From Neo-Gnosticism to Gender Ideology (Part 2)
If you haven't read part 1, you will have missed some important context for this somewhat longer treatment. This two-part blog series is directed towards Christians in order to show the philosophical underpinnings of many of the existing ideologies in our current society, how they have infiltrated the church (in part 1), and how they are intrinsically different from the normative Christian worldview.
Gnostic thinking has been a part of our Western Worldview for some time now, but it is evolving in American society. This has progressed into what philosophers are now calling "neo-gnosticism." It contains the same dualism of gnosticism, only re-packaged. The spirit has been replaced by the "consciousness," and what is human is entirely contained within the consciousness. And thus, the same hierarchy exists as in previous iterations of gnosticism: a devaluation of the body, and the prioritization of the consciousness. The body is simply material, or perhaps even something purely animal.
In part 1, we have mostly discussed how gnosticism attaches to a moral system--namely Christianity--and distorts it. We talked about the resulting behaviors. We compared this distorted gnostic Christian outlook to what a normative Christian worldview should be. Neo-gnosticism has been attached to our post-modern relativism and individualism, and is inconsistent in its moral logic, because it has only a hodgepodge grouping of moral ideas. And it has become the basis for all kinds of ideologies we now deal with.
Again, much like the gnostics, we see this familiar devaluation of the physical: my body is merely a meat-sack which houses my human essence. It amounts to the idea that what one does with or to the body doesn't really matter, since there is no real moral basis for taking care of it other than for the pure use of it. It is merely physical material, after all. Human acts are reduced to carnal impulses of a physical brain, compared to and even equated to animal impulses. And since there is no external moral system to borrow from, one can then only go inward to look for identity. This creates a sort of hyper-individualism, and the result is the assumption that what one does to the body does not--and should not--affect anyone else but the individual.
Neo-gnosticism also distorts something good here, namely, individualism. A healthy dose of individualism helps us to understand the importance of personal responsibility. It also helps us build a free society, because we have rights to protect the individual. Individualism is also a Biblical concept. The kingdom of God is a communal identity with an individual invitation. You are not saved because your father or mother is saved, though some may debate this scripturally. The main point is, you must believe for yourself. In the end, God evaluates the heart of every individual, not just the collective. You are responsible for your own life and for your own actions.
Of course, what we do to our bodies affect us individually. And what happens to my body affects me more than anyone else, because I have to live with this body. But a distinction must be made which is not entirely acknowledged by this framework--and we all instinctively know this--what happens to our own bodies deeply affects our consciousness.
And the idea that what I do with my body affects only me is false; what happens to our bodies affects those around us--especially those who love us. One does not need to have a Christian worldview to understand this. This is the nature of love: we share in each others' experiences and suffering. This is a natural result of being human because we are communal beings. We are by nature interdependent, and that is an essential aspect of our survival. We are even connected to people through time: through ancestry, reproduction, stories, and experiences--a connection with people from the past and into the future. If you exist, this applies to you and you can't avoid it. And, for a more direct connection, quite literally what happens to a pregnant woman's body directly affects the life growing inside of her (I won't delve into this because it is self-evident). But this hyper-individualism can cause us to forget how interconnected we really are.
All that to say, what you do--and doing inherently involves some action of the body--has a ripple effect through all your relationships, attachments, society, and even through time. And while you definitely should have autonomy over your own body, and others should respect your personal freedom to make decisions you feel are best for you, the idea that what you do to your body affects only you is a delusion full of ideological contradictions.
This devaluation of the body can be seen in the way neo-gnostics deal with the human fetus: before it takes human shape, it is merely a clump of material--a clump of cells, with no value. Even the potential for sentience isn't valued, only sentience itself (or consciousness). In this (cut short) debate between Ben Shapiro and Tashika, you can see that Tashika's ideology is entirely gnostic: she states clearly that she only places moral value on human life insomuch as it is perceived to have sentience. This is the typical view of the neo-gnostic. While Ben argues for the "life" of the fetus, she argues for the "sentience" of the fetus. The neo-gnostic then sees abortion as morally justifiable before a certain point in the fetal development.
As we discussed in part 1, Jewish thinking--and consequently Christian thinking--has always seen both the body and soul as two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other. The two parts make a whole person. The life of the body, therefore has high value. This also means the life of the fetus also has a high value. And therefore it becomes excessively ironic for a sentient being--one which relies entirely on a physical body to experience sentience--to place little value on the life of the physical body.
This hyper-individualistic mentality is particularly emphasized in the area of sex, sexual identity, sexual preferences, reproduction, and other results of sex. Sex in particular, and the behaviors motivated by it--what our society now insists are the most intensely individual--is quite literally the most communal aspect of our being. Of course it's deeply personal, but two things can be true at the same time: it's deeply personal and entirely relational, because sex involves other people. Even watching others have sex on a screen involves others. Otherwise you're just alone with your thoughts masturbating (which isn't sex). And it's a direct result of sex that any of us even exist in this current generation of the human race (with a few exceptions). Sex is an act which deeply impacts the individual, promotes intimacy between people, and has the potential to literally create a new human being, ensuring the future of the human race; it is both a personal and communal aspect of our humanity.
Another idea emerging from gnosticism is transhumanism--the idea that the consciousness can actually be separated from the body, and that we will eventually evolve to transfer our consciousness into a largely digital existence. This takes the devaluation of the body to the most extreme. We can only see this played out in fiction, where a person's consciousness is somehow copied and transferred to a robotic body, or even into virtual reality. It questions our very concept of what it means to be human. Can a person's consciousness truly be transferred into a mechanical or even virtual vessel? Or is that person now dead, and the copy is only a copy? Will this be the extinction of mankind, or the continuation of it? I must admit, this idea is highly fascinating to me. I have contemplated it often, and I even enjoy the thought experiments that writers and movie makers incite by their creative story-telling of these futuristic scenarios. But as interesting and philosophically challenging as this is--and even as smart as it sounds--it is still entirely science-fiction. It relies on an understanding of the consciousness which doesn't yet exist (Scientists are apparently not even close), and it depends on a futuristic technology which also doesn't exist.
For a Christian, the realization of transhumanism means the extinction of the human race; once the body is unable to house the consciousness, this is the end of the person's physical life. And even after death, we still believe that something of the body remains in the eternal realm. The physical body can be sick, disfigured, ugly, or dysfunctional, and we can feel all kinds of ways about whether we like it or not, or even feel uncomfortable with it, but it is still a part of our whole being. It is, after all, the only means our consciousness can interact with the world.
We are seeing the gradual move towards a completely disconnected and disembodied collective psyche which has largely accepted transhumanism as the next eventuality. If humans can now be disconnected even from their own biology, then sexuality has no real meaning. If sexuality has no real meaning, then gender also has no real bearing. And if sexuality and gender aren't important, then family structures also have no value. And since family structures are now dismembered, marriage is also of no value. This plays out in modern dating culture, which is now highly confused in its purpose, almost entirely carnal, and designed to destroy the development of real intimacy and long-term devotion. Human instinct, nature, and biology are being dismissed in favor of a new disembodied way of life where people are starved of their own human needs. This is what Christian gnosticism already set the stage for when its adherents devalued all of these things for different reasons.
We still have natural, built-in human needs for functioning and thriving. And the more we attempt to disconnect ourselves from these basic human instincts, the weaker we become as a society.
Neo-gnosticism is also the basis for how our culture now deals with self-identity. If what is human comes solely from within the consciousness, one must then reach within oneself to find the answers. One's identity is something only the individual can define for oneself (hyper-individualism). Of course, to have a free society, the individual must be involved in understanding one's own identity, and others cannot be the dictators of that identification. However, to not allow others (namely parents, family, friends, mentors, etc.) to contribute to that identity defies our very human nature. And to claim that this identity has not been influenced by others is to lie. I would even argue that the emphasis on self-identity comes from a weak sense of identity, and is usually an attempt at belonging; we use all the external labels in order to identify ourselves with a certain group of people. At it's very worst, it's an attempt to feel "special" or more valuable by setting yourself apart from others (again, the temptation of the gnostic who has no grounding framework for the intrinsic value of life).
One problem is, the lack of accountability in our self-identification creates mental fragility. One must choose a static label and everyone around you must uphold this static label. A simple question can threaten your very identity, and this makes you feel completely unstable and highly offended. This is a sign of mental weakness. It's the same framework for cult behavior, and the basis for toxic tribalism. It's also the perfect environment to enable and nurture narcissism.
You can begin to see the unstable wood block tower of logic that is building. When one's identity can only come from within--and everyone MUST affirm this identity to be considered respectful--then everyone must now accommodate the individual instead of the individual learning how to function within the general rules of society. Human society begins to break down.
To truly value one's self, one must have a high view of the value of the physical body. And to truly value others, one must value oneself. This is the healthiest state to be in, to nurture relationships, marriage, and family. This is what sums up the law of the Bible: Loving God, and loving others as you love yourself.
The Christian's identity is also not wholly determined by factors like sexuality or body image. These are merely part of who we are. The Christian identity comes from God and being part of a greater world-wide family. It does not come exclusively from inside oneself, though the self plays a major role in its realization. In order to truly know one's self, one must know their creator in whose image they are made. And part of how we understand God comes from how we understand those around us. Therefore the body isn't merely there to express one's identity, like clothing, but rather it is a living part of the whole being. It is the living vessel through which we experience the world. It is sacred and invaluable, and apart from it, we cannot live physical life. Therefore it deserves care, love, and protection.
So, for example, with transgenderism, while neo-gnostics would say that changing one's gender is the realization of who you are inside, the Christian would say that changing your physical gender is actually a rejection of who you are, since the body is considered part of the whole. It is seen as an extreme form of self-hate to the point of bodily mutilation. This is considered damaging not only to the health of the body, but also to the health of the mind.
Christians should even have a limit in regards to body "enhancements," like plastic surgery, for example. Where the line should be drawn for enhancing one's appearance or performance, is somewhat unclear, leaving room for interpretation, and somewhat depends on societal norms.; Biblically, there's some flexibility there. While it is not Biblically wrong to enhance the appearance or performance of the body, too much of this is ultimately seen as vanity. Appearing as the opposite gender is seen as either a deception or an extreme form of vanity and ultimately wrong. But what is clear is that forms of self-mutilation--which ultimately damage the body--are definitely not encouraged. What is encouraged is the value of self, and even the love of the self. This true self-love has its own way of preventing us from going too far in seeking out body modifications in general. This self-love is only possible, however, when one is able to first accept the love of God.
More importantly, our appearances, our sexuality, our gender, or even our race are not sources of identity, though they might help us identify part of our role in society. Even then, roles can be bent and sometimes even broken when we see that people do not fit the boxes our society has made for them. If anything, in the kingdom of God, definitions of roles then become somewhat ambiguous, with room for interpretation, rather than narrow and limiting society-defined labels. We don't always see this in Christian communities which often suffer from gnostic, static, and tribalistic thinking (just like any group of humans anywhere). But true Christian thinking allows a woman to have a range of expressions; she can be more masculine without needing to label herself as a man for the sake of communicating her role in society. It also doesn't necessitate that she must be attracted to other women. A man can be more feminine without defining himself as a woman, and he can still be attracted to women. This is because whatever gender we are isn't the most important thing about us. We are more than our bodies or what our consciousness dictates about ourselves. We are whole complex beings, who are worthy of love and care. There is actually more freedom, rather than less, in the Christian identity. Despite how we see it played out in the world, and even in church, in the kingdom of God, there is equality in the value of every human being, regardless of gender, race, or class.
Our core Christian identity is rooted in belonging. We belong to our Father, and we are made in his image; we share his qualities. Everything else is built on that essential identification. This is part of what give us the "peace that surpasses all understanding;" because we know who we are, and have confidence in this.
Gnostic Christians already devalue and reject their bodies, so they will not be able to argue with neo-gnostics, at least not to much avail. To both the Gnostic Christian and the Neo-gnostic, the body only has as much value as its "usefulness." The body is either something to be rejected, or something to be flaunted. Both these may even see the body as disposable when it outlives its use. When in conversations with neo-gnostics, gnostic Christians who don't understand the value of the body will only be able to appeal to the salvation of the soul. But the soul doesn't exist in the mind of a neo-gnostic, so this appeal will not land. The two will relate on one level, and yet be unable to communicate about their differences, because, well... they stand on the same foundation. In the end, the gnostic Christian's final appeal will be, "Your way is evil because God says so." That's not enough reason for the neo-gnostic, because to most of them, God doesn't exist, and therefore what God defines as evil has no bearing on their life. And if he does happen to exist, why would he make such arbitrary rules? This makes him out to be simply controlling, offensive and disagreeable with no rhyme or reason; the ultimate killjoy and not worth our devotion.
As the gnostic Christian continues to discourse with a neo-gnostic, their version of God will be revealed for what it is--a controlling narcissistic overlord who requires his followers to live in constant denial and self devaluation in order to become something acceptable for heaven, despite the fact that God himself made us. What a criminal, cruel, and disgusting vision of the omnipotent creator. No one truly wants to serve that version of God, and no one should, because it doesn't exist. I could never worship that version of God. Neo-gnostics at least see this for what it is, and reject it. To their credit, they are rejecting the lie already, which gnostic Christians are blinded to.
The God I serve is love himself. He showed it with the purest act of self-sacrifice. And there is no better definition of love--the character of God--than that of the Christian worldview.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (John 3:16-17 NIV)
------
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and exult in the surrender of my body, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be restrained; where there is knowledge, it will be dismissed. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13 NIV)
Photo by Vinicius "amnx" Amano on Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment