UPDATE:
Dear Commenters, I do not have time to reply to all comments made yesterday (27 Feb) but I will make the general comment that I think some of you have not read me carefully. E.g. I am not making a comment about the general embeddedness of the churches in Germany in German culture and state; I am offering my interpretation of the German Christian movement in relation to Nazism and the mythology it promoted. Finally, I am particularly interested in any current examples of Gnosticism bedevilling Christianity. So, even if you think my example is poor, even wrong, how about citing another? Incidentally, the eradication of the virus of heresy has no implications per se re the eradication of heretics.
Regards, Peter
START
Always worth a pause is consideration of whether one greater enemy of Christianity, Gnosticism is an eradicated virus or a recurring outbreak of disease in our body. While it is difficult to arrive at a settled definition of Gnosticism, it can be thought of as an influenza which takes various forms. Michael Bird, drawing attention to a comment of Larry Hurtado, suggests this broad definition of ancient Gnosticism:
"Gnostics were trying, each in their own way, to indigenize Christianity in the Greco-Roman world by marrying it to platonic cosmology and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots. But it does come off as a bit like the “Scientology” of the second century."
On that basis, a relatively recent outbreak of Gnosticism was the 'German Christian' movement in 1930s Germany which sought to indigenise Christianity in the Hitlerite Germanic world by marrying it to German culture (think Wagner, Aryanism) and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots.
Are there other forms of Gnosticism in our world today which intersect with the church?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS With H/T to Liturgy I have added the newly arrived blog of Bishop Jim White (Assistant Bishop of Auckland) to my Anglican Tracks blogroll (with a nice parallel with the chosen title of his blog ...). Once upon a time Jim and I were both young Anglicans studying at Knox [Presbyterian] Theological Hall in Dunedin. I don't think either of us have shifted much in our theological tracks/tracts since then. But we are united in not being persuaded to become Presbyterians despite the excellence of our education there :)
Kia ora Peter,
ReplyDeleteIf indigenising the Gospel is a virus, how should we describe the use of the Gospel as a weapon for colonization?
Thank you, Peter, for including this link to Bishop Jim White's Blog.
ReplyDeleteThank God one of ACANZP's Bishops is brave enough to draw attention to the pogrom now being carried out in Uganda - as a direct result of the Ugandan Government's newly-enacted law against homosexuals, their friends and families in that country.
Today's Press draws attention to the fact that a Ugandan tabloid newspaper has no publicly 'outed' 200 people, together with photos, describing them as "Uganda's top homos" and supplying names.
The really sad thing is that, not only did the local Anglican Church in Uganda not oppose the recent legislation; they positively approved of the criminal penalties that will be preferred against those pilloried in the press!
Is it not time that Anglicans around the world expressed our deep dissatisfaction with what is going on in Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya - with the collusion of the Anglican Church authorities there - that will bring untold suffering to Gay people and their families?
"On that basis, a relatively recent outbreak of Gnosticism was the 'German Christian' movement in 1930s Germany which sought to indigenise Christianity in the Hitlerite Germanic world by marrying it to German culture (think Wagner, Aryanism) and cutting the chord from its Jewish roots."
ReplyDeleteI suggest not.
Before coming to that conclusion, you would have to account for the already-strongly-indigenized nature of protestant churches in Germany. Despite being officially disestablished in the 1920s, the churches remained state corporations, were heavily subsidised, and their rights to be the major force in activities such as education were protected by law.
In other words, the protestant churches in Germany were in reality far more established in the 1930s than even the Church of England is in Britain today, and that in turn stemmed from assumptions about the relationship of the churches to the German society and State. Christianity in Germany was already very closely married to German culture before the Deutsche Christen came along.
The German Christian movement was a pressure group which sought to influence voting within the federated German protestant churches - but it didn't seek to change the nature of those churches' relationship with the State.
This is a pervasive problem that Bonhoeffer and others struggled with - they were already in a state church, and implicitly accepted a much closer relationship between Church and State than we would.
Back to the Deutsche Christen: Of course they held doctrines that were in some ways extreme - but they weren't new. Such beliefs had been around since the 19th century, just as had the beliefs that we now label "Nazism".
A wry commentary on this last point is provided in Sam Peckinpah's war movie, "Cross of Iron". As they stand on watch in an obscure part of the Eastern Front in 1942, the Corporal says to Sergeant Steiner: "Rolf, what are we doing here?". Steiner responds by quoting Friedrich von Bernhardi, who wrote before the Nazis existed. In other words, he is saying that the reason the Germans have invaded Russia stems from philosophies of which Nazism is merely a continuation.
Is this a definition Peter? It looks more like a statement of a goal and an indication of the method used to reach that goal. Gnosticism is what that historical (and spiritual) situation produced. The goal of Hitlerism may have some points of comparision with the goal of Gnosticism, but I think one would want to establish more similarity of content to show they are both forms of gnosticism.
ReplyDeleteRhys
Eradicated virus!
ReplyDeleteInteresting use of language!
Excatly the same kind of language used by all "heresy" hunters whether so called "religious" such as the Inquisition or the thought police in Calvin's fascist mini-state of Geneva. Or those in totalitarian states who denounce the "enemies" of the people/party/state in preparation for rounding them up to be either exterminated or "re-educated".
And of course real gnostics and mystics are easy to (ex)terminate because they generally have no interest in exercising worldly power, or even "converting" other people
"The really sad thing is that, not only did the local Anglican Church in Uganda not oppose the recent legislation; they positively approved of the criminal penalties that will be preferred against those pilloried in the press!"
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect on both counts, Fr Ron. You are aware of the statements issued by the heads of African churches recently, because I posted links to them on ADU. If you are going to try to blame a church for what a government has done (which may well be a valid approach), its important to ensure you have your facts straight first.
I am not 'blaming a church for what a government has done', Michael. If you read,carefully, what I said, you will see that my complaint against the Church in Uganda was that it did not object to what the government was doing in that country to criminalise gay people.
ReplyDeleteA question of you: Do you think the Church was right in supporting the criminalisation of gay people?
This is a fair roundup fromm Thinking Anglicans:
ReplyDeleteUganda’s "Daily Monitor" provides a round-up of religious leaders Christmas messages. The draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which was hurriedly passed by Parliament last Friday, received special mention by these three Anglican bishops:
“In Uganda, there are so many injustices like child sacrifice, domestic violence, drug abuse which are now a big issue in our schools… I want to thank Parliament for passing the Anti-homosexuality Bill. I want the world to understand what we are saying,” the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, the Most Rev Stanley Ntagali, said.
…“Can you imagine your son brings another man at home for introduction?… The church preaches forgiveness, reconciliation and transformation. I do not want people to look at us and say the church is against the homosexuals. We love everybody. The homosexuals, and lesbians are all children of God but we want them to repent and have eternal life,” Archbishop Ntagali said.
At St Paul’s Cathedral Namirembe, Bishop Wilberforce Kityo Luwalira commended MPs for passing the anti-gays Bill but asked them to object the proposed law to legalise abortion describing it as murder.
The Bishop of Mbale, the Rt Rev Patrick Gidudu, asked Ugandans and political leaders who are against the Bill to seek God, repent and renew fellowship to save the country from God’s wrath…
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
“Gnosticism” both ancient and modern has various emphases, and so we need to be discerning and not paint with too broad a brush.
ReplyDeleteThat said, one of the key features across many forms is the failure to distinguish clearly good and evil, viewing ‘the good and the evil’ as merely equal expressions of the One. Such a view is found especially nowadays in Carl Jung and subsequently via those contemporary programmes with a Jungian input. This impacts those Christian counselling and spiritual director training schemes that rely on Jungian elements.
So; I’d say as far as this seriously confusing moral feature is concerned, that it is both a “virus” and still in need of serious “eradication”.
And here’s another line of conversation altogether: re indigenization. This just drives to the heart of the Christ and culture debate; and what follows is derived from a unit I teach on “Theology & Culture”.
Naturally we’ve to start with Richard Niebuhr’s Christ & culture (1951). Then we can fast fwd to two recent refinements of this classic thesis: Craig Carter’s Rethinking Christ & culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective (2006), and DA Carson’s Christ & Culture Revisited (2008). Lastly, JD Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (2010) is especially helpful, as its Three Parts engage directly the complexities of culture and the dynamics of change, then the crucial feature of power (which interacts well with Carter from an Anabaptist stance who addresses notably traits of coercive violence, both state and others), to conclude finally with a thesis of Christian Presence and due formation by the Church of its members - all in our contemporary world(s).
All this I situate within a reformed paradigm derived from a marxist C Wright Mills. It works precisely because (according to B Russell) Marx himself was a Christian heretic! If I lay all this out here it is to ask both Peter and his commentators to really get their act together when we try to assess such things as either “Nazism” or recent “Ugandan legislation”. It’s not incidental we are witnessing a real revival in Bonhoeffer studies, since he was one of a few who was able to both dig deeply into German history and culture, and enact some real solutions. Nor is it incidental the AC seems in an utter log-jam regarding “homosexuality”. Perhaps we are generally still not asking even the right set of questions ...
Hi Bryden
ReplyDeleteLet me take this argument back to you. More theological work could be done, Bonhoeffer cited and followed. True. Agreed.
Meanwhile do we ignore the plight of homosexuals in Uganda? Even Bonhoeffer took till 1944 to engage in serious action against Hitler. Meanwhile millions died.
If you knew your history Peter, you'd start that "serious action" earlier: he returned from America before war broke out ...
ReplyDeleteYes, Bryden, and what happened and how many died between 1938 and 1944?
ReplyDelete(Am not holding B responsible for that, but pointing out that the time for action sometimes should precede the time for analysis).
And Finkenwalde was not a form of action ...?!
ReplyDeleteFr Ron wrote:
ReplyDelete1. “Michael. If you read,carefully, what I said, you will see that my complaint against the Church in Uganda was that it did not object to what the government was doing in that country to criminalise gay people.”
I have to disagree, Fr Ron. This is what you wrote:
“The really sad thing is that, not only did the local Anglican Church in Uganda not oppose the recent legislation; they positively approved of the criminal penalties that will be preferred against those pilloried in the press!”
The Church of Uganda not only did not approve of the criminal penalties, but strongly opposed them.
2. “Is it not time that Anglicans around the world expressed our deep dissatisfaction with what is going on in Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya - with the collusion of the Anglican Church authorities there - that will bring untold suffering to Gay people and their families?”
Once again, the inaccuracies in your post are extraordinary: Kenya has passed no gay laws that I am aware of; There is no evidence of “collusion”, rather the opposite; And the idea of “untold suffering” is yet to be demonstrated, at all.
3. “A question of you: Do you think the Church was right in supporting the criminalisation of gay people?”
A question of you: do you think it is right of you to suggest (incorrectly) that the new laws criminalised gay people, and do you think it is right of you to suggest (incorrectly) that the Church supported such an idea?
Homosexual behaviour has been a criminal offence in all of these countries (and many others besides) for centuries. The main thing that has been criminalised by new laws (in both Uganda and Nigeria) is the promotion of homosexuality. You may not agree with that, and even I may not, depending on the precise terms – but it is quite different to what you wrote. Accuracy is a virtue.
”Kurt wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis is a fair roundup fromm Thinking Anglicans: Uganda’s "Daily Monitor" provides a round-up of religious leaders Christmas messages.…”
Actually it isn’t. I agree that that report appeared on TA. However TA was eventually fair enough to report the *actual* words of Archbishop Ntagali, rather than just second or third hand reports, which in the African press are often not verbatim. Here is the relevant part of the actual statement of the Primate of Uganda. Fr Ron in particular should take careful note of the first sentence:
“The Church of Uganda is encouraged by the work of Uganda’s Parliament in amending the Anti-Homosexuality Bill to remove the death penalty, to reduce sentencing guidelines through a principle of proportionality, and to remove the clause on reporting homosexual behaviour, as we had recommended in our 2010 position statement on the Bill. This frees our clergy and church leaders to fulfill the 2008 resolution of our House of Bishops to “offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning. The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.
Accordingly, we are grateful for the reminder of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to fulfill such commitments as stated in the 2005 Communique of the Primates Meeting held in Dromantine, Northern Ireland.
We would further like to remind them, as they lead their own church through the “facilitated conversations” recommended by the Pilling Report, that the teaching of the Anglican Communion from the 1998 Lambeth Conference, from Resolution 1.10, still stands. It states that “homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture,” and the conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions”.”
I hope it is clear from this that allegations that the Church of Uganda “colluded” with the government of Uganda or pressed for stronger punishments have no rational basis.
Hi Bryden
ReplyDeleteBefore I diverge too far from your thinking on these matters, I agree that such situations are very difficult. How could a Bonhoeffer affect the situation in Uganda, for instance? Laws once passed are a difficult thing to undo (e.g. because parliaments are not keen to admit they have made a wrong decision). Do we imagine our parliament re gay marriage would take kindly to (say) economic sanctions being brought against us? I suspect we would dig our heels in rather than succumb to pressure ...
Thank you, MichaelA. The update is not quite as disgusting as what was first was reported. Of course, it's a far cry from the fine, unambiguous statement issued by our Primate. But that is to be expected.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
" The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing." - MichaelA -
ReplyDeleteHow on earth can you say that?
Neither in Uganda nor Nigeria is it at all 'safe' to admit you are confused about your innate sexuality - if you are homosexual!
If you are actually 'confused' and prove to be truly homosexual, the Church will try to make you into a heterosexual - against your true nature, an offence against true personhood and a perversion of justice.
If you are not confused, but admit you are Gay, then there is always the prospect that you will either be forced to 'repent' of your homosexuality (a false premise), or you may be threatened with exposure, because of suspected 'un-repentance'!
Both are manifestly unjust.
I think Peter you underestimate the dynamics of social change. They are often more akin to historical tsunamis against which individuals have little effect. In which case even the likes of a Bonhoeffer will be unable to do that much. Whether we are talking of the Treaty of Versailles and its effects on Weimar Germany or the total loss of appetite of the likes of England or France for war after WW1, or the history of Buganda or the interface between Islam and Christianity in Africa, all these are profound structural dynamics.
ReplyDeleteSo laws passed in either NZ or Uganda are but tips of icebergs. It's what's below the surface that is of real historical significance. And a bunch of individuals, even church types, Anglican or Lutheran, won't be able to achieve that much. Not in the short term anyway ...! Other strategies are required - like Finkenwalde, or the communities of Luke-Acts or the FG, or manuals of discipleship like Matthew's Gospel.
However, there's a problem. The bastard step-child of the Christian Faith has seduced even the members of the western churches - or at least most of them. So we'd prefer a bob each way ... And that results in fewer due disciples even in a Finkenwalde or a St Johns. Why else do I gravitate so often to Rom 12:1-2?!
Fr Ron, thanks for a point well made, even if I don't entirely agree with it.
ReplyDeleteClearly you and the Primate of Uganda (those were his words, not mine) have a different view of what "safe" is, stemming I suspect from different views as to whether homosexuality is an innate orientation or a lifestyle choice.
It seems to me that the primate is saying that churches won't report people who are homosexual to the police, but they will urge them to repent. To someone who believes as you do, that will be highly offensive as well as incorrect.
" The bastard step-child of the Christian Faith has seduced even the members of the western churches - or at least most of them." - B.B.
ReplyDeleteAgainst what class of person is this word 'bastard' being applied to? Is it not 'ad hominem', of whomever? If not, one wonders 'why not on a strict blog like this?
Just asking!
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteBryden is referring to an outcome of history during Christendom and post-Christendom. My understanding is that he is referring to the Enlightenment and its effects running through today's world, including post-colonialism, post-modernism, pluralism, and liberalism (in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. including the underlying philosophy and culture of Western social democracies).
No ad hominem to see, or restrain!
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteBryden is referring to an outcome of history during Christendom and post-Christendom. My understanding is that he is referring to the Enlightenment and its effects running through today's world, including post-colonialism, post-modernism, pluralism, and liberalism (in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. including the underlying philosophy and culture of Western social democracies).
No ad hominem to see, or restrain!
Morning Ron! I would remind you of these two past posts and their various comments:
ReplyDeleteTuesday, February 18, 2014
Time for another quo vadis post?
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Do Christians Understand What It Means To Be Christian?
“Here's an excellent videotaped interview with the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian Anglican priest based in Boston. The footage is culled from the film “God Loves Uganda,” which explores the role of American theological conservatives in stoking anti-gay sentiment in Uganda.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/africa/the_anglican_priest_who_got_in.html
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY