Thoughts from "Gnostic Gospels"

Should personal conviction and church authority have a checks and balances system?

This weekend I read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, a church historian from Princeton (though she received her degree from Harvard, ironic). I had to write a review on the book, and overall I really enjoyed it.

Pagels received a lot of flack for writing this book because she suggests that the real issue of the Gnostic controversy in the early centuries of the church was not the theological dispute, but rather the challenge that Gnosticism presented to church authority and leadership as a result of differing ideologies.

Basically, she says that the Gnostics questioned the authority of church leaders that claimed their authority rested on the authority of the apostles. This is a result of the difference in interpretation of the resurrection of Christ. Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, who appeared to the apostles. This encounter with the bodily risen Christ becomes the standard for one being an apostle. In the generations following the apostles, leaders in the church claimed their authority as being approved by those whom the apostles approved, the apostles being the ones approved by Christ (this is the same idea to this day about the ordination of ministers). The Gnostics disagreed with the orthodox Christians, claiming that the resurrection was not bodily and only served as a symbol of one's spiritual enlightenment that God provides. Thus, the Gnostics argued that the requirement for authority and leadership in the church is not apostolic succession, but the divine enlightenment that comes from self-knowledge and the search for truth.

Therefore, Pagels argues that since the Gnostics would not accept the authority of the bishops, priests, and deacons (she also explains some other reasons for this, but they do not serve this blog installment), they were ousted from the fellowship of believers because their ideology so contrasted the goals of the church in becoming an institutionalized religion. Pagels says that the survival of Christianity owes much to this "political" decision to make Christianity an instituion. We of course look at this decision as a triumph over heresy in which God preserved true doctrine in order to continue Chrsitianity throughout history. I believe that perhaps both interpretations work together, but this is not the point of this installment.

Also this weekend, Kasey and I watched the hilarious movie Saved! about the quirkiness of the Chrsitian subculture set in a suburban Maryland Christian high school (comically named American Eagle). Among a number of criticism of the Christian subculture this film presents, I noticed the role that personal revelation plays in this film (one girl claims that Jesus told her to have sex with her gay boyfriend to make him straight, while another girl claims Jesus told her to vandalize the school and blame it on the only Jewish girl in the school to get her expelled). And this made me wonder... how often to people claim "divine revelation" as the source of what they do?

Now, I know that these examples are extremes. But what about lesser cases, ones that would go under the radar of spiritual discernment? What if someone felt that God had told them to do something that was so completely irrational that it would seem foolish to do it? What would a church be like if everyone acted out any whimsical thought or deed ostensibly as the divine revelation or commandment?

Here is why I am glad orthodoxy did triumph, among other reasons. Thanks to God, the triumph of orthodoxy allowed for leaders within the church to be entrusted with the calling and equipping of the apostles for the purpose of ordering the congregation (one of the three purpose the church, as I remember from Dr. Bounds's theology class). In addition, I am thankful that God gifts some people with spiritual discernment to counsel others who sense God's calling into any part of life. And there is also the affirmation of the congregation, which I feel is necessary in confirming any calling that God has given someone.

I understand that the authority of the church and its leaders is subject to abuse and corruption. This is in part why there was such a thing as the Reformation. Luther himself was an advocate for personal conviction, as was John Wesley. However, they both also upheld the role and authority of the church (Luther said that if the church's authority was soundly based on the Bible he would submit to it; Wesley's quadrilateral included church tradition with personal experience). Though, I see the possible abuses and corruption that could result in letting people act on what they believe is divine revelation (or what they tell people is divine revelation) without being checked by any authoritative standard. Can you imagine if all we had to check someone's personal conviction was someone else's personal conviction? Though both are dangerous, I am going to side with an orthodox understanding of church leadership and authority. While I might disagree with church leaders from time to time in my life, I will ultimately have to submit as long as their authority is grounded in Scripture, based on sound reason, and affirmed by the congregation. How about you?