February 24, 2004

THE DIVINE ME:

The Public Square (Leander Harding quoted by Richard John Neuhaus, First Things, February, 04)

“The quintessential American Religion is the quest for the true and original self which is the ‘pearl of great price,’ the ultimate value. Finding the true self requires absolute and complete freedom of choice unconstrained by any sources of authority outside the self. Limits upon personal freedom and choice are an affront to all that is sacred to the American Religion. When the self-determining self finds ‘the real me’ salvation is achieved and the ultimate self has achieved contact with the ultimate reality. Finding your true self is to the contemporary Gnostic the same thing as finding God. For the Gnostic the purpose of the religious community is to facilitate the quest and validate the results. The contemporary Gnostic church, which can appear in both conservative and liberal forms, is the community of those who know that they have found God because they have found their own uncreated depths. Both devotees of the New Age and many in some ‘conservative’ Christian circles see salvation as purely a matter of personal experience, which can only be validated by those who have had similar ‘deeply personal’ experiences. Notice how perfectly the contemporary presentation of homosexuality fits the American Religion. A person who discovers that he or she is gay has recovered his or her true self and ‘come out’ and come through what the Gnostics called the ‘aeons,’ in this case levels of personal, familial, and social oppression that hinder and constrain the true self. It is a heroic and perilous journey of self-discovery which would be familiar to a first-century Gnostic like Valentinus. That the means of liberation is sexual practice is even a familiar theme. Some ancient Gnostics were ascetic but others counseled sexual license. Both stratagems can come from the same contempt of nature and are different ways of asserting the radical independence of the self. Here is the point. Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire not in spite of being gay, not as an act of toleration and compassion toward gay people, but because he is gay and as such is an icon of the successful completion of the quest to find the true and original self. He has been chosen for high religious office because he represents high religious attainment. He is being recognized and receiving regard for being an accomplished practitioner of the American Religion. According to this Gnostic logic, divorcing his wife and leaving his family to embrace the gay lifestyle is not some unfortunate concession to irresistible sexual urges but an example of the pain and sacrifice that the seeker of the true self must be willing to endure. That natural, organic, and conventional restraints must be set aside is time-worn Gnostic nostrum. From the point of view of this contemporary Gnosticism, if the Church does not validate such a noble quest for enlightenment then it invalidates itself and shows that it is no help in the only spiritual struggle that counts, the struggle to be the ‘real me.’ Because Gene Robinson has ‘found himself’ he has according to the Gnostic logic of the American Religion found God and is naturally thought to be a truly ‘spiritual person’ and a fit person to inspire and lead others on their spiritual journey which is to end in a discovery of the true self which is just so the discovery of the only real god, the Gnostic god...”


Modern men and women, religious or not, will gravitate to any philosophy or faith that puts them personally at the center of all meaning and permits them to do whatever they want.

Posted by Peter Burnet at February 24, 2004 8:30 AM
Comments

Are you sure ancient men and women weren't the same way? Remember, human nature changes very slowly, if at all.

Posted by: Brandon at February 24, 2004 11:43 AM

Wouldn't the "born-again" experience be akin to the Gnostic discovery of the "true self"?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 24, 2004 12:59 PM

Brandon:

Interesting question. The selfishness is timeless but I think the art of turning it into high philosophy or solemn faith is distinctly modern.

Posted by: Peter B at February 24, 2004 1:23 PM

Peter:

The 'Bacchanal' was probably an attempt to turn selfishness into something deeper. 'Modern' depravity don't seem to have the same goal.

And isn't there a qualitative difference between Rousseau and say, Timothy Leary?

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 24, 2004 1:59 PM

jim:

Not quite sure where you're headed here. There have always been sects and cults devoted to the sensual, usually in reaction. They don't last long. (The Bacchanal was oulawed by the Roman Senate almost 200 B.C.) Gnosticism has been around for a long time, but not as a mainstraem belief. I think the problem is not that self-worship is a new idea, but that it defines the modern zeitgeist. Depravity is just a limited part of it. The self-help believers and self-worshippers aren't all depraved. Just dangerous and going slowly insane.

Posted by: Peter B at February 24, 2004 5:44 PM

Peter:

I didn't quite get your initial comment - but now I see what you mean. A lot of what truly is depraved will masquerade itself as sophisticated. You may be right - two thousand years ago, people probably didn't care as much for the deception.

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 24, 2004 10:47 PM

And when was Carnival outlawed?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 25, 2004 2:23 AM
« IN THE COURT WE DON'T TRUST: | Main | FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TOTAL SELF-UNAWARENESS: »