The Gnostic Worldview

Five Implications of this Worldview

1: No particular expression of god is better than any other expression of god.
2: Particular things cannot be considered to be good.
3: Objective thought itself (discursive reason) is rejected.
4: Every natural limitation on the self is unreal, evil and oppressive.
5: Every rule and law that limits the soul must be rejected.

GNOSTICISM is a Christian heresy. That means that it did not arise until the first century A.D. It also means that its many manifestations throughout the last 2000 years have always been in, around, and on the edges of the Christian Church. There is strong evidence in the Epistles of Paul in the New Testament that Gnostic thinking was already injecting error into the churches that he founded in Greece and Asia Minor.

Some noted Gnostics are:

Valentinus who founded the Valentinians in Rome around 140 AD.
Mani of Babylon (Bagdad) who founded the Maniceans in the mid-200s AD.
Bogomile of Hungary a Catholic priest founded the Bogomiles in the early 900s.
The Albigensians in southern France showed up around 1150.

You might wonder why we are even bothering to study something that is so clearly heresy and so plainly pagan in its orientation. The answer is this: The pagan worldview is so pervasive and so wide-spread in its influence that it has always exerted direct pressure not only on cultures in general but also on the Church in particular. That is why, even though condemned as heresy very early on, it has repeatedly reared its head in the Christian Church.

More to the point, we are living at a time when Gnosticism and neo-paganism are undergoing a major resurgence in Western culture and specifically in American forms of Christianity. Allen Bloom wrote a book titled, "The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation." In this book, he examines some particularly American church forms and concludes that Gnosticism is "the emergent American Religion." Now, Bloom is no Christian so he has no personal stake in the matter. He is simply a scholar and an observer of culture who, from an outside perspective, has confirmed what many Christians are beginning to observe.

So, we wish to study Gnosticism in order to understand what its errors are and how to recognize and resist its subtle influences upon our own worldviews and upon our own church life.

What exactly is Gnosticism?

The pagan/Gnostic worldview has two main features:

1) A view of the material world that is extremely pessimistic.
2) The idea that nature is alive and even divine (god).

In the end, then, paganism worships nature itself. (Think of the American Indians, and African tribes for some examples.)

Notice something very important here. In the pagan/Gnostic mind, "god" is not a personal god. That's why I can't properly refer to "god" as "he" or even "she." Rather the divinity--god--is more like "the force" of Star Wars fame.

Allow me to quote Thomas Molnar to make this a bit clearer. "Pagan speculation tended to lock the individual inside a limited and hostile universe from which there was only one escape route: wisdom, according to the wise man/sage... it was held as axiomatic that souls dwell eternally in a kind of divine-royal court. Their descent into and participation in the material and human world was either inexplicable or explained only as a punishment--at any rate it was a plunge from The One to the multiple. Thus the best human beings are the contemplatives, fixing their eyes nostalgically on the home their souls had left." (pp. 21-2)

Gnosticism shares this basic worldview:

1) Creation is a MISTAKE that must be overcome.
2) Individuals are merely a particle of a fractured wholeness often called "God."

Perhaps you can see, in this last comment, why there are people in the political realm who believe that all war will be done away with if we can just overcome "Nationalism" and become a new world order. You can also see a tendency to treat misbehavior deserving punishment as though the person will stop doing such things if you obliterate any distinctions--financial, social, gender, political, religious etc.--between him and the person that he is attacking.

Philip Lee writes, "The fundamental complaint of the Gnostic is not against the powers that be, but against the powers that began, against the Prime Mover (God) for having moved (created)." (Lee, 8)

As a consequence of this view, "The human tradgedy is not a result of SIN but of IGNORANCE of God and self." (Lee, 10)

Since a Gnostic wants to Christianize this worldview, He sees Christ as the SAGE who has come to teach us that we really are one and that there really are no distinctions at all. In this sense Jesus is the savior. He saves--not from SIN--but, by giving KNOWLEDGE of the essential Oneness of all things, He saves from the created order itself and from its distinctions.

Now, since the Gnostic has such a low view of creation, he also has a real problem with a God who would create on purpose. For this reason, Gnostics have a real problem with the God of the Old Testament--the God of creation. Various Gnostics deal with this problem in various ways. Mani, for instance, simply deleted the entire Old Testament from the canon of Scripture!! Usually, however, they are less bold and, instead, come up with various schemes to remove God from a direct role in creation so that He is not really to blame--it just happened without His approval.

By now you are saying to yourself, "this is just too weird!! Nobody really believes this. Why should we waste anymore time on such silliness?" I know this because this was exactly my reaction when I was first introduced to Gnostic thought. But please hang with me for just a bit. I promise you that the next installment will open your eyes to the huge influence that such a worldview still has upon our society--even if many who push its program have never consciously articulated this worldview.

One more quotation from Philip Lee to summarize what I have said. "The fundamental problem between biblical faith and Gnostic faith begins with two different world views. Biblical faith insists that the Creation is well made. Christianity affirms with Judaism that 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.'...Gnosticism simply cannot endorse that positive vision of the Creation...Gnosticism must deny any direct link between Creation and God." (Lee, 16)

If you want to look at some primary sources on Gnosticism try out The Gnostic World View this is written by a Gnostic who talks plainly about what he believes. The rest of this website has a bunch of primary Gnostic writings, like, for instance, the Nag Hammadi Library. You won't like what you read but at least you'll see for yourself that I'm not makin' this stuff up.

The Gnostic Worldview

The pagan/Gnostic worldview looks at the common realities of our daily existence. There we see that the very act of living requires the death and consumption of other living things. When you sit down to have your salad, you are violently destroying a living organism (shame on you!). When you go to McDonald's for a burger, it is the same--something had to die. From such observations, the pagan concludes that all of our earthly existence is marked by violence, pain and loss. They conclude that the world's problems are not caused by some "evil" that has entered creation and spoiled it. Rather, they think that creation itself--our material existence--is evil because it is characterized by violence, pain, and so forth.

With this beginning point, they then seek to explain HOW this material world came to be. (Obviously, no good "god" could be directly responsible for its creation.) They imagine a time before there were any conflicts between people or things. In order to do this, they can only imagine a time before there were any people or any things to conflict with one another. The perfect state, in the pagan mind, is a single, undifferentiated, Unity. Various pagan religions refer to this by various names: Nirvana, God-consciousness, etc.

ASIDE: I have been asked how this world-view fits with the many competing gods of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians etc that we find in the Old Testament. Answer: Note that in all of these religions there were multiple gods (several Egyptian gods and not only one. Several Babylonian gods and not only one.) The gods themselves are splinters of the Perfect Unity! The same is true of the Greek Pantheon and the Roman gods. For this reason, pagan mythology of the pantheon depicted the gods as protagonists and antagonists one against the other. This is another manifestation of the pagan worldview.

Back to the story line...
The material world came into being when this original Unity was ruptured or fractured. It was divided into various parts that conflict with one another. One person fights with another because they are different and distinct from one another. The ideal situation was when they were both still in the one Unity and not divided. The same is true of a tiger who hunts a man and the man who hunts him back. Both are mere splinters of the original Oneness and their conflict with one another has to do with the fact that they see themselves as distinct and different.

Salvation comes through Gnosis (experiential knowledge) that you really are not different at all. The pagan view of reality is that all particular things, people, animals, etc.--even different gods--are mere splinters or fragments of the real Unity that was before the great fracture. Since each and every particular thing is a splinter of the great Unity (divinity), two consequences result.

1-The material world that is made up of mere fragments of the splintered Oneness. Therefore, it ought not to be--it is a bad thing.
2-Each and every individual fragment--people, animals, plants and rocks--is "divine."

Gnostics/pagans view the universe like a broken hologram (if you don't know what a hologram is, it could also be a broken mirror). Every fragment of the broken hologram images the VERY SAME picture from a slightly different angle. Since all image the same thing--albeit by a slightly different perspective--there is no particular fragment of the brokeness that is any better or worse at imaging the Divine Oneness.

This is why Pagans are eager to agree that Jesus is god. What they will deny, however, is that He is any more god that you and I are gods. To make the claim that this man is God, but not that man, is unacceptable to the pagan mind. They could even agree that the God of Israel, Yahweh, is god. But they, like Pharoh, would not admit that He is the only God.

Here, you can clearly see that we are surrounded by this thinking in the religion of Mormonism. While Jesus Christ of the LDS is called "God," He is no more of a god than each and every good Mormon will become. In fact, the Father Himself, is no different either. So, it is said: "What He is, that we shall be. What we are, that He was." That is why Joseph Smith's translation of John 1 reads, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was a god."

The Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" carries this same world-view not only to all people but also to all things. It has Jesus saying: "Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift up a rock and you will find me."

Notice how close this is to the Christian concept of God's being everywhere (omnipresence). In fact, many are deceived and taken in by this thinking because they think it is the same thing as the catechism teaching of omnipresence. It is not! It is one thing to say that God is everywhere. It is quite another to say that God is everything.

The biblical worldview is much different. For those who seek God, He is to be found in one, particular Man--Jesus of Nazareth--and no where else. In the canonical Gospel of John, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30). And the Apostle. Peter writes, "There is no other name, given under heaven, by which man can be saved." (Acts 4:12)

What the Gnostic says about things, he also says about history: One event can image God just as well as another event. It is for this reason that Gnosticism has such an affinity for myths. In mythology, the particular story is not true in the sense that it is historical fact. In fact, its historical truth or falsehood is quite beside the point. For a Gnostic, each and every story has value only as something that points beyond itself and to some deeper "gnosis."

For this reason, the Gnostic gospels have many and varied stories about Jesus that are not consistent with the history of His life. For them, it doesn't matter. One story can image God as easily as another and none of the stories need be true in an historical sense.

In fact, Heracleon, an early Gnostic, took the early Christians to task and berated us for believing the Gospels literally as true. He says that those who believe that Jesus--a man who lived in the flesh--is the Christ fail to distinguish between literal and symbolic truth. Indeed, those who believe the events concerning Jesus literally--as if the events themselves were revelation--have, to quote Heracleon, "fallen into flesh and error."

It is at this point that we are now in a position to critique a couple of modern influences upon the Christian Church.

1) Rationalistic scholarship in the late 19th century and through the 20th century often claims to "demythologize" the Bible. What they mean by this is that the events of the Bible need not be taken as historically true but that they should only be read as stories that the early Christians (or Jews) used to teach doctrinal points.

Examples of this method of reading the Bible can be found in those who deny the 6-day creation, the story of Jonah, and even the miracles of Jesus. In fact, some have gone so far as to reject the historical truth of Jesus' resurrection. All of these are clearly gnosticizing tendencies to be rejected. Just exactly the opposite of what Heracleon said is true. Namely, the events themselves are God's revelation. You cannot reject the events without rejecting God's revelation.

When somebody tells you that the world was not literally created in six days but that this is merely a myth teaching the real, spiritual truth, you have encountered a Gnostic in fact, if not in name.

Against this, the Apostles vigorously defended the historicity of their writings. In the Epistle from St. Peter about the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mt. Tabor he wrote, "For we did not follow cunningly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16) Likewise St. Paul writes of Jesus' resurrection, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain and ye are yet in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17).

2) The actual events of Jesus' life DO have significance. This, I think, is an even more pressing problem in the conservative branch of American Christendom and, therefore, one which we in the L.C.M.S. need to be particularly mindful of. There are a lot of conservative Christians who are very eager to assert that God created the world in 6 days and that Jesus rose from the dead literally, etc., etc. But they tend to stop there and do not make the next connection of concluding that these historical realities actually mean something.

My own thinking in this area is only beginning. But let me offer a couple of glaring examples of what I mean.

Conservative Christians all agree that all twelve of Jesus' disciples were male and that St. Paul forbids the Corinthian congregation from having female pastors. In all the conservative branches of Christianity, there is no disagreement on this point. However, as you know, many "conservative" denominations have no qualms about female pastors in their parishes. (Baptists, for example).

Likewise, every reader of the Bible must agree that when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper He took one cup blessed it and gave it to all those present saying, "Drink out of it, all of you." St. Mark even reports that, "They all drank out of it." And yet today, the vast majority of Protestants-including American Lutherans of all synods-routinely claim that this is an accident of history with no normative significance for practice today. Thus the innovation of the "individual communion cup" has been swallowed hook, line and sinker.

What explains this? The historical reality of Jesus' life and of the first apostolic congregations is simply isolated from any real significance for us. They cheerfully acknowledge the historical truth but then claim, "that was then, this is now."

We, on the other hand, think otherwise. When the Holy Spirit takes the time to record some historical detail, not only do we acknowledge that it is historically true, but we believe the very choice of activity that Jesus did reveals something of His will for us. What Jesus said and did in New Testament times is not only historically accurate, but it is meaningful as well.

To think otherwise, is to show signs of the Gnostic tendency to drive a wedge between "literal and symbolic truth."

Well, so much for the first implication. To sum up, it is a Gnostic tendency to find no real meaning in any particular thing or event. All material things can equally be said to be God and all events--even myths -- can tell divine stories as well as anyone else.

Second: Particular things cannot be considered to be good.

The first I already mentioned. Namely, particulars are seen to be only shadows of reality and have no real existence in themselves.

The second is very closely related to this. For the Gnostic, particular things are not good. Since I have already spent a good amount of space on this concept, I will not elaborate it again. Instead, let me briefly point out several ways that this implication has shown itself in actual social, churchly and political trends.

If all particulars are not truly real but are only shadows of reality, and more, if these particulars are not good but are merely disruptions of the original harmony, then the human soul--which is also a particular thing--is not truly unique, singular or individual. In other words, if all things are truly One and distinctions are merely disruptions of the original unity, then the very concept of other people is flawed and useless.

For this reason, Gnostic ethics have no real concern for the other. Because, strictly speaking, there are no others to be concerned about! The Christian command to "love your neighbor as yourself" is not accepted by the Gnostic as absolutely binding. It is, rather, seen as a mere guide post to lead you on the path toward understanding (gnosis) that your neighbor is yourself. If this generalization of the Ten Commandments can be seen as so fluid then, of course, the Ten Commandments themselves are treated as even more so! There can be no moral absolutes.

Here, perhaps you can see our current landscape. There seem to be no absolute boundaries at all. Before 1973 abortion was always wrong. Then abortion in the early trimesters was allowable but the last trimester was off limits. Now, the last trimester abortions are a "constitutional right" and partial-birth abortions are publicly defended. In fact, our lawmakers are even having trouble protecting newborn babies who were intended to be aborted. Meanwhile, the boundaries at the other end of life are also starting to erode. First, people demanded their right to die. Then, they demanded the right to die by the hand of a doctor. Now court cases are demanding the right of families and doctors to kill those whose life is not "worthy of life." Witness the case of Terry Schiavo! What will happen next? Who knows. But as long as the Gnostic/pagan worldview prevails in our public discussion of such matters, one thing is certain: we will never reach an absolute boundary which is morally absolute.

In general, there is no real concern for the lives of particular people. This point was driven home to me recently as I watched Bill Moyers interview Joseph Campbell in a PBS series called, "The Power of Myth." The subject was human sacrifice and Campbell was waxing eloquent on the beautiful imagery of the sacrificial rituals of various tribes--both ancient and modern. His face was all lit up during the entire discussion. He even took glee in describing modern cases of cannibalistic ceremonies in third-world countries. But one thing was conspicuously absent from the discussion: Not one word of regret--not a single indication of concern--for the lives of those who were killed. It was clear that such concerns did not even enter the mind of Campbell; and Moyers, his interviewer, got so caught up in the rhetoric that he, too, forgot any concern for the individuals involved. The individual, particular existence of these people had become a mere symbol and nothing more.

Both of the above examples demonstrate only the concept that individual particulars are not a concern. They do not yet broach the ethical implications for those who consider individual, particularity as bad (not good). As much as I hesitate to bring it up, a discussion of this topic would not be complete without mention of one of the most common behaviors that follow Gnostic communities. Namely, birth-control and abortion. Many Gnostics took the logical next step. If fragmentation of the Oneness is a bad thing, then further fragmentation can only be a worse thing. So while these Gnostics were seeking, themselves, to become reunified with the Oneness, they also took every precaution against bringing anymore fragments into the world. Since individual people are fragments and splinters of the Oneness, it was the Gnostics who were most concerned with developing numerous techniques of birth-control. And if their techniques failed, some Gnostics--already very early on--would abort their babies and re-absorb them into the whole (canniblism).

These are some ethical trends that follow from the Gnostic assumption that particulars are not good.

There are also religious trends that fit here. If individual, particular things of any kind are bad, then so are the particularities of the Church's belief. In the Gnostic mind, unification of separated churches is not to be sought by a mutual search for the single truth. Instead, unity is to be sought by setting aside (or "transcending") the particular doctrines that remain contended. We have seen this recently in worldwide ecumenical agreements.

For instance, a few summers ago, the ELCA entered into Church fellowship with the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church in America and another one that I can't remember off the top of my head. In that agreement, they acknowledged that they still disagreed about the doctrine of the Lord's Supper--whether or not Christ was present to be eaten and drunk by all the communicants. The also acknowledged that this issue had prevented Church fellowship between them for the last 475 years. But in the document of agreement that they signed, they simply stated that it was no longer church-divisive. In other words, they "transcended" the particulars of that doctrine so that they could be One.

Finally, one political aspect of this idea we have already mentioned previously: Namely, the notion that nationalism and patriotism are bad things that only serve to keep the world splintered and fragmented. Christianity asks God to bless our native land in order that we might be a blessing to others. Gnostic/paganism ultimately wants our native land to be absorbed into a single, global Unity. All of this is very different from the biblical world-view. There, God not only creates individual and particular people, things and institutions, but He also calls them "good." In Genesis 1: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'"

In these three verses, God affirms the distinction between male and female. He commands us to "multiply" (i.e. to further fracture the Oneness). Far from being called bad, children are always called a "blessing from the Lord" throughout the Scriptures. In these verses of Genesis, God also ordains a clear distinction between us and the animal world. In Genesis 4:19 and following, God establishes various distinct families and professions. In Ephesians 4, it is God who makes distinctions between various kinds of church-workers. In short, the Bible is full of particulars and God treats every person as a unique person. Far from being bad, we affirm that all of these particulars and distinctions are good creations of a gracious God.

Third: Objective thought itself (discursive reason) is rejected.

Now, if all individualization is the result of a cosmic fall, and particulars are essentially meaningless, and the true reality is a monistic Oneness, then it follows that thought itself is itself a function of the fallen, splintered state.

How so? You ask. In pagan systems, the soul's essential characteristic is that it is utterly one with the absolute--it is not a distinct person. For this reason, souls do not think because there is essentially nothing other than the soul itself to think about. The soul simply is. (I know this sounds even weirder than before but hang with me for a bit because this has more influence on modern society than you would guess.)

Objective thinking, reflection, reasoning and logic enter the world then, with bodies and distinctiveness. Thus they are a result of the fall from the original Oneness. For, in order for objective thinking to happen, there first have to be two distinct things: the subject that thinks and the object that he thinks about.

Western culture and philosophy has been built upon the concept of objective reasoning due to the influence of Christianity. We value the ability to look objectively at a something so that two different persons can arrive at the same conclusion. But if everything outside of ourselves is merely a passing shadow of the One divinity and is not truly, real, then the ability to learn truth by looking at things outside of myself is denied. The only thing that is real and true is the Oneness of which I am an indivisible part.

For this reason, the Gnostic seeks truth--not external to the self--but inside the self. What marks the soul is contemplation. This is not an active reflection or thinking about the world but a state of tranquility in which humans allow themselves simply to be and to let go of all external things as irrelevant distractions and more! For the Gnostic, experience of the outside world is disruptive and the experience of the unreal and of the evil.

ILLUSTRATION: You probably all remember the scene from Star Wars. Obi-Wan Kenobi was teaching Luke Skywalker how to use the light saber. Luke just couldn't get it right. So Obi walks over to the shelf and gets a helmet with an opaque facemask. He puts it on Luke -- which, of course, blinds him to all external sense perceptions. Then he says, "Use The Force, Luke." And, of course, Luke completes the lesson flawlessly. For he has been freed of all disruptions from the external world and is letting The Force guide him. This scene was foundational for the movie's climax. There, when Luke was in his X-wing fighter, trying to shoot into that little, tiny opening in the enemy mother ship his fellow fighters were getting killed right and left and Darth Vader was hot on his tail. Suddenly, a voice comes to him--not through his ear- piece, mind you, but from his own head--it was Obi's voice saying, "use The Force, Luke." Thereupon, he shut down his computer guidance systems and shot his weapon. Amazing! It perfect shot! The enemy ship blows up and everyone lives happily ever after! They just don't make movies like that anymore!

Since, for a Gnostic, this illumination of intuitive knowledge can only occur to that extent that the distractions of the world of sense or of the body are overcome, left behind, or transcended, there is a very distinct inwardness to Paganism and Gnosticism. The Gnostic must look inward at his own soul in order to come to the knowledge of truth-to the knowledge of that which is absolute Oneness. For the Gnostic, a fundamental alienation from the material world-from the world of sense or from the world of history-leads to an escapism from the world. Only by escaping the world can he find god (the Force), namely, himself.

The Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic text) exhorts its readers to "rest in him who is at rest. Do not strive or be involved in the search for truth. For you yourselves are the truth and the father is within you."

Here you can begin to see how prevalent this implication of Gnostic thinking is. Not too long ago, we were taught how to think logically--how to evaluate propositions--how to test hypotheses--how to arrive at objective conclusions. Subjectivity was a bad thing where a person's feelings, emotions and self-interests became the sole source of truth. Now, students are regularly encouraged to express their feelings in a non-judgmental environment. Subjective experiences and emotions are beyond criticism and are not subject to the rules of logic. You can hear this subjective way of asserting truth all around you. In politics, in morality, and even you can hear arguments in the Church following this very same way of "reasoning."

The result of this way of thinking is that "you have your truth--I have mine." Subjectivity simply makes it impossible for there to be an objective truth-a truth which is outside of, and external to, the subjective individual--a truth that was true before the person existed and will remain the same no matter what he or she might think about it. In such an intellectual climate, the objective approach to knowledge is often vilified. Logical thinkers are accused of being unfeeling, uncaring and out of touch. Decisions about right and wrong--what to do or not to do--how to preach, celebrate the Sacraments, exercise Church discipline and a host of other things--are often influenced more by what we think or feel than by what the Scriptures actually say.

In Gnosticism, immediate experience is primary and is the only real thing. Thought, on the other hand, is a mark of fallenness and individualization and reflects only on passing, meaningless things.

This is quite different than Christianity. In Christianity, thought--Word--is primary. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." In Christianity it is not thought, but experience that can deceive! We are told to hold fast (believe) the Word of God in the face of all experience to the contrary. This is precisely because the devil can manipulate our perceptions of experience but God, the Word, cannot be changed. "The Word of God endures forever." (Of course, this is not to say that there cannot be false and deceptive thought. But that which is true Word is not deceptive. And the true Word is incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, in Christianity, saving knowledge is not a private affair. It does not occur in the inner soul of self. But it is rather, an apprehension of the mighty acts of God, which have occurred outside of the self. God, the Creator, makes Himself known only in and through created things. He preaches to you through a mouth that is not yours but another's. He makes you His child and becomes your Father through water that is applied to you by another--no one ever has baptized himself. Likewise, He feeds you by the agency of bread and wine--Body and Blood--that comes to you from outside of yourself. God is known by an external act and external word. This makes Christianity a corporate endeavor. We gather in community--one with another--and participate in the community of life by Holy Communion. Truth comes to us from outside of ourselves and--although Christ promises to dwell in us--He continues, forever to come to us from the outside.

Jesus brings these two concepts (about His indwelling and the primacy of the Word) together when He says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 14:23

Thus, the Christian affirmation is that the Father is available in that Man--Jesus--and not in self. God is not the perfect contemplative--who sits in eternity doing nothing, thinking nothing. Rather, the God of the Bible is the perfect thinker who plans and conceives the creation, who wills and speaks, who intends a purpose and acts upon a world that is outside of Himself. He gives Himself through His Word and Spirit.

Fourth: Every natural limitation on the self is unreal, evil and oppressive.

Since the inner self is seen as divine and the whole external world--including the body--is only a shadow and not truly real, then any limitations that the external world places on the soul are also unreal shadows seeking to lord it over the true god--the inner self. All such limitations placed upon the inner self are only due to external, extrinsic forces that are contrary to and opposed to the independent and autonomous soul. Any limit is an alien intrusion.

Put another way, since the soul is divine and, by definition has no inherent limitations, anything that seeks to limit it in any way is illegitimate, evil and oppressive. In the political sphere, we see this when the realities of economics prevent one person from having what another has. This is seen as a limitation to the soul--an evil that must be overcome through governmental aid if necessary.

For this same reason, in the pagan/Gnostic mind, the body itself is oppressive! The limitations inherent in the created order are, therefore, to be overcome if the self is to be free. Here, mind you, we are talking about limitations which are inherent in the nature of things--we are not yet talking about "rules" which tell us how to act (that will be discussed next).

And so, the pagan world-view necessitates a denial of any physical limitations placed upon the person. One of the goals of the Gnostic/pagan is to overcome all limits of the physical laws of the universe. For instance, time is overcome by seeking to know the future through ouiji boards, tarot cards, crystal balls, etc. Gravity is overcome by levitation. Space is transcended by telepathy etc. All of these things are common fare in the overt practice of pagan religion.

However, this trend can also be detected in far more mainstream areas of today's culture. None, perhaps, is more obvious than in the arena of sexuality. The morning-after abortion pill (RU-486) is just one example of people who are forever attempting to alleviate any and all physical consequences of bodily activity. Pregnancy is a limitation that effects a person's psyche, bodily health, marriage and career. There is a modern obsession with overcoming all of these limitations -- or denying their reality.

Homosexuality also breathes this same air. In its essence, homosexuality is a denial that the very structure of our bodies has a meaning that limits and defines the nature of sexuality.

Both of these--the abortion movement and homosexuality--are core features of the feminist movement. This movement does not seek to enhance the femininity of women but to deny it. It is a movement to systematically overcome any and all limitations placed upon the female person. These limitations can come in several different layers. 1) arbitrary and unjust limitations;. 2) moral limitations and 3) bodily limitations. While it is, of course, laudable for all people to oppose the arbitrary and unjust limitations which have been placed upon females (1), the leadership of today's feminist movement has long since moved on from that goal to the other two which are essentially Gnostic. This has degenerated so far down that path that today we have some leaders of the feminist movement seeking to exonerate Andrea Yates as a person who was merely seeking to throw off the limitations which are inherent in having five children.

Here we see the basic reason for paganism's antipathy to the creator God. He creates particular entities that, precisely as creatures, have inherent limitations that are proper to their own being. The God of creation by the simple fact of his creating, makes creatures which--as creatures--possess their own inherent and creaturely limitations. Hence a creator is, by definition, an "other" who bestows and gives, and who, as the bestower and giver, becomes the limitor.

Christianity, on the other hand, rejoices in the Creator. In the Creed He is the first one who is given praise. We also rejoice in the bodies that He gives and in the physical limitations that He has created in those bodies. When we consider right and wrong--good and bad--the very physicality of our bodies constitutes one of the base-line considerations in our thinking. As the Small Catechism puts it: "Consider your station in life according to the Ten Commandments. Are you a father or mother, son or daughter, husband or wife, etc..." Notice that we don't only ask, "are you a parent, a child or a spouse..."

This same concept is found all through the Scriptures. Ephesians 5, is one well-known example. Rather than seeing our physical limitations as hemming us in and making us less than we really are, Christians see these limitations as part and parcel of who we really are. Therefore, recognizing them and acting upon the reality of their existence does not prevent us from being who we really are-- but it frees us to be who we really are. We are freed from the false and fruitless quest of seeking to think, behave, achieve and feel as though we were something else. In short, we are freed from the impossible quest of being gods and freed to rejoice again in our very creatureliness.

This is yet one more facet of Jesus' beautiful promise, "you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32.

Fifth: Every rule and law that limits the soul must be rejected.

If it is true that the external God--the God of creation--is but a mere lesser-god and not the true god of spirit. If it is also true that the things of the external, material and natural order are shadowy and a result of the fall. If it is furthermore true that distraction, corruption and suffering come from the participation in the things of creation and from the imposition of external norms and values. Then the true life of the soul is a life turned in upon itself and expresses itself by the assertion of the soul's own desires and will.

This immediately results in the abandonment of any ethical or moral demands and the requirements of self-giving love have been given up. Simply put: the denial of any real world reduces any claims that that world might have upon the self--at least reduces it to a bare minimum.

While the Christian tradition establishes a personal and a moral relationship between the transcendent God of creation and the human being who is His creation so that the notions of virtue and of sin go hand-in-glove with the notions of obedience and disobedience. In paganism, the true sage--the true Gnostic--overcomes the illusion of personal existence and, therefore, also the ethical demands that follow from it. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as obedience because there is no "other" to obey.

Gnostic virtue is purely what my own inner soul leads me to think, say and do. (Start the music... "I've gotta be me. I've gotta be me.") This, incidentally, is obvious in the rhetoric surrounding the abortion debate. The pro-abortion groups prefer to call themselves, "pro-choice." In this world-view, the worst and most oppressive thing that you can do is to limit someone's options and thus, hinder their ability to follow their own inner soul.

Christian cannot relate to this mindset because our ethical center is not found in our own inner soul but in God who is wholly other.

This is why, in the Gnostics, you have an incredible array of ethical options. Everything from very amoral behavior of the Valentinians in the 2nd century or the Bogomiles in the 9th, to a very strict asceticism which denies any and all physical pleasure. This whole range of behavior could be entertained because, fundamentally, it was the assertion of the soul. Nothing that happened at the realm of body had any intrinsic meaning so it didn't make any difference what you did. (For some literary examples of this, you might read some Franz Kafka's short stories.)

In Christianity, God possesses all things and gives all things to humankind that, by itself, has nothing. Man is created and receives all things--including his own being and existence. Man receives what he is and what he is to do. Just as a potter makes a vessel for a given purpose and then has expectations that the vessel will perform that purpose, so also God creates man for a given purpose and rightly expects us to do those things--namely the Ten Commandments.

In Christianity, all positive values are located in God--sometimes may be called God's attributes: love, holiness, justice etc.--and man is in the submissive position of receiving these values as those that he must adhere to. Bruno Schnell, a neo-pagan philosopher, sees the Greek gods as the good guys in opposition to the biblical God. "The Greek gods made no curt commands, issued no arrogant threats. They insist upon a willing and understanding heart rather than on blind submission."

Thomas Molnar makes the observation that the German idealist school from Hegel to Helder to Neitsche are fascinated with Greek paganism which they regarded as so much more human and tolerant than the religion of the Jews and of the Christians. As Hegel, in fact, one time put it, "it is time to take back all that we have projected into the alien individual." And, as we saw in Nazi Germany, Neitsche's übermensch was beyond all good and evil. Whatever serves those in power is beyond reproach--even if it is the murder of millions of innocents.

For Christianity, good and evil, vice and virtue are located not in your own heart but in the One who created you. Therefore, they are constant values and they do not change as you change. Nor, even, do they change as God changes. For He says, "I am the Lord! I change not."

Here is the root and foundation of Christian ethics. They are not fluid and dependent upon the situation but they are rock-solid (like the tablets of stone upon which they are written.)

Ultimately, this rock-solid constancy is a source of great comfort and joy. Because in this rock solid constancy, you have God's own word that He will not suddenly redefine what it is to be merciful in such a way that He takes Christ away from you. He will not redefine what love is in such a way that His love for you becomes destructive. Rather, they very constancy of the Ten Commands gives you a constant witness and certainty of how God feels, thinks and acts toward you at all times.

Ultimately, the heart of Christianity is confessed and the heart of Gnosticism is denied in the one statement: "I believe in One God...the maker of all things."