The Neo-Gnosticism in American Thought

In a 1967 interview with Christianity Today, Quaker theologian Elton Trueblood (1900-1994) was questioned about the ideas that shape modern American thought. “The first of these,” Trueblood said, “is the extreme belief that all our problems are new.” This dismissal of the past due to the belief that we live in a new age was described by Trueblood as the “Disease of Contemporaneity.”  

Trueblood went on to describe an occasion in which he spoke at a minister’s conference and was confronted by a group of ministers during a break in the conference. The group sought Trueblood’s advice about a situation they were encountering. As a response to their inquiries, Trueblood suggested that they read Augustine’s Confessions, Pascal’s Pensées, and a few other classical writings from Christian history. One of the ministers, who was something of a leader within the group, replied, “Those were all very well for another day. But so much has happened now that their appeal is utterly undermined. We are in a new world, and these books have nothing to say to our situation at all.” These ministers, Trueblood explained to his interviewer, “have not really considered carefully enough the nature of the human problem.” The most significant concerns of humanity, he was essentially saying, are timeless. 

Yet, like these ministers, many people—both ministers and non-ministers alike—in our culture also believe they are in a new age and a new world, with new problems and issues for which the wisdom of the past cannot provide meaningful answers. As a result, the framework for understanding has shifted, and many in our culture have essentially adopted (seemingly without fully realizing it) a new paradigm of knowledge, or a Neo-Gnostic worldview. 

What is Gnosticism? 

Gnosticism was an early philosophical idea that emerged around the late-first and early-second centuries AD. It ultimately intermingled with Christianity, forming a heresy movement known historically as Christian Gnosticism. The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means knowledge, because the Gnostics believed salvation was the result of proper knowledge. As such, they claimed, only those who have access to their secret, mysterious, mystical knowledge can attain salvation. 

Gnosticism also advanced a belief in dualism; the idea that two realms of existence compete with one another. The physical (material) world, they believed, is an evil realm that was created by a lesser god known as the Demiurge and is an inherently evil and illusory world. The spiritual world, however, was created by a greater god—the true deity—and is the authentic and good realm. As Christian Gnosticism formed, the Gnostics contended that the God of the Old Testament is the evil Demiurge (the creator of the material universe), but the God of the New Testament is the good God of the spiritual realm. 

Human beings, the Gnostics believed, contain a “divine spark” that was created by the good God, but trapped within an evil material body by the Demiurge. As such, the Gnostics tended to view the flesh as evil (and irredeemable), thus promoting the notion that the true essence of humanity is not their physical being, but the spark within. This led to the ultimate goal of the Gnostics: The acquisition of a proper form of knowledge (i.e., gnosis) that would enable them to escape the bodily prison house of the soul.  

While full-blown Gnosticism seems to have emerged in the second century AD, the Apostle John was likely writing against emerging Gnostic movements and beliefs when he wrote, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). John also appeared to be addressing the emerging Gnostic heresy in his epistles (see 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7). 

The Emergence of a New Knowledge 

Many factors have led to the emergence of a Neo-Gnostic (i.e., new knowledge) paradigm by which our modern culture now tends to interpret its universe. While Neo-Gnosticism is not actually an organized movement or philosophy, it’s more of a pervasive manner for viewing the world that has developed over several years and corresponds, in some ways, with historic Gnosticism. A few of the contributing causes that have given rise to this Neo-Gnostic worldview include the loss of the sacred, the abdication of our heritage, and the adoption of pragmatic emotionalism as the standard for proper social understanding. 

Since the 1960s, and perhaps even earlier, American culture has steadily moved ever further away from any sense of sacredness. In this use of the term, sacred not only refers to ideas or activities set apart for theological reasons (many of which have also been abandoned), but to those held as meaningful and respectable within culture. While the slaughter of some of the ‘sacred cows’ that have persisted within society is well deserved, the problem is that a spirit of iconoclasm wishing to disregard nearly every aspect of cultural sacredness has become the norm. As a result, anyone who tramples upon sacred or traditional values is often lionized as a trailblazer who sets a new social tone, while those who uphold the traditional values are defamed as old-fashioned, puritanical, or out of touch.  

Moreover, these sacred aspects of our culture become more easily abandoned as our heritage is neglected and our historical background is both forgotten and distorted. So, to a generation that sees Thomas Jefferson as nothing more than a slave holder, why would they want to respect him or the document (i.e., The Declaration of Independence) that he produced? As skewed or lacking understandings of the past become more pervasive, they contribute to the ever-growing belief that we are indeed in a new and uniquely complex world of complexities and issues for which the past is incapable of providing meaningful insights or answers to the questions of life. 

In response to the perceived failures of the past (including the Bible) to provide insights into the proper navigation of our new and complex world, many within modern culture pivot toward a new (neo) standard of knowledge (gnosis) described as pragmatic emotionalism. This is a reliance upon individual feelings (i.e., emotionalism) that seems to work (i.e., pragmatism). Thus, the Neo-Gnostics rely heavily upon personal opinions and feelings that appear to have popular acceptance and support. For the Neo-Gnostic, God—if they believe in Him—is merely a deistic entity who exists to support their life and desires, and biblical mandates can easily be refuted by a simple statement of disagreement.  

Characteristics of Neo-Gnosticism 

There are certainly more characteristics of the Neo-Gnostic worldview than the few descriptions offered below, but the four characteristics identified here are representative of the Neo-Gnostic manner of perceiving the universe, and they demonstrate how traditional logic has been marginalized. 

Emotion Driven — As noted above, the emergence of the new knowledge is derived from emotionalism. Not surprisingly, then, it is propelled forward by ideas based on personal feelings and emotions rather than logic. Again and again, young protestors chanting “From the river to the sea” in their support of Palestine have been asked to explain their slogan. All too often, they have no clue about their mantra’s meaning and cannot identify the river or the sea in their chant. Yet, in their zeal, they join the protests with only a surge of emotionalism as their rationale. 

Narrative Oriented — In nearly every instance, the Neo-Gnostic perspectives revolve around an agenda item that they wish to promote. The agenda item may be a particular political narrative, a sexual narrative, an environmental narrative, or any number of other narratives. For example, in 2019, Nikole Hannah-Jones published a series of articles for the New York Times that became known as the “1619 Project.” In these articles, Hannah-Jones attempted to promote a racial narrative by redefining the founding of the United States as 1619 (rather than 1776), because the first slaves were brought to the New World in 1619. Even though most historians see major flaws in Hannah-Jones’ contention, the popularity of her narrative and its racial agenda—regardless of its erroneous nature—has been rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize. 

Manipulative with the Facts — To promote their agenda, it’s okay to play loosely (or falsely) with the facts. The simple expression of a narrative with popular acceptance is often considered true, regardless of the factual evidence. An example can be seen in the circumstances surrounding the tragic 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, an eighteen-year-old African American, by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson. Soon after the struggle that resulted in Brown’s death, a story began to circulate saying Brown had his hands up and said, “Don’t shoot,” but was shot anyway. Even though this narrative has clearly been proven incorrect, it continues to serve as a protest slogan and even inspired an artistic monument at a national museum. 

Indisputably Correct — Once a narrative has been accepted within the Neo-Gnostic frame of thought, its advocates call for the wider culture to tolerate their idea. Yet, the toleration of opposition ideas is denied. Thus, advocates of an ideological minority (a minority of thought, not of race) within society feel justified in promoting homosexuality in the public schools to young students, but those who express an objecting view are deemed intolerant, bigoted, and worse. Furthermore, it would be deemed totally unacceptable for one who believes in traditional marriage to call for the annihilation of homosexuality, yet Elly Barnes, the founder of Educate and Celebrate, an LGBTQ+P (P for pedophile) advocacy group, boldly calls for training teachers in public schools to “completely smash heteronormativity.” 

Conclusion 

Modern Neo-Gnostic expressions carry on some aspects of traditional Gnostic beliefs. Like the ancient Gnostics, advocates of the new thinking see knowledge—and only their expressions of knowledge—as the salvation of society. Like their predecessors, the knowledge they promote is not generally based on logic or facts. Moreover, New-Gnostics also affirm a dualistic view of humanity that often manifests itself in their struggle between the real self and the physical makeup. Thus, gender dysphoria, or even bodily mutilation, emerges in response to the struggle between the inner and outer person. 

Neo-Gnosticism, as a new paradigm for the perception of the world, has influenced much of our society. Even Christians have become susceptible to the new pattern of thought, especially if it seems to be the popular trend or expression. Never overlook Isaiah’s warning, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweetness for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight” (Isaiah 5:20-21).