Against the Protestant Gnostics

Probing the past for perspectives on the present, a Presbyterian pastor in Saint John, New Brunswick, Philip J. Lee, brings to trial North American Evangelicals in Against the Protestant Gnostics (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987). As one might guess from the title, Lee takes for his mentor St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whose second century treatise, Against Heresies, sought to defend the orthodox faith from various gnostic perversions. "For the gnostic Christian, ancient or modern," Lee says, "simple faith (pistis) is not sufficient. Instead, there must be knowledge (gnosis)" (p.3). Almost always, Gnostics have these characteristics: 1) a deep sense of metaphysical alienation; 2) a proposed scheme of knowledge to overcome alienation; 3) a world-denying, escapist stance which often disdains material things; 4) an exclusivist, aristocratic elitism, promising real salvation to the enlightened few; 5) a syncretistic compulsion to compound diverse strands of theories and perspectives. Given these identifying marks, much of what follows entails Lee's analysis of how Gnostic notions have flourished, been condemned, or slipped silently into the darker niches of Christendom. As Lee shows, the main tenets of Gnosticism have almost routinely, across the centuries, been condemned by the Church, though nothing seems to prevent its weed-like re-surfacings. Rooted in the biblical teaching that creation is good, Christians have never rightly tolerated those who would disparage it. Given the inevitable Docetism of most Gnostics, Christians have insisted on the down-to-earth materiality of the Incarnate Christ. Salvation is revealed to Christians primarily through God's historic dealings with His people and thus to the highly visible (if not always highly edifying) believing community. Salvation comes not, as Gnostics assert, through elusive inward workings which bring enlightenment and deliverance for individuals. The typical Gnostic strategies for "self-realization" and personal well being (staples of TV prosperity gospel preaching) has routinely been labeled "sin" by the Church. Another important distinction involves the sacraments. Whereas Gnostics tend to downgrade, if not dismiss them, the orthodox from the early centuries through the classic Reformers have tenaciously clung to the worth, indeed the soteriological centrality, of at least Baptism and Eucharist. In North America, however, and especially from beachheads within those Puritan communities which focused unduly "on self" and tended to view "humanity from an elitist perspective" (74), Gnosticism wormed its way into the nation's religious life. Those sectarian movements (cultivating what Ernst Troeltsch called an "individualistic Protestantism of active-holiness") which permanently dyed the religious life of America's faithful seemed especially vulnerable to Gnostic notions. Consequently, Lee titles the second part of his study "Gnosticism in Ascendance in North Amer

Canadian Presbyterian pastor Phillip. J. Lee uses the ancient heresy of Gnosticism as an archetype by which to gage contemporary strands of Protestantism in North America. Contrasts are drawn between "Gnostic" and "Orthodox" trends in contemporary Christianity with the Orthodox end of the spectrum made to look considerably more true and desirable than the Gnostic. Gnosticism relies on salvation through the attainment of secret "knowledge" that can only be accomplished by a spiritually developed elite. The primary problematic characteristics of Gnosticism, according to Lee, are that it is elitist and that it is dualistic; in other words, it views the created world as inherently evil and the gifts of creation as objects to be avoided. Earthly life, then, is not to be lived, but to be escaped. This results in spiritual-elitism, separation of the holy from the "impure" and an obsessive focus on individual salvation among Conservative-evangelical groups. On the left, Gnostic tendencies lead to individualistic religion, personalized and subjective "spirituality" and the happiness of the individual as life's ultimate goal. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, is more concerned with the salvation of the Church as an organic body, rather than with particular individuals, and preaches a Christ who cannot be known through private spirituality, but only by participation in the life of the Church. Orthodoxy teaches readily accessible revealed truth, rather than mysterious and esoteric "knowledge". Who are the contemporary Gnostics? Any group that does not fit into the author's understanding of orthodoxy. It is a strategy that is highly effective, even though disingenuous. Lee is extremely though provoking and he is equally critical of both liberal and conservative trends in American Protestantism. There is plenty of material to make everybody from Southern Baptists and Unitarians take offense. Regarding its readability, this book might be intimidating to readers not familiar with theology, but in general is very well written. However, Lee's rhetoric comes with some glaring problems in logic. The first problem is that he never answers the question: "Who's Orthodoxy". Lee sees himself as preaching the message of early Calvinism and assigns the status of orthodoxy accordingly. But he never wrestles with the fact that his orthodoxy is heresy by Roman or Eastern-Orthodox standards. He regards Rome and the East as "sister churches" but never acknowledges that the feeling is less than mutual. He scoffs at the notion of religious "choice" but fails to acknowledge that religious freedom is a reality, whether for better or for worse. Decisions as to who is Gnostic are highly subjective. Lee admits that ancient Gnosticism has influenced even orthodox Christianity; Gnostic trends are to be found in the gospel of John, for example. Calvin himself, according to the author, comes "dangerously close" to Gnosticism at times. But the biggest problem is that Lee shows no i

This is a lucid and fascinating overview of the Gnostic mindset, little changed from antiquity to the present. Nevertheless, I disagree with Rev. Lee when he claims that John Calvin was no Gnostic: Calvin's doctrine of predestination, it seems to me, DOES make God the creator of evil, an essential component of Gnosticism. But anyone with an interest in the topic should certainly own this brilliant--not to say breathtaking--work of genius.

Inspired by Irenaeus' "Against the Heretics" Lee delivers a stinging review of today's gnostics, the enthusiasts of our day who say they have higher,mystical revelations that the rest of us earthly ones have no access to.Especially disconcerting to Lee is the increasing rate of radical individualism as opposed to the biblical corporateness of the body.Modern ears are ripe to be deceived by these first century gnostic lies. While boldy proclaiming they are about the Word, these modern day gnostics in America do not let God's Word have the preeminence that God intends. Lee even acknowledges that Lutheran doctrine is anti-individual and pro-the action of God in the midst of His people.Our world today seems only willing to accept a church that will let them have their "me and my Jesus" beliefs and practices, which in turn tickle so many other worldly ears who think they become spiritual on their terms.One neat tie that he makes between Irenaeus and today is: "it is accepted that a born again Christian is a Protestant who has had an experience of some sort and who takes his or her religion seriously, unlike the ordinary folk who have merely been baptized, attend Sunday services and call themselves Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans or Baptists. ... "They call us," said Irenaeus, "'unspiritual,' 'common,' and 'ecclesiastic.'"Worthy read and library addition.

Lee demonstrates how American forms of Proetstantism do not reflect the ethos of Calvin or Luthur and how American Protestant individualism etc, and much evangelicalism and the charismatic movement are an embodiment of the Gnostic religions of the first few centures of the Common Era. A real eye opener: well researched, passionately argued, and convincing.