Jane Westerman

WHAT THREAT DID GNOSTICISM POSE TO THE CHURCH AND HOW DID THE CHURCH RESPOND TO IT?

This essay will attempt to define Gnosticism, why it was a threat to the early church and how the church responded to that threat. Gnosticism was a threat at a time when the church was expanding and gaining in political power. It is unclear where and when Gnosticism originated. However, their writings suggest a strong Judaeo-Christian influence. Most of our information on the Gnostics comes from two sources. Firstly the writings of the early church fathers that sought to refute Gnostic belief. Secondly, the Coptic texts found at Nag Hammedi in 1945. These texts provide us with an insight into Gnostic belief and practice, without the bias present in the early church fathers.

Gnosticism is difficult to define. The term Gnosticism developed later to group together various different schools. However, several factors are common to all these groups. Firstly, they all have a dualistic belief in an ultimate spiritual being and an evil creator god. The evil creator god, who is seen to be the god of the Old Testament, was brought into being by the fall of a heavenly body called Sophia. As the creator God was evil, so was everything of the body and matter that he created. Gnostics saw the human soul as wanting to escape from the earthly world, back to the ultimate spiritual being.¹

This escape could only be accomplished by a redeemer figure that brought with it the knowledge needed to get to the ultimate being. The Gnostics believed that Christ was this redeemer figure, and that he had imparted special knowledge to his disciples. This knowledge had been passed on to the Gnostics through an oral tradition.²

The Gnostics had their own books of scripture such as the Gospel of Thomas. These writings, they claimed, contained the secret knowledge necessary for complete salvation. The Gnostics claimed that this information had been passed down to them from the apostles, who had received the secret teachings from Christ.³ However, Irenaeus argued that if the apostles had had secret knowledge they would have passed it on to the people they appointed to lead the church. "If the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves."⁴

The Gnostics would also use versions of mainstream Christian writings, such as Paul's letters and the gospel of Luke. However they would often alter and interpret the texts to support their own view. The Gnostics would interpret mainstream Christian writings in an allegorical way. ⁵ By applying the allegorical method to difficult passages, they would then claim to have the true explanation. This meant that they could twist the meaning of scripture to support their own view. For instance, the Gnostic writer Heracleon interprets "the Lord went down to Capernaum" in John's gospel, as meaning that Christ went to the lowest strata of reality. ⁶ In another example the Valentian school of Gnosticism uses the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16, to prove that there were 30 Aeons. The number of the hours at which workers were sent to the vineyard adds up to 30, the Valentians argue that this is a secret meaning for saying there are 30 aeons⁷. Irenaeus argued that scripture had to be read as a whole. The Gnostics misinterpret scripture because they use isolated passages taken out of context. Ireneaus claimed that the correct exegesis of scripture could be found by referring to the apostolic tradition.⁸

The Gnostics began to put forward their own version of what they believed to be authorised scripture. The Valentian School claimed that edited versions of the gospel could be used, as a preparation for receiving the special knowledge required for salvation.⁹ This prompted the church fathers to begin to define what they believed to be authoritative scripture. This eventually led to the development of the New Testament cannon as we have it today. One of the main criteria for a book to be included in the canon was its authorship. Only texts that were believed to have been written by the original apostles were deemed authentic and included in the canon.¹⁰ The Gnostics tried to keep their traditions and writings secret, with only members of a sect knowing what was in them. In contrast, the early church made the writings that they accepted as authoritative public.¹¹

The Gnostics were a threat to the church at a time that the church was starting to develop as a hierarchical organisation with political power. Gnosticism undermined that power by claiming that they only obeyed the higher power of God himself.¹² Gnostics claimed that through visions they experience Christ's continuing presence. Gnostics claimed that because of this they were above the authority of bishops, priests and deacons. They would even claim that as they were still experiencing Christ now, they were even greater than the apostles¹³. If the Gnostics remained within the mainstream church, this attitude would undermine and weaken the episcopal authority of the church.

Clement argued that the church believed in the overall authority of God. However, this power had been delegated to the bishops, priests and deacons on earth. According to Clement by refusing to obey the bishops, the Gnostics were refusing to obey God himself.¹⁴

In response to the Gnostics, the church began to develop the theory of apostolicity. In Against The Heresies, Irenaeus sets out the line of succession of the Bishops of Rome. This goes back to the original apostles Peter and Paul. Irenaeus argues that as they appointed the next bishop, Linius, this would ensure that the correct teaching was passed on.¹⁵ Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics for saying that the scriptures and apostles did not have perfect knowledge. He argues that it is wrong for the Gnostics to change what the apostles have written. Irenaeus argues that if something is disputed, it should be the oldest churches, whose tradition can be traced back to the apostles that are followed. ¹⁶ By challenging the authority of the bishops and the tradition that was becoming established in the church, the Gnostics were placing themselves outside the developing church establishment. Once considered to be outside the church the Gnostics became viewed as a rival grouping, teaching heresy that had to be destroyed.

Ireneaus accused the Gnostic churches of having writings that were not apostolic. The Gnostics did not accept authorised apostolic teaching, which led Tertullian to accuse them of been unfaithful to the apostles.¹⁷

Gnostics were also seen as a threat due to their theological beliefs. Some of these beliefs were similar to those held by the mainstream churches, and some Gnostics saw themselves, as been a Christian sect. Both groups held a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. In the mainstream church, this consisted of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, in the Gnostic church it consisted of Father, Holy Spirit and Mother.¹⁸ The inclusion of a mother indicates an important factor in Gnosticism, which may have attracted many people to join it. That is that Gnosticism was an equal religion. Women were given equal status to men, and everyone had equal status whatever their position in society¹⁹. The idea of women been able to speak and carry out priestly roles within the church was considered scandalous by the orthodox, Tertullian wrote

"These heretical women - how audacious they are! They have no modesty; they are

bold enough to teach, to engage in argument, to enact exorcisms, to undertake

cures, and, it may be, even to baptise!"²⁰

At this time both the mainstream church and Roman Culture was becoming very hierarchical. In Gnosticism, the roles of priest, bishop and prophet were decided by the drawing of lots. Tertullian attacked the Gnostics for the way that anybody could take on any role, and the way these roles changed on a daily basis.

"Their ordinations, too, are carelessly administered, capricious, changeable. At one

time they put novices in office; at another time, men who are bound to some secular

employment; at another persons who have apostatised from us, … And so it

comes to pass that today one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a

deacon who tomorrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who to-morrow is a

layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood."²¹

This may have attracted those who felt marginalised or at the bottom of mainstream society. Both groups saw Christ, as been a revelation of the father. ²²

However, the Gnostics had many views that were not part of the mainstream church. This included a dualism, of a good God and a bad creator God²³. In Against the Heresies Irenaeas stresses the orthodox viewpoint of there being only one God. He also stresses the unity of Christ as been completely God and completely human, as opposed to the Gnostic view that Christ's humanity was an illusion²⁴. As the Gnostics believed that all matter created in this world was evil, they could not accept that a redeemer would take on an earthly form.²⁵

Another area where Gnostic beliefs differed greatly from the orthodox view was creation. Hippolytus describes the view of creation given by the Gnostic Basileides. This view has creation starting from a non-existence, where even God was non-existent, "And he who speaks the word, he says, was non-existent."²⁶ He goes on to say that the non-existence generated a seed. This seed is the true light that the gospels refer to. This seed went on to produce more seeds which became the Ogdoad. One of these seeds was the Great Archon. The Great Archon then believed that he was the Supreme Being. He did not recognise the non-existent God. In this way the Great Archon became the god of the Old Testament.²⁷ This shows the Gnostic belief in a dualistic system and the creation of the Ogdoad. Gnostics believe that for the soul to get back to the non-existent God the soul had to pass through all the layers of the Ogdoad. In order to do this the soul had to have the special knowledge of what to say.

These Gnostic views posed a threat to the church, as they identified the light with Christ. They also referred to the idea of Christ as the light of the world in Johns Gospel. This posed a threat to the church by using scriptures, which were considered canonical to back up a heretical viewpoint. Irenaeus and other church fathers responded to this threat by writing summaries of what they considered the main points of true Christian doctrine. These summaries were known as either the rule of faith or the rule of truth²⁸. The church fathers would use these as the basis of their arguments against the heretics. They provided a statement of belief. In this way, they could be used to test heretical views, to see if they matched with scripture and church tradition. The rules were based on the traditions of the church. The rule of faith was worded differently by different people. However, it usually contained the ideas of one God as creator, Jesus Christ and his second coming, the Holy Spirit and the authority of the church²⁹.

Tertullian used the rule of faith when arguing with Gnostics, as he believed that it was useless to use scripture, as the Gnostics would twist scripture to suit their own point of view³⁰.

Gnosticism was a threat to the early church because of its similarity to Christian beliefs. This made it difficult for the average person to know what to believe. As a religion that treated all people equally it was attractive to those been marganalised by the mainstream church and Roman society. It used Christian ideas and in some cases scripture to express these beliefs. However, its interpretation of scripture was at odds with that of the Orthodox Church. Gnostics refused to accept the authority of the bishops. By doing this Gnosticism was undermining and weakening the beginnings of the established church. The church responded to this by developing an authorised canon of scripture, a clear summary of the churches doctrines and a valid hierarchy of authority that could be traced back to the apostles and through them to Christ himself. The influence that Gnosticism had on the development of the church can still be seen in the church today.

Bibliography

Chadwick, Henry ,The Early Church (St. Ives: Penguin 1993)

Grant, Robert M. Gnosticism, (New York, Harper and Brothers 1961)

Grant, Robert M. Gnosticism & Early Christianity, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)

Hall, Stuart G. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, (London: SPCK 1991)

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, (London: A&C Black: 1960)

Pagels, Elaine. Early Christian Doctrines, (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson: 1979)

Renwick, A.M. & Harman, A.M. The Story of the Church, (Leicester: IVP 1958)

Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius, (London: SPCK 1987)

Wiles, Maurice & Santer, Mark (Eds.) Documents In Early Christian Thought, (Cambridge: CUP 1975)

Back to Theology Page