The Vicar’s Corner

Hi everyone: first I want to apologize for the long gap in between this and our last posts. Both Brother James and I have been quite busy over the past few weeks, and I have been starting my summer teaching job (one of the “outside jobs” that helps pays the bills for the Church!). I just thought I would post an article that I wrote for our AGCA Yahoo discussion group, in response to some rather difficult debate that has gone on over the past few weeks. I look forward to your comments. — Brother Matthew
I have been observing with some concern the fact that the discussion on our Yahoo discussion group has been becoming a little harsh again, as it was for a brief period in recent months, and before it gets back to that point again, I felt like I needed to articulate a few things. First, you cannot have any kind of debate if your first reaction to someone disagreeing with you is to start calling them names, e.g. “sinner” or “heretic,” or “fundamentalist,” rather than meeting on a field of open discussion and conversation. I will get to these questions themselves in a few minutes, but on this first point, it is not a matter for taking sides, since it is even sillier to play a game of “he/she/they started it first” — but rather it is a question of mutual improvement, patience, consideration, and gentility in conversation. This will not always be reciprocated, certainly; but being able to maintain patience, gentility, and calm in the face of repeated impatience on the part of your disputant or antagonist is really always pretty good evidence, to me, that the strength of the argument is likely on your side.
Many of the debates that have gone on in the group in recent months have revolved around the question of the relationship (if any) between 1) neo-classical Gnosticism, as represented by the AGCA, and its “third cousins” in classical and apostolic-ecclesiastical Gnosticism (EG, AJC, et. al.) and 2) the (broadly-defined) Hermetic and Thelemic movements, most notably those traditions represented by OTO and quasi-related organizations, which sometimes use the term “Gnostic” or “Gnosticism” in their literature and practices (e.g. the Gnostic Mass).

Much of the rancor in our debates here recently has revolved around a few people who have a very negative understanding of anything involving “magick” or “ceremonial ritual” because of its perceived connection to the latter movements, which they also perceive very negatively, clashing with a few other people who see “magick,” perhaps defined in some broader sense as an element that is not inimical or incompatible with classical or neo-classical Gnosticism.

I have tried to leave these sort of discussions to themselves, for several reasons. I believe a wide-ranging review of our discussions over the past years will show that I have largely tried to avoid making loud or official-sounding proclamations about issues that are debated here on our Yahoo discussion group, precisely because Gnosticism is not a dogmatic religion in which a (living or dead) leader exists primarily to give you exact answers about everything you should believe; in a Gnostic context, the role of a leader (or more correctly of a servant-leader) is not to dogmatize, to rule by either charisma or proviso, but rather to serve like a kind of locksmith, helping to provide you with the spiritual “keys” that help “unlock the kingdom of heaven” that has been chained by the “scribes and pharisees” as Jesus notes in the Gospel of Thomas. That unlocking process often involves points of disagreement, debate, or disputation, issues that are not clear, or on which we are not all going to totally agree. Gnosticism flowered into a hundred different blossoms even in its early centuries because it has many points open to different interpretations, opinions, and practices, within its shared central framework.
This is not always easy for us, particularly those of us who come out of a more dogmatic background, and often fall back on this desire to be told exactly what to think and what to believe about everything; I myself am an ex-Christian and an ex-Catholic, so I am more than familiar with this challenge. We have to move from an imperative that says, “You must believe A B and C about God in order to be saved” to an imperative that says, “You must become divinized and be united with God in order to be actualized in your true identity and be saved.” This is not easy, and at times it can be frightening. But the reality, no matter what, is that there are many points on which Gnostics can completely disagree with each other and still recognize each other as “faithful” Gnostics, as fellow journeyers on that pilgrimage toward divinization and salvation in Christ and Sophia. These range from how we practice our worship, to the way we organize our religious institutions (if we believe in having any), to the sacred texts we use, to our beliefs about the afterlife, reincarnation, metempsychosis, and so forth.

However, this does not mean that there is no such thing as Gnosticism, or that Gnosticism is necessarily anarchic or hopeless as a religious system. Like any broad-minded religious system, Gnosticism’s libertarianism is not constructed for the sake of libertarianism, and accordingly must be defended against those who would misuse it, primarily from two directions — from two directions, first any attempt to reimpose doctrinaire dogmatism of the kind found in conservative versions of Christianity and thus turn Gnosticism into just a weak “poor man’s version” of orthodoxy; and second any attempt to sneak under the door as it were ideas fundamentally inimical to our basic structure, particularly in today’s climate any fundamental ideas that are racist, sexist, or homophobic in their implications.

Because of all this, and because this debate has repeatedly been pushed past the limits of gentility and civility that I have in the past made clear will be required for those who want to participate in this forum on an ongoing basis, I believe it is time for me to share more definitively my opinion on some of these questions. I am not issuing the following points as an official “teaching” of the Church, but I do so in my official capacity as Vicar; as we all know, a vicar is a representative of something or someone; the Catholic Church proclaims the Pope to be the “vicar of Christ,” for example, whereas we in both secular and religious language use the term “vicarious” in a wide variety of contexts, some positive, some negative. In our case, what is the substitution? Well, the Vicars in the AGCA serves as a representative of the apostolic authority that is vested in the Church, collectively, as a family united under the fathership and mothership of God, and the guidance of Christ and Sophia — representing (but not usurping) that authority with a fourfold mission of preaching, teaching, counseling, and administration, all in a spirit of service. That has been the guiding spirit behind all that I have tried to do, though I am sure there are many times when I have failed to live up to that goal. Having said that, I believe it is necessary to articulate a few points, in no particular order. I must admit that I am a little upset, so I apologize in advance if I do not speak in perfect charity and gentility myself.

1) NON-DOGMATISM? Neo-classical Gnosticism, as envisioned in the founding of the AGCA, is a non-dogmatist religion. This means that, in contrast to, for example, some types of mainstream Christianity, we do not set forth “orthodoxy” (“right thinking” or “right beliefs”) as a key fundamental core of our religious life; we do not set forth a detailed series of dogmatic theological teachings and then demand adherence to them if people want to be considered “real” Gnostics; instead, we are a spiritual movement based on a call to pilgrimage, a pilgrimage toward compassion to others, love of God and of all the manifestations of God (including ourselves and those around us), and toward fuller union with the one true God, which is simultaneously a journey toward fuller actualization of who we are, as “children of the fullness.” Non-dogmatism, of course, is not the same as being a “non-doctrinal” religion. Of course we have teachings, shared principles, shared ideas, theological speculations, and theological concepts. It is simply that these concepts are articulated in a way that is broad, inclusive, non-binding, and expansive. I am not asking for us to be ostriches sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that we have no teachings, no beliefs, and no theology. I am, however, asking for us to pursue our doctrines in a non-dogmatist fashion. That is the challenge. It is not an easy challenge. It demands several things. It demands that we be non-exclusivistic while simultaneously not losing sight of what makes our tradition special and meaningful to us. 95% of the religions we encounter in our daily lives (a low estimate perhaps) proclaim themselves to have answers that are better than the answers given by other people. If Gnostics want to carry the logic of their ideas out, they must reject such an easy path of self-aggrandizement of a particular religious tradition. Indeed, what makes Gnosticism so special and what makes it unique is precisely that it does not necessarily claim a uniquely special status, epistemologically speaking. Our central principle, our central goal, our central driving concept is gnosis, and yet we as Gnostics never restrict gnosis to Gnosticism; Gnosticism is a path to gnosis, but it is quintessentially Gnostic to recognize that there are many others as well. This in itself is a doctrine, in the sense of a theological concept, or framework of concepts, but it is not a doctrine that demands submission.
2) ANARCHY? Does that make Gnosticism a form of spiritualized anarchy? I don’t think so, because we are bound by that core set of concepts that flow naturally from the call to pilgrimage I have just identified. One cannot, for example, really be a neo-classical Gnostic and simultaneously be a racist. It doesn’t work. One cannot be a neo-classical Gnostic and be a homophobe, a bigot, or a sexist. One cannot dwell within the Gnostic framework and simultaneously belittle women, or disrespect the feminine, or ignore the female path toward God. It doesn’t work. You are not heeding the call to pilgrimage. Boundaries are set by the structure of the call to pilgrimage. The boundaries are boundaries of compassion, inclusivity, love, partnership, active engagement with the world, and a legitimate self-love that is healthy but free of all arrogance, greed, and self-aggrandizement, rooted in love toward others, or rather toward the collective pilgrim family of which each of us is an indelibly united part.

3) HERMETICISM; THELEMIC MOVEMENTS; SYSTEMIC ABUSE WITHIN MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY; “MAGICK” AND CEREMONIAL RITUAL Do we have any particular relation to the hermetic or thelemic movements? Not really, beyond the common use of some “Gnostic” words, to which we often ascribe quite different meanings. The traditions from which, for example, the world gets movements like the Golden Dawn, or movements like the OTO, are quite separate, distinct, and for the most part unrelated to classical Gnosticism. They had their origins well before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts and most other classical Gnostic textual discoveries that have, from the mid-20th century on, finally allowed for the recovery of classical and apostolic Gnosticism, and for the development of neo-classical Gnostic movements like ours.
Are there some scary things that have happened in the past in groups like the OTO? Yes. Have there been people involved with the OTO or with similar movements who have encouraged or condoned the abuse of women? Yes. Has there been abuse of authority in some of these movements? Yes. Have there been elements of racism and elitism that have reared their ugly heads? Yes. Do we reject and deplore these things? Yes of course we do.
On the other hand, I ask you a series of parallel questions. Do scary things not happen in mainstream Christianity, and on a vastly larger scale of time, numbers, and human suffering? How many people have been burned at the stake in the past 2000 years? Do women have equal rights in all of mainstream Christianity? Are there not places in mainstream Christianity where women are systematically oppressed, abused, and exploited? Do we not have a pope of the Catholic Church who has written, in a vitriolic attack on feminism and women’s liberation (during his time as cardinal) that female identity is nothing more than a “sign” of surrender and submission, in which the only appropriate “Christian” values for a woman are “listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting” (Ratzinger, “On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World”), and did not high leaders in the Vatican recently attack and insult in vicious language the election of a female bishop in the Anglican Communion? Has not systemic and nauseating sexual abuse of children by Christian clergy — often clergymen pledged to “sacred Christian celibacy” — been occupying the front page of newspapers for over a decade?
Do we reject and deplore those things? We had better, if we want to have any kind of moral integrity. This does not make us anti-Christian, and it does not give us a legitimate excuse for Christian-bashing or engaging in an anti-Christian crusade. The same holds true with non-Christian movements, including traditions containing groups like the OTO, when we are faced with similar questions and abuses.
To lump all types, concepts, and forms of “magick” together, however, into a single concept, and label it as being abusive, perverse, manipulative, and wrong, is in my opinion both mistaken and misguided. For the most part, magic/k is just a part of the ritual life of the vast diversity of movements we describe as pagan or neo-pagan; it is about the use of physical symbols, representations, elements, and rituals in the pursuit of spiritual goals, and spiritual expression. We need to study it, learn from it, and when appropriate borrow from it, as we do in regard to Christian liturgy. Neo-classical Gnostic liturgy, as represented above all by our AGCA Divine Service, involves in fact a fusion of Christian sacramentalism — which takes physical symbols to serve as both representations and realizations of deeper spiritual truths, as in the Eucharist — and neo-pagan magical ritual, as in our use of elemental rituals to accompany, complement, and enhance our sacramental practices.
4). HERESY???? Can there be such a thing as “heresy” in a Gnostic context? How can you have a “heresy” when you don’t have a dogmatic religious system to begin with? We don’t demand orthodoxy; we don’t tell people how or what they must think, what they must believe about every small detail of their spiritual lives, so who would be the judge of what is “heretical?” Even if there were an appropriate judge, how would you even construct this category in a non-dogmatic faith? As I said, there are aspects that would essentially exclude one from being a neo-classical Gnostic, like racism or homophobia, but even these are not “heresies” in the real meaning of the term, but rather fundamental failures to heed the call of pilgrimage and gnosis. “Heresy” is a conservative Christian idea. It works within the context of Catholicism, of conservative Protestantism; possibly it makes sense in an Islamic context, even; but in Gnosticism? Certainly not. I am not saying that we can tolerate absolutely anything at all; we do need to articulate what makes us distinctive and what makes us distinctively Gnostic; but launching a hunt for “heretics” and trying to wipe out “sinners” in our ranks is not the way to do it, not at all.
It would be doubly, triply misguided in a Gnostic context. Are we going to become a weak copy of our erstwhile oppressors? In that case, why don’t we just hang up a great big sign that says, “OKAY SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, WE SURRENDER” and go back and beg the Christian priests to forgive us for asking so many impertinent questions? Is that what we are going to do? Are we just going to give up, and start attacking each other in the way that we are attacked? Are we going to recreate the suffering of the past in our own Family? We are the Body of Christ and Sophia — are we going to rip Their Body into pieces and tear it like wild animals, limb from limb, attacking each other? Is that what you want me to do? I am not going to do it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not in a mood for surrender. I think we need healing, and humility, through the entire Family that makes up this Church.
Don’t be naive. Don’t be self-deluded. As Gnostics, WE are the heretics, in the eyes of Christianity. WE are the sinners. WE are the hunted. WE are the witches in their Salem. WE are the serpents in their garden of deception, weaving the web of wisdom to help lead people on the ascent toward understanding and gnosis. To the Catholic Church I, for example, am not just a heretic, but it would seem also an “apostate,” someone who has turned his back on the entirety of his former belief structure. To a conservative evangelical fundamentalist, I am a heretic and a servant of the devil, no matter that I don’t think that there is a devil, and so are all the rest of us. I make no bones about what they would think of me, and you should make no bones about what they would think of you either.
In fact, I welcome such names and labels, as Mani once did, as Valentinus and Carpocrates and Basilides once did. I welcome them as the Cathari did. They went to their death as heretics and apostates against this demiurgic system. I am proud to be a heretic against the demiurgic forces. Heretical status, depending on the context, can be a badge of honor. The Teacher himself died, more or less, as a heretic. Be proud too. Why? Why? Isn’t it obvious? To be persecuted for the sake of Christ and Sophia is to attain victory. To be attacked by the archons, by the powers of the demiurge and the forces they unleash is a beautiful gift. Why? Why should you be proud to be a heretic? Because the truth will set you free. The truth is more powerful than their money, their power, their hatred, and for all they may despise our message, it cannot be killed. Messengers can be killed, but not the message. And for all their hatred, I have a greater victory: refuse to hate them back. I love them, and look at them as brothers and sisters who, I believe, will one day inherit the wholeness of the pleroma, when they have been shown the truth of love and compassion that will allow their hearts to grow beyond their hatred, beyond their judgmentalism, beyond their bigotry, beyond their arrogance, beyond their self-importance, beyond their self-satisfaction. Look at the difference, my brothers and sisters: they condemn us to hell, and we in turn invite them in to join us in the pleroma. Our soteriology could make no more profound statement about which of these two perspectives is more consonant with the message of the Teacher Yeshua.
800 years ago there was a man named Domingo Guzman. Domingo went to France with a bible in one hand and a metaphorical sword in the other and he led part of the infamous “Albigensian Crusade” that wiped out the Cathari. In response, the Christian Church made him into “St. Dominic.” The tragedy of Domingo/Dominic is not just that he was a vicious unfeeling monster, but that he was a monster who believed he was doing the will of Jesus Christ. He was killing heretics. He was doing the Lord’s work. He was hunting down the evil ones and burning their evil off the face of the earth. Heretics had to die if they would not surrender.
He probably went to his own grave with a totally clear conscience — and that is the real tragedy of Dominic, that he was so warped by the system of hatred into which he was born that he never developed a conscience that could have been capable of gnosis, of love.
I have a picture of this man Domingo Guzman (St. Dominic) , the great heretic hunter, hanging up in my room. At least once a week, after Divine Service, after I pray for each of you, I step to the side to stand before this image, and I feel the fire of my own anger burning inside me at this man, for what he did, for what he did to our people, our martyrs, our faithful ones, who fought the good fight. They wanted only to worship their God and ours, to preach their message of love, to give to the poor, to console the sick and the suffering. They should not have had to die. They should not have had to burn at this monster’s stakes or under Domingo’s soldiers’ swords. They did not deserve to die. They should have lived. But he knew they were heretics, and so he orchestrated their destruction.
I could hate this man, if I did not pray to the almighty God for mercy to keep me from hatred. I look at the picture some artist drew of his beady snakelike black eyes, and it is like looking into the reptilian blackness of his very soul. All I can hear in my mind is the screams of the children as they watched the parfaits being burned at the stake because they would not give up the one true God in order to surrender to Domingo’s understanding of what the Ekklesia should be. All I can feel is the silence of ashes blown into the wind, the final resting place of our Cathari forebears, with no marker to their sacrifice, no church built to commemorate their martyrdom. They were herded like animals, like pigs, to be slaughtered, without even the coolness of the earth to inter their earthly remains. Yes, I feel anger. I could hate.
And I look at his image, and I stare at his black eyes until my anger gives way to despair, often; despair that in the world today, there are hundreds of millions who still share HIS views, his anger, his hatred, his fear. But I do not let myself turn away from that picture until I have forced myself to do something. Against all the anger, against all the despair, I force myself to speak a prayer, a prayer with my lips and a prayer with my heart and my soul. I will type it now as I speak it, looking up at Dominic’s picture: “God, my mother, my father — I pray that you forgive me for my anger. I ask you to give me the strength to pray for this man, whose very image makes me sick so deep in my heart and soul. I don’t know where he is, his spirit; has it been reincarnated many times? Has he suffered as he caused others to suffer? Is he closer to you than he was, or is he still far away? I pray that you will forgive him and forgive me; I pray that his spirit too, like the spirits of those who died at the hands of those crusaders he inspired, will be led through the infinite mercy of Christ and the infinite wisdom of the Lady Sophia to the fullness, the pleroma, where you dwell in the indescribable completion of love and compassion. Amen.”
In the name of the one true God, Father and Mother of all, and of Christ and Sophia, and in their service, I remain your loving Vicar,
Matthew Ouroboros