fallacy “you're either for it or against it.” This is black-and-white thinking, wherein the exclusive-or is the only relationship. Any criticism is taken as an outright rejection, taken to mean that you are against the larger whatever in it's entirety. This is the Modern Dualism that has me longing of the old fashioned kind. (Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism ...that made hereseologists wee.)
Is it possible to be critical with these Modern Dualists about? This is a good question. Let's look at the nature of this for a moment. If someone makes a specific criticism, how far can someone else legitimately take it?
If someone is critical of a particular brick, can they be taken as being critical of the wall, bricks in general, or of masonry, or of building, or of civilization? I would say that it is unclear whether they are being critical of the wall but you couldn't assume that is the case, the rest is ludicrous. Yet if we look at modern discourse, the rest is the norm. If someone merely stops at the assumption that they want to tear down that one wall, they are being unusually generous.
To take a recent example: how far can one take a criticism of assumptions made by Theology? Can it legitimately be taken as being critical of critical thinking, the analytical method, or of religion? No, it cannot. Can a statement about the impossibility of a theological definition of Gnosticism be taken as a statement against any definition of Gnosticism? No. This part of Modern Dualism is “expanding the scope.” The statement or criticism is widened in scope by others.
When scope-expansion is combined with the exclusive-or we get what seems to be the model for all of this, modern political speech. Perfect for sound bites, and for convincing the already convinced. However, it does not exist to constructively engage in anything. It turns discourse into a rhetorical game. Conversation into a series of misunderstandings. It is a way to get ratings and win elections, nothing more.
How can we avoid this? Try to not expand the scope on someone else's behalf. You can say that a statement implies a larger scope, or take a look at the argument from a larger scope for some reason, that is being aware of, and being clear about, what you are doing. And, don't think every relationship between two things is an exclusive-or, very few truly are, although it is a favorite rhetorical device to pretend otherwise.
It's one of those charges made against Gnostics that gets some folks riled up, Dualism. Is Dualism a bad thing? The people run in horror from the idea are largely heresiologists, but lest we dismiss it, there are some modern Gnostics among them. Personally, if all someone means by a “dualist” is someone who can't see a way to reconcile or erase the distinction between spirit and matter, that is as good a description of the way I understand things as any other.
However, there is a distinction between simply being a dualist in that sense and being a “Radical Dualist.” Radical Dualism includes assumptions about the ultimate nature of the two things, that they are two different metaphysical “substances” or have two distinct origins in some ultimate abstract philosophical sense. As someone much more in line with the Pragmatic school of Philosophy than the Scholastic one, I have a hard time even caring what this entails as an assumption in an abstract game. People at least assume that Radical Dualism implies an exclusive-or for all relevant choices between the two things. An exclusive-or is just short hand for “either this or that, but not both this and that.” In this rather narrow understanding, one could not value spirit, and also value matter, for example. If that isn't scary in and of itself, think of how embarrassing it would be to have radical dualistic ontological assumptions kicked in your face by a Thomist on the beach.
Any limited form of dualism is incomparably better than the Radical Universal Dualism most people practice. That kind is horrifying, if you you are someone who likes to think, read, write, and discuss. And it should be embarrassing, yet there doesn't seem to be any even when people are caught doing it time and time again.
What is Radical Universal Dualism? It is being a Radical Dualist about well, everything. The turning into a universal law the fallacy “you're either for it or against it.” This is black-and-white thinking, wherein the exclusive-or is the only relationship. Any criticism is taken as an outright rejection, taken to mean that you are against the larger whatever in it's entirety. This is the Modern Dualism that has me longing of the old fashioned kind. (Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism ...that made hereseologists wee.)
Is it possible to be critical with these Modern Dualists about? This is a good question. Let's look at the nature of this for a moment. If someone makes a specific criticism, how far can someone else legitimately take it?
If someone is critical of a particular brick, can they be taken as being critical of the wall, bricks in general, or of masonry, or of building, or of civilization? I would say that it is unclear whether they are being critical of the wall but you couldn't assume that is the case, the rest is ludicrous. Yet if we look at modern discourse, the rest is the norm. If someone merely stops at the assumption that they want to tear down that one wall, they are being unusually generous.
To take a recent example: how far can one take a criticism of assumptions made by Theology? Can it legitimately be taken as being critical of critical thinking, the analytical method, or of religion? No, it cannot. Can a statement about the impossibility of a theological definition of Gnosticism be taken as a statement against any definition of Gnosticism? No. This part of Modern Dualism is “expanding the scope.” The statement or criticism is widened in scope by others.
When scope-expansion is combined with the exclusive-or we get what seems to be the model for all of this, modern political speech. Perfect for sound bites, and for convincing the already convinced. However, it does not exist to constructively engage in anything. It turns discourse into a rhetorical game. Conversation into a series of misunderstandings. It is a way to get ratings and win elections, nothing more.
How can we avoid this? Try to not expand the scope on someone else's behalf. You can say that a statement implies a larger scope, or take a look at the argument from a larger scope for some reason, that is being aware of, and being clear about, what you are doing. And, don't think every relationship between two things is an exclusive-or, very few truly are, although it is a favorite rhetorical device to pretend otherwise.
Gnostics can be Clergy and "Independents"
I strongly object to the simplistic anti-ecclesiasticism that has been on the rise, because it is based on false assumptions. One false dichotomy that has arisen is between being an "Independent" or participating in an ecclesiastical form. Assumptions and prejudices arising from one's interactions with religion in other venues brought to bear in a new arena, are simply an indication of assumptions, not reality. This comes from ignoring or dismissing the “Gnostic” part of “Gnostic Church.”
The other danger in considering “churches” is that a “church” in this sense is generally not understood to be a grouping of individuals. Yet aside from the abstract realm, there are only individuals. Where we like to see abstract groups and not individuals is when we are attacking them. That is the way shadow projections work, they can't lay still on a complex reality, so it is the abstract that is covered with the perceiver's darkness, and both layers then block their view.
There is also the inductive fallacy that comes into play. The "one X did this, all Xs do that" assumption that is simply a way of finding one or more data points to back up an assumption or prejudice. If this isn't obvious I can point you to some hate sites that use this as a justification. It simply isn't an argument, it is simply specific cases of a prejudice finding data that may support it. It is not the only explanation for the data, nor even the one that makes the most sense. That is simply how prejudices work, they are gross generalizations whose explanatory power has been disproved countless times.
Now, is someone who is a prisoner to their own prejudices, and can't see what is in front of their face because of shadow projections, truly independent? I would argue that they are certainly not thinking or seeing for themselves, these things limit both. I would further argue that these things have a collective nature, they have mass appeal, which would indicate that.
This lets us see the nature of the Shadow that is being projected. One's own desire to loose oneself in a collective, to simply surrender to a mass movement, becomes succumbed to in this Shadow way. One joins in the collective group-psychology of rejecting something as the totem of collective group-psychology. This then becomes a very powerful trap, because we would then need to recognize this aspect of ourselves, own it as being ourselves and not a “them,” to escape from the collective—to stop doing what we hate, to quote Thomas.
It isn't an issue with people doing what they want to do, it is an issue in them being trapped by themselves in such a way that they feel they need to reject or tear-down something very removed, to free themselves of their internal issues. Sadly, this is the norm. And it is also the norm to call this “freedom” or “independence.”
When someone says that I, personally, can't work or think outside of a church structure--it is an insult, pure and simple. The on-line community has been heading that way for a few months now. Some of it comes from the neophytes making general claims about "Gnostic Churches" or "Gnostic Clergy" based solely upon their assumptions. Yet they only seem to be the leaders of the charge. These claims almost always include ones that directly contradict the facts of my life and all I have worked to do. Claims of exclusivity, which can be traced to the rejection (exclusiveness) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we do. Claims of collectivity, which can be traced to the collectivity (group-psychology) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we seek.
I don't see an issue in referring people to other organizations or churches, Gnostic or otherwise. There also isn't an issue with working with individuals, who are individuals, in fact the reverse is the case. I also try not to give undue credit, or make assumptions than seem inappropriate, in regards to others, because I serve in an ecclesiastical form.
Some object to having their work on the Internet dismissed or categorized. Imagine what it is like to have your decade-long ministry, with all the work and sacrifice that entails, dismissed and categorized, because part of it has an outward form some associate with bad things in unrelated contexts. Just think about it.
Is being "Independent" about avoiding organizations, starting one's own organization, or is it about working toward independence? There are real issues with organizations, but that is because there are real issues with individuals. Ultimately, our organizations fall into the category of Make Believe, they exist because we act as though they do. These assumptions aren't about organizations, organizations are individuals working with a form in a structure. And when the scope of the structure is as limited as it is in the Gnostic Ecclesia, it largely comes down to form.
Being one thing means that you are not everything, obviously. Having a form means that you don't have every form. Some find this to be a difficulty because they want the “form” to be themselves. They either think desires or dislikes guiding form is more useful than being guided by form, or, more commonly, they don't understand form. This leads to not simply a rejection of form, but a militant radical rejection of form. Rather than “that form isn't for me,” or even, “form isn't for me,” to “that form isn't for anyone,” or even, “form isn't for anyone.”
We can think of ourselves as being in a labyrinthine prison that we must each find our own way out of. A form isn't a map showing your particular way out. No such map is possible. The best we can hope for are useful practices and tools, as well as, information about the dangers. A form might be something akin to a standard set of practices employed to help overcome the maze. You can just wander. You can wander and mark some intersections and not others, or change your system of marking every now and then. Or you can heed some advice left by those who have gone through this before, and adopt a standard set of practices that makes sense and works for you. Simply accepting someone else's standard set of practices may only get you lost further still, they may not work for you, you may not be doing what is required to make them work, or you may not understand them well enough to really try. There is also the possibility that they weren't intended to help someone out of the maze. For all of these reasons, discernment is a personal responsibility no one can avoid.
The reality is simply this: we all have a form, and we are all independents. The form may be silly putty or stone, it may be large or small, but it is there—whether you want to see it as such or not. We also are all on our own paths, responsibility lies upon each of us to find our liberation. This is not something to take lightly, nor something one can give to someone else. We can help each other, we cannot be each other.
The other danger in considering “churches” is that a “church” in this sense is generally not understood to be a grouping of individuals. Yet aside from the abstract realm, there are only individuals. Where we like to see abstract groups and not individuals is when we are attacking them. That is the way shadow projections work, they can't lay still on a complex reality, so it is the abstract that is covered with the perceiver's darkness, and both layers then block their view.
There is also the inductive fallacy that comes into play. The "one X did this, all Xs do that" assumption that is simply a way of finding one or more data points to back up an assumption or prejudice. If this isn't obvious I can point you to some hate sites that use this as a justification. It simply isn't an argument, it is simply specific cases of a prejudice finding data that may support it. It is not the only explanation for the data, nor even the one that makes the most sense. That is simply how prejudices work, they are gross generalizations whose explanatory power has been disproved countless times.
Now, is someone who is a prisoner to their own prejudices, and can't see what is in front of their face because of shadow projections, truly independent? I would argue that they are certainly not thinking or seeing for themselves, these things limit both. I would further argue that these things have a collective nature, they have mass appeal, which would indicate that.
This lets us see the nature of the Shadow that is being projected. One's own desire to loose oneself in a collective, to simply surrender to a mass movement, becomes succumbed to in this Shadow way. One joins in the collective group-psychology of rejecting something as the totem of collective group-psychology. This then becomes a very powerful trap, because we would then need to recognize this aspect of ourselves, own it as being ourselves and not a “them,” to escape from the collective—to stop doing what we hate, to quote Thomas.
It isn't an issue with people doing what they want to do, it is an issue in them being trapped by themselves in such a way that they feel they need to reject or tear-down something very removed, to free themselves of their internal issues. Sadly, this is the norm. And it is also the norm to call this “freedom” or “independence.”
When someone says that I, personally, can't work or think outside of a church structure--it is an insult, pure and simple. The on-line community has been heading that way for a few months now. Some of it comes from the neophytes making general claims about "Gnostic Churches" or "Gnostic Clergy" based solely upon their assumptions. Yet they only seem to be the leaders of the charge. These claims almost always include ones that directly contradict the facts of my life and all I have worked to do. Claims of exclusivity, which can be traced to the rejection (exclusiveness) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we do. Claims of collectivity, which can be traced to the collectivity (group-psychology) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we seek.
I don't see an issue in referring people to other organizations or churches, Gnostic or otherwise. There also isn't an issue with working with individuals, who are individuals, in fact the reverse is the case. I also try not to give undue credit, or make assumptions than seem inappropriate, in regards to others, because I serve in an ecclesiastical form.
Some object to having their work on the Internet dismissed or categorized. Imagine what it is like to have your decade-long ministry, with all the work and sacrifice that entails, dismissed and categorized, because part of it has an outward form some associate with bad things in unrelated contexts. Just think about it.
Is being "Independent" about avoiding organizations, starting one's own organization, or is it about working toward independence? There are real issues with organizations, but that is because there are real issues with individuals. Ultimately, our organizations fall into the category of Make Believe, they exist because we act as though they do. These assumptions aren't about organizations, organizations are individuals working with a form in a structure. And when the scope of the structure is as limited as it is in the Gnostic Ecclesia, it largely comes down to form.
Being one thing means that you are not everything, obviously. Having a form means that you don't have every form. Some find this to be a difficulty because they want the “form” to be themselves. They either think desires or dislikes guiding form is more useful than being guided by form, or, more commonly, they don't understand form. This leads to not simply a rejection of form, but a militant radical rejection of form. Rather than “that form isn't for me,” or even, “form isn't for me,” to “that form isn't for anyone,” or even, “form isn't for anyone.”
We can think of ourselves as being in a labyrinthine prison that we must each find our own way out of. A form isn't a map showing your particular way out. No such map is possible. The best we can hope for are useful practices and tools, as well as, information about the dangers. A form might be something akin to a standard set of practices employed to help overcome the maze. You can just wander. You can wander and mark some intersections and not others, or change your system of marking every now and then. Or you can heed some advice left by those who have gone through this before, and adopt a standard set of practices that makes sense and works for you. Simply accepting someone else's standard set of practices may only get you lost further still, they may not work for you, you may not be doing what is required to make them work, or you may not understand them well enough to really try. There is also the possibility that they weren't intended to help someone out of the maze. For all of these reasons, discernment is a personal responsibility no one can avoid.
The reality is simply this: we all have a form, and we are all independents. The form may be silly putty or stone, it may be large or small, but it is there—whether you want to see it as such or not. We also are all on our own paths, responsibility lies upon each of us to find our liberation. This is not something to take lightly, nor something one can give to someone else. We can help each other, we cannot be each other.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
The Last Week: A Good Addition to Holy Week
| Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have jointly authored a book going through the account of the last week of Jesus in Mark. The idea was to go through the story and see what the story tells us. This framework, following the Gospel of Mark's timeline, is very useful. Even information that I have encountered in other contexts yielded more insight in this framework. They purposefully cut through centuries of looking at these events through a later Christian framework, and in doing so present a more vibrant story. I didn't get it in time for this past Holy Week. In fact I didn't even hear about it until a couple of weeks ago. Yet even afterwards it is deepening my appreciation by deepening my understanding. I'd suggest getting a copy. |
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The Limitations of Playing Make Believe
Theology: Playing Make Believe with Religious Things
I guess it's time to throw down the gauntlet on the whole Theology issue. After biting the tongue for some time to listen to folks who seem to value such things, and after having what seems fairly common sense questioned about the potential utility of theology, I've been asked to demonstrate why theology isn't a good tool for Gnostics to engage in (except perhaps in private between consenting adults). Although the following was very rushed, I think it covers the basics.
The reverse of this question has a lot more merit: why should Gnostics even try to use theology? Is there any actual reason? We can assume that it is the thing to do because this is religion, and theology and religion are found together. (I'm hoping that fallacy is obvious.) We can assert that we need to talk the language of people who use theology. Yet this comes up against the issue of talking about computers in Nahuatl—why do it when you can't say what is important to the conversation in that language? When is just perpetuates their misunderstanding and creates more of your own?
Let's cover old territory for a moment. Theology (from theos 'god' + logos 'word, speech, reason') once upon a time simply meant reasoning or discoursing about the gods or religious matters. It is still sometimes used in that sense, and that is what I have previously called the trivial definition and said that it should be a non-issue because reasoning about religious matters should be ubiquitous. In the intervening centuries, however, Theology has come to mean something in particular. Let's just call it: playing make believe with religious things.
Playing make believe? Yes, that's what I said. Theology (which I will use in the non-trivial sense) starts out with many assumptions and is essentially literalism-lite.
Literalism takes what the sacred stories describe as being actual literal documentary film-like history of events. To take one example: Noah physically built a big boat. The world was actually under water. There really were 2 of every kind of animal on that boat for forty days, since the evolution of new species couldn't have happened. All of these things are taken as established historical fact that a film crew could have documented if they had cameras, and weren't under water. Why? Because it is in the story. Given these basic assumptions one can reason about these things without any serious difficulties.
Literalism has all kinds of problems which I'm not going to go into for a Gnostic audience. Let's just say accepting these assumptions for someone who doesn't accept the assumption that everything in some stories is historically factual, isn't going to happen. While the defense of that kind of silliness may not fit one's notion of Theology, they can be quite well reasoned. We would just look at them as being well reasoned make believe. Given this make believe situation from a story and so on, and so forth as characteristics of this make believe game, one can arrive at a reasonable means of explanation.
While more mainstream theology isn't involved in such things, agreeing with the assessment of Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: let's not go there it's too silly; the game is played in the same way with different assumptions. Instead of the literal assumptions, there are others, yet it is still playing make believe.
Another characteristic of playing make believe is that although it is primarily a reflection of the person doing it, to them it can seem objective. It has been projected into an abstract idea realm. Like Plato's only yours, and not so idealized. Like the example above, someone can spend a great deal of time rationally examining and overcoming objections to the Noah story being literal, and think that they are describing something objective because they are talking about things.
The issue with any sort of make believe is that whether there are rules of reason involved or not, it is still make believe. Someone can think that they are talking about something real when they speak of Incarnational Trinitarianism, or an Emanational Cosmogeny—and that is precisely the problem. These things are abstract constellations of the glass beads on the game board of make believe. Things so far removed from anything any of us actually have experienced as to make the idea of experiencing them absurd.
When we play make believe in a rational way using the elements and characters from Gnostic stories. We are being literalists, just at a slightly less embarrassing level. There are many ways to look at these things, and putting on a literalist-lite cap to look at them is certainly a standard one. If you don't take what you do too seriously, mistake your ideas for what is really “out there somewhere,” then it is another useful tool. We can speak of Sophia as a character in Gnostic mythology, as an abstract notion of “Wisdom,” or as a part of our experience. If any but the last gets stuck in our understanding as being “it” we have missed the path to Gnosis, and followed the path to cloud coo-coo land. It is so easy to fool ourselves, to not notice the “hairs breadth of difference” that splits considerations involving the real from simply playing make believe.
People have been playing the Theology game for centuries, there has never been the level of understanding involved that it isn't about real things. The distinction is simply whether you believe or not. And so it may be described as playing make believe with the objects of belief. If you don't see a problem here for Gnostics, I'll spell it out. Gnosticism isn't about beliefs. Even if we all believe something, why assume that it is the case at all, let alone the case in the way in which we believe it? That assumption jump is just too much—if you take it for yourself and are aware of the assumptions you may gain some understanding, if you try to take it in some objective way, say as a group, you say bye bye to Gnosis.
Playing the same old religion games with different pieces isn't Gnosticism. Substituting belief in the salvific power of Gnosis for belief in the salvific power of belief in Christ, isn't liberation, it's redecorating. Throwing Sophia into the mix as a character to go with the Logos character, makes nothing Gnostic. And no matter how refined we are about it, playing theological make believe with things associated with Gnosticism isn't Gnosticism, it is still make believe.
If you say, “but there really is this or that, it's not make believe,” you are not seeing what is in front of your face, but rather are seeing from the perspective of the land of make believe. Experiences are not abstract, they cannot be removed from the subject experiencing them. Sophia is a character, an idea, and an experience. Guess which two of the three you cannot play abstract games with the experience, and so you must be playing make believe.
If you say, “but the ancient Gnostics saw it in a literal fashion,” you are again making enormous assumptions, placing limitations on the perspectives of others for our own convenience. Buying into the literalism of heresiologists isn't exactly a large stride forward for our understanding of Gnosticism.
If theology is playing make believe is it worthless? Of course not. In a tradition where creativity and looking at things from multiple perspectives are the order of the day, it can be very useful—for an individual to use to look at things from different perspectives. Where we go into literalism and make assumptions that take us into cloud coo-coo land is when we mistake any of this for anything but playing make believe.
I guess it's time to throw down the gauntlet on the whole Theology issue. After biting the tongue for some time to listen to folks who seem to value such things, and after having what seems fairly common sense questioned about the potential utility of theology, I've been asked to demonstrate why theology isn't a good tool for Gnostics to engage in (except perhaps in private between consenting adults). Although the following was very rushed, I think it covers the basics.
The reverse of this question has a lot more merit: why should Gnostics even try to use theology? Is there any actual reason? We can assume that it is the thing to do because this is religion, and theology and religion are found together. (I'm hoping that fallacy is obvious.) We can assert that we need to talk the language of people who use theology. Yet this comes up against the issue of talking about computers in Nahuatl—why do it when you can't say what is important to the conversation in that language? When is just perpetuates their misunderstanding and creates more of your own?
Let's cover old territory for a moment. Theology (from theos 'god' + logos 'word, speech, reason') once upon a time simply meant reasoning or discoursing about the gods or religious matters. It is still sometimes used in that sense, and that is what I have previously called the trivial definition and said that it should be a non-issue because reasoning about religious matters should be ubiquitous. In the intervening centuries, however, Theology has come to mean something in particular. Let's just call it: playing make believe with religious things.
Playing make believe? Yes, that's what I said. Theology (which I will use in the non-trivial sense) starts out with many assumptions and is essentially literalism-lite.
Literalism takes what the sacred stories describe as being actual literal documentary film-like history of events. To take one example: Noah physically built a big boat. The world was actually under water. There really were 2 of every kind of animal on that boat for forty days, since the evolution of new species couldn't have happened. All of these things are taken as established historical fact that a film crew could have documented if they had cameras, and weren't under water. Why? Because it is in the story. Given these basic assumptions one can reason about these things without any serious difficulties.
Literalism has all kinds of problems which I'm not going to go into for a Gnostic audience. Let's just say accepting these assumptions for someone who doesn't accept the assumption that everything in some stories is historically factual, isn't going to happen. While the defense of that kind of silliness may not fit one's notion of Theology, they can be quite well reasoned. We would just look at them as being well reasoned make believe. Given this make believe situation from a story and so on, and so forth as characteristics of this make believe game, one can arrive at a reasonable means of explanation.
While more mainstream theology isn't involved in such things, agreeing with the assessment of Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: let's not go there it's too silly; the game is played in the same way with different assumptions. Instead of the literal assumptions, there are others, yet it is still playing make believe.
Another characteristic of playing make believe is that although it is primarily a reflection of the person doing it, to them it can seem objective. It has been projected into an abstract idea realm. Like Plato's only yours, and not so idealized. Like the example above, someone can spend a great deal of time rationally examining and overcoming objections to the Noah story being literal, and think that they are describing something objective because they are talking about things.
The issue with any sort of make believe is that whether there are rules of reason involved or not, it is still make believe. Someone can think that they are talking about something real when they speak of Incarnational Trinitarianism, or an Emanational Cosmogeny—and that is precisely the problem. These things are abstract constellations of the glass beads on the game board of make believe. Things so far removed from anything any of us actually have experienced as to make the idea of experiencing them absurd.
When we play make believe in a rational way using the elements and characters from Gnostic stories. We are being literalists, just at a slightly less embarrassing level. There are many ways to look at these things, and putting on a literalist-lite cap to look at them is certainly a standard one. If you don't take what you do too seriously, mistake your ideas for what is really “out there somewhere,” then it is another useful tool. We can speak of Sophia as a character in Gnostic mythology, as an abstract notion of “Wisdom,” or as a part of our experience. If any but the last gets stuck in our understanding as being “it” we have missed the path to Gnosis, and followed the path to cloud coo-coo land. It is so easy to fool ourselves, to not notice the “hairs breadth of difference” that splits considerations involving the real from simply playing make believe.
People have been playing the Theology game for centuries, there has never been the level of understanding involved that it isn't about real things. The distinction is simply whether you believe or not. And so it may be described as playing make believe with the objects of belief. If you don't see a problem here for Gnostics, I'll spell it out. Gnosticism isn't about beliefs. Even if we all believe something, why assume that it is the case at all, let alone the case in the way in which we believe it? That assumption jump is just too much—if you take it for yourself and are aware of the assumptions you may gain some understanding, if you try to take it in some objective way, say as a group, you say bye bye to Gnosis.
Playing the same old religion games with different pieces isn't Gnosticism. Substituting belief in the salvific power of Gnosis for belief in the salvific power of belief in Christ, isn't liberation, it's redecorating. Throwing Sophia into the mix as a character to go with the Logos character, makes nothing Gnostic. And no matter how refined we are about it, playing theological make believe with things associated with Gnosticism isn't Gnosticism, it is still make believe.
If you say, “but there really is this or that, it's not make believe,” you are not seeing what is in front of your face, but rather are seeing from the perspective of the land of make believe. Experiences are not abstract, they cannot be removed from the subject experiencing them. Sophia is a character, an idea, and an experience. Guess which two of the three you cannot play abstract games with the experience, and so you must be playing make believe.
If you say, “but the ancient Gnostics saw it in a literal fashion,” you are again making enormous assumptions, placing limitations on the perspectives of others for our own convenience. Buying into the literalism of heresiologists isn't exactly a large stride forward for our understanding of Gnosticism.
If theology is playing make believe is it worthless? Of course not. In a tradition where creativity and looking at things from multiple perspectives are the order of the day, it can be very useful—for an individual to use to look at things from different perspectives. Where we go into literalism and make assumptions that take us into cloud coo-coo land is when we mistake any of this for anything but playing make believe.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Premature Enlightenment
| Halfway Up the Mountain: The Error of Premature Claims to Enlightenment by Mariana Caplan This is not a hard science or scholarly book. But it is the only one that covers some main and important areas. It is also a fast enjoyable read with lots of quotes and white-space. Food for thought. |
Friday, July 07, 2006
Plant Metaphors for Gnosis & Episteme
Here is a graphic to go along with the third GnosCast podcast. It shows some of the different combinations possible of Gnosis and Episteme, using plant metaphors.
- The one on the left shows what we aim for, rooted in Gnosis, growing into Episteme and flowering into our lives.
- The next is where we so often are, having episteme and seeking Gnosis.
- The third is the situation where you have Gnosis, but it hasn't developed into an understanding and expression yet.
- The last is rigid belief planted where Gnosis should grow.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Education, Formation, Preparation, & Ordination
I tried to talk about a seminary directly, but we need to step back and look at the entire issue before we can approach that subject with any hope of communication. So, lets begin with the process of analysis, reducing the large issue into its elements.
First, let's look at what is beyond our scope: being clergy. One's legal Status as a member of the clergy, is determined by the relevant laws. One's Ecclesiastical Status as member of the clergy, is determined by the Ecclesiastical body. So, to recap, things to do with whether one is or is not clergy, in any sense, are matters of Church and Law. In the US the Universal Life Church combines these into a one stop ordination shop, so it isn't exactly a difficult status to obtain if that is all one wants.
Seminaries exist to train and prepare people to practice ministry, and provide related education. They do not grant the status of being clergy. Law Schools exist to train and prepare people to practice Law, and provide related education. They do not grant the status of being a member of the bar. Sure, most of those attending Law School intend to become practicing lawyers, but only a percentage of them will. Most of those entering seminaries intend to become clergy, but only a percentage of them will. And there are those who don't want any change of status, they just want to learn and grow.
Not all denominations that use seminaries, require them. If there are cases where graduating ensures ordination and the status of clergy, I am unaware of them. So, we really need to disentangle these two concepts: preparation and ecclesiastical/legal status.
As far as preparation for ministry is concerned, it is not a simple one-dimensional thing. We can discern different elements, broadly speaking: education, formation, and personal development/preparation.
In terms of education, does it matter greatly who is involved in the education and how? If a bishop does not grade all of the papers involved in a candidates education, has she lost the ability to discern whether the candidate is properly prepared? Does a member of one's particular denomination have to give out reading assignments for the reading to be valuable? I get the impression that this isn't much further down the path of some notions, and we should acknowledge them as being ridiculous.
In fact, the opposite is more likely, one is more likely to get an adequate preparation in terms of education from an institution set up for that purpose. And unless one is afraid of being “contaminated” by ideas from beyond one's denomination, the only issue becomes the quality and adequacy of such an educational program. The Gnostic bottom line: does it work?
Education is a part of formation as clergy, and an educational program involves aspects of formation. However, formation as clergy is of a much larger scope, as it involves the granting of that status as we have seen.
Not all aspects of preparation for ministry can be addressed through education. In fact, only education can. However, since educational programs do not confer any status upon anyone in regards to being clergy, why be afraid of education?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
What is a Seminary? The Basics
Sorry, forgot to start with enough of the basics to stop the conclusion jumpers from getting the tops of their heads bruised. ;)
So, does a seminary ordain (set apart for ministry in the Church) anyone? If you answered yes, you are assigned remedial reading on the nature of seminaries and clergy formation before continuing. If you answered no, you can continue to the next part.
Priesthood is a Holy Order. A Seminary provides an education. An education is a part of formation as clergy. Like the bowl of cereal in the ads surounded by food is a "part of a complete breakfast." What does grant or convey Holy Orders is an Ecclesia (aka. Church).
Ecumenical does literally mean “world-wide” (at least in the sense of the world-wide Roman Empire). Pan and universal can also mean “world-wide,” however its use in English is generally restricted to the religious meaning. It has come to mean movements toward unity, or to indicate that which has such a spirit. It does not imply governance.
Those interested in something other than jumping can also avail themselves of the Gnosis Institue Higher Education FAQ.
You are then cleared to read or re-read the article Towards a Gnostic Seminary.
A seminary is a specialized and usually live-in university-like institution for the purpose of instructing students (seminarians) in philosophy, theology, spirituality and the religious life, usually in order to prepare them to become members of the clergy.
From the Seminary entry on Wikipedia.
The word "holy" simply means "set apart for some purpose." The word ordo (order, in Latin) designated an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordinatio meant legal incorporation into an ordo. In context, therefore, a Holy Order is simply a group with a hierarchy that is set apart for ministry in the Church.
From the Holy Orders entry on Wikipedia.
So, does a seminary ordain (set apart for ministry in the Church) anyone? If you answered yes, you are assigned remedial reading on the nature of seminaries and clergy formation before continuing. If you answered no, you can continue to the next part.
Priesthood is a Holy Order. A Seminary provides an education. An education is a part of formation as clergy. Like the bowl of cereal in the ads surounded by food is a "part of a complete breakfast." What does grant or convey Holy Orders is an Ecclesia (aka. Church).
Ecumenical does literally mean “world-wide” (at least in the sense of the world-wide Roman Empire). Pan and universal can also mean “world-wide,” however its use in English is generally restricted to the religious meaning. It has come to mean movements toward unity, or to indicate that which has such a spirit. It does not imply governance.
Christian ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of the Christian religion.Therefore, Gnostic ecumenism would be the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of the Gnostic religion. (To keep it simple.)
From the EcumenicalWikipedia article.
Those interested in something other than jumping can also avail themselves of the Gnosis Institue Higher Education FAQ.
You are then cleared to read or re-read the article Towards a Gnostic Seminary.
GnosCast The Gnostic Podcast #3
Episode 3 - Dancin' the Gnostic Two-Step:
Sections:
- (On a) High Horse:
The Gnostic Two-Step. - Everybody Knows:
Discerning Combinations of Knowing. - Building a(n Understanding of) Religion:
How the Needs of Orthodoxy Shaped our Religious Views. - Real Spirituality:
That 'I' can blind you.
Towards a Gnostic Seminary
The large issues will of course stem from what such a program would consist of in terms of content. There are, oddly enough, advocates for programs that consist largely of studying mainstream theology, as if modeling our content on protestant seminaries were the way to go when such programs do not prepare their own ministers for ministry. If one does a bit of research, one will find that that is precisely what many mainstream protestant ministers complain of as a shortcoming of such programs. If it is a failure for the largely intellectually oriented protestant churches, why would Gnostics seriously consider it? It would seem that is because that is all that we know of publicly to model programs on.
We must always keep in mind that such programs are formative: they are a part of a formation program, and as such help shape the form of the student's ministry. If we re-create protestant programs we will be adding a formative element that will lead those ministries towards protestant forms. After all, if I study theology for years to become ordained, isn't it extremely important if not what it is all about? This does not need to be conscious, it is merely the pragmatic valuing of one thing by making it central or very important.
For my part, I think some courses in theology would be useful. Not many, just enough to be able to understand what people using that language are talking about. Now some may disagree, but I would guess that such people equate theology with critical or philosophical thinking about issues related to religion, rather than the unique endeavor with a long history and particular perspective. However, I see critical and philosophical thinking as being a part of every aspect of such a program. And, I also see theology, like the philosophy of religion, as being concerned with truly anachronistic issues. Issues which have no bearing on the life of the soul, or on the ministries of individuals who are actually working with others directly. I may be wrong, it may be a matter of semantics, or it may simply be the glass-bead game I have always found it to be.
It comes down to what seems to be an issue of whether we really want to grow up as a Gnostic community, or merely dress-up like the “grown ups” around us. Building an ecumenical Gnostic Seminary is a large undertaking. But there are many who have had years and decades of experience both in Gnostic ministry and in running Gnostic formation programs. If we want to tap into a reserve of knowledge and wisdom, it is there. The big question is: is anyone seriously interested? This is a call for participants: those interested in building, and those interested in availing themselves of, such a program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)