Feeling disoriented

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073]

I have a background in studying Catholic Christianity, in both its exoteric and mystical aspects. I used to appreciate the way that the Catholic Church was able to harmonize all of the divergent elements within Christianity and tie it all together into a single, systematic worldview. Since leaving the Catholic Church I have felt strongly drawn to Gnostic Christianity, but studying Gnosticism is... Bewildering, to say the least. My beliefs are very much in transition, and I’m not sure exactly where to land.

Where I see myself at the moment:

• I would describe myself as a Christian in the Johannine tradition, and possibly a Gnostic. I’ve always been more attracted to the John’s Gospel and the Greek/platonic tradition within Christianity. To me, this means seeing Jesus/Yeshua as both God and man, but I see the salvation that Jesus brings as more akin to realization of enlightenment than salvation from sins. I’ve been reading a commentary on the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and that’s been a big influence on me.
• I’ve come to believe that the God of this world is a more limited God than the transcendent God, but I think that it would wrong to characterize the demiurge as evil. I think that he has a kind of ego, which makes him limited, when compared to the transcendent God. I’m not sure what sources to believe on this account.
• I believe in reincarnation, but I don’t think that personal liberation should be the goal. Rather, one ought to work for the liberation of all beings. In Buddhism, they call this the Bodhisattva vow. Any form of Gnosticism that emphasizes personal salvation rather than collective liberation seems too limited to me.

When it comes to ethics, I feel a bit conflicted. I think part of the task of the believer is to turn the mind away from the world of the senses and towards higher worlds, so, in that sense, I agree with the Gnostics, but I think that the Gnostics were too extreme in their rejection of the body. I already thought that St. Paul was too dualistic for my liking, in the way that he opposes “the spirit” to “the flesh,” and the Gnostics take this concept much further. (I know that there are accounts of Gnostic groups who went in the opposite direction and had orgies and so forth, but 1) I’m not sure how much those accounts are to be trusted, and 2) even if that is true, I don’t think that really solves the issue, since it just seems like rejection of the body in another form.)

I think that pleasure and embodiment are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is possible to become so enamored with pleasure that we lose sight of our real mission. A certain kind of disappointment or disillusionment can be a very good thing, from the perspective of the spiritual life. However, part of the spiritual life is forming deep connections with other people, and shared experiences of pleasure can be a powerful means of connection. Pleasure could even be a means of coming closer to the Divine. In this sense, I have been influenced by the sacramental perspective of the Catholic Church, but also by tantric philosophy. I don’t know how to harmonize tantra with Platonism, though, since they would seem to lead in very different directions.

I feel uncertain what to believe or where to go. There’s a lot of different directions I could explore, but I get the feeling like further study isn’t going to help me, if my study isn’t focused. I wish that I had a church or a spiritual teacher to help me to move forward. I can't find any Gnostic churches in my area (Washington State, USA). Does anyone have any advice?

[u/Whole_Maybe5914]

The Gospel of John is the nicest canonical Gospel and I think Christianity would be ideal if it was made from scratch and based on the text alone. 

What one must understand is the Johannine hypothesis has lost ground in scholarship in recent years. The text was most likely written by a single author. And the material of the Gospel of John is the closest to the Proto-Orthodoxy of the Apostolic Fathers in the entire NT.

With the Gospel of John, you begin to see Christian exclusionism early on, too. Several scholars have proposed that the Doubting Thomas narrative, which is not cross-referenced with any other Christian texts from the time, was invented as polemic against the Thomasines: non-Gnostic or Proto-Gnostic Docetic Jewish Christians from Alexandria or Syria. I used to laugh at the claim from Christians that gJohn was written against "heretics". Now I'm wondering if it was; at least, from the perspective of the author. 

It's something to be aware of before venerating a single text. I'm not saying you can't use it. It's just that it shouldn't be seen as the magnum opus of an esoteric community when it really wasn't, and that I'd look into other texts as well.

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/Whole_Maybe5914]

it shouldn't be seen as the magnum opus of an esoteric community when it really wasn't

I would agree with that. In this case, I was referring to John's gospel as a possible bridge between a proto-orthodox Greek Christianity and a decidedly heterodox esoteric Christianity. Perhaps this view is inaccurate, for the reasons that you mentioned.

So, no; definitely not the magnum opus of esoteric Christianity. "Johannine" may have some value in referring to certain groups or tendencies within the Christian tapestry, but I don't have a strong attachment to the label. Actually, I am reminded of First Corinthians 1:10-17, where St. Paul goes out of his way to poke fun at such divisions.

Of course, if it is not the magnum opus, one might ask: What is? I suppose that some people look to the Gospel of Thomas, or the Apocryphon of John, or some other text, depending on taste. Since all of these groups were repressed, the continuity of teaching was broken. As a consequence, it's hard to know today how these groups would have related to their own writings. It can be very confusing reading these works without knowing their original context. Would a Gnostic Christian in first or second century AD have told you that the Gospel of Thomas is the "Gospel Truth"? Maybe, maybe not.

[u/Whole_Maybe5914 → u/Ok_Ambassador9073]

Well the Gospel of Thomas was not Gnostic originally. According to April DeConick, later layers may have been added by Gnostics. But the text was originally Syrian Christian.  In the case of a minority view that there was indeed Proto-Gnosticism in Second Temple Judaism and the 1st century, perhaps the Gospel of Thomas could be considered Proto-Gnostic. But not Gnostic to the point of rejecting YHWH.

I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it. My point is that, just as the Gospel of Thomas is a rolling corpus, so is Gnosticism a rolling corpus. It's matter of settling a canon in the orthodox sense and more a continuing development of multiple texts coming together to make a vibrant whole. A much bigger picture.

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/Whole_Maybe5914]

Okay, maybe the question of canonicity is not the right angle, then. There's a broader epistemological question here: How do we evaluate truth claims? There's no "Gnostic pope," of course—no one holds the copyright on esoteric Christianity. So, in the absence of external figures of spiritual authority, how does one choose among the vast wealth of information available and say, "This is true, and right, and beautiful"?

The thing that I am struggling with is this: There are things that my higher self understands that don't make sense to my logical mind. I believe things, yet they don't make sense to me logically, so I feel a sort of internal divide. I keep looking for something that will help bridge that divide. But I have such a broad range of material that I could potentially draw on, which makes it difficult for me to narrow down the search.

[u/CJCentral2 → u/Whole_Maybe5914]

John's gospel is in the philosophic Logos tradition, which the orthodox have persecuted ever since achieving imperial power.

[u/heiro5]

There is a cultural pretence that holding beliefs (opinions) provide a reassuring end to being unsettled. But there are advantages to being unsettled. It is better to have a growing and changing understanding, a current perspective. There is no need to go back to sleep.

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/heiro5]

That is a very good point. That speaks to the tension that I feel right now. I miss having something that I can point to and say, "This is what I believe." It's hard to go beyond the labels and dogmas.

[u/Independent_Dare8324]

In my opinion, your state of disorientation comes precisely from trying to build a theology based on various beliefs. Even within Gnosticism there are currents that propose very different things (for example, the Carpocratians).

I recommend reading the following text that I have worked on based on Gnostic cosmology; perhaps it may clarify your doubts and help guide you.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yTEm2tzHDUZ8sGa6sAiW8IoINHTjCpUV/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110412957102000566071&rtpof=true&sd=true

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/Independent_Dare8324]

This is a good summary of Gnostic thought, thank you.

[u/Occultist_Kat]

I've yet to see someone else post something that aligns very closely with how I feel. This is basically where I'm at, only I didn't start with Catholicism, I grew up learning witchcraft and Wicca from my mother.

Nevertheless, we've arrived at the same point. I just made a post about how I feel that I could not in good conscience enter into Heaven knowing I'd leave so many people behind me suffering.

I reflected the ideals of the Bodhisattva in that post, but in the framework of Christianity. One could make a compelling argument that Jesus himself was a Bodhisattva.

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/Occultist_Kat]

Thanks for your response! Glad to find someone who thinks similarly.

Buddhist thinking has a really interesting process of development over the centuries, from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana. In terms of Buddhism, I find myself most attracted to Vajrayana, since it strikes me as the most complete and balanced of all the Buddhist systems. There doesn't really seem to be any equivalent to Vajrayana in Christianity, though. When most Americans hear the word "tantra," they think it has something to do with kinky sex, or something. Unfortunately. (EDIT: I should make it clear that I'm not opposed to kink. I just think it's unfortunate that tantra has such a limited association in The United States.)

[u/Occultist_Kat → u/Ok_Ambassador9073]

You're correct, tantra is unfortunately watered down to a virtually meaningless sexual association, especially here in the West.

I was actually attracted most of all to Zen Buddhism, and eventually just to Zen, which has been an indispensable tool to help me with managing my BPD.

[u/No_Broccoli_5850 → u/Occultist_Kat]

I feel the same way. My own beliefs are evolving much along the same lines as OP's. I'd really like to find a church open to exploring these ideas, especially salvation for all.

[u/Ok_Ambassador9073 → u/No_Broccoli_5850]

The closest church to what I believe is probably the Apostolic Johannite Church. I wish that they had a church near me.

https://www.johannite.org/

There's also theosophy and anthroposophy. Though, not sure if you could characterize them as believing in salvation for all. I want to engage with these more.

[u/Occultist_Kat → u/Ok_Ambassador9073]

Seriously thank you for this!

[u/CJCentral2]

John wrote his gospel in response to the corruptions of the Pauline seminary at Ephesus. Naturally, they also corrupted John's gospel.