DaVinci Escapism [Gnosticism is like Liberalism]

The Da Vinci Code's gnosticism is not something that disappeared centuries ago. It survives as the religious substance of today's liberalism and its kindred sects of socialism.

Gnosticism is the belief that intellectual elites have secret knowledge about the structure of human society and about the relationship between humans and the cosmos. These elites are thereby empowered to direct human affairs.

Gnosticism has surfaced repeatedly over the ages, in modern times in the philosophical underpinnings of the 1789 French Revolution.

The Da Vinci Code's depiction of gnosticism as the preserver of the "truth" about Jesus and Christianity falls into the debunking tradition that commenced in 18th century France with attacks by Voltaire and others on the Catholic Church.

Appropriately, American liberalism, a lineal descendant of the gnosticism of the French Revolution, is implicit in Dan Brown's novel. In the Da Vinci Code, a fictional gnostic doctrine preserved knowledge with the power to destroy Christianity. American liberals seek to destroy Christianity in order to create a society of egalitarian perfection.

A characteristic common to all the varieties of gnostic socialism is the belief that human conduct, indeed fundamental human nature, can be manipulated by controlling and changing the the conditions in which people live. This will be found in all of the 19th and 20th century varieties of socialism, from Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte, to Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, and Franklin Roosevelt.

The corollary is that, in order to restructure society and control the conditions which determine human nature and conduct, it is necessary to get rid of inconveniences like Christianity, personal moral responsibility, and private ownership of property that stand in the way. This is the role played by The Da Vinci Code's debunking.

Eric Voegelin in his 1959 "Science, Politics & Gnosticism" describes the salient characteristics of gnosticism, all of which apply to the doctrines of American liberalism.

First, the gnostic liberal is dissatisfied with the world as he finds it. He rejects the evidence of history that there always will be strife, wars, inequalities in ability and station, and some degree of poverty. And he is confident that he has the knowledge (gnosis) to make things perfect, which he defines as equality in all things.

Second, the gnostic-liberal attributes the problems of human life to poor organization of the economic and political realms. Evil and hardship must therefore arise from some identifiable source (capitalism? ownership of private property?) that deforms the proper structure of society.

Third, the gnostic-liberal has a deep faith that earthly salvation from the world's tribulations is attainable, a trait markedly evident in the theoretical models of Soviet Russia and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

Fourth, the gnostic-liberal believes that this salvation is attainable through the process of history (which , of course, he uniquely understands). Auguste Comte's 1820s gnosis was his discovery of the "immutable law of history," according to which there are three ages of human social development, the third stage in the 19th century being the new scientific, socialistic age into which only knowledgeable intellectuals could lead the masses.

The same three-phase philosophy of history reappears in Hegel and Marx. Note that Hitler's National Socialism was consciously called the Third Reich to identify it with the gnostic millennium of earthly harmony and peace.

Note also that the nature of gnosis is that its secret knowledge is available and comprehensible only to a select few. This has always implied in socialism a vulnerability to dictatorial concentration of power in the collectivized state. In Italy and Germany of the 1920s and 1930s it was expressed as the Leader Principle - Il Duce and Der Fuhrer.

Fifth, the gnostic-liberal believes that, having discovered the secret meaning of history, he can implement and control the process of history by political and economic means, i. e., via socialism.

And, finally, the gnostic-liberal's core belief is that salvation, the perfection of social relations and human conduct, is attainable via human action, here on earth. This is the source of Lenin's mystical concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat that would bring peace and harmony to the people and would lead to a gradual withering away of formal government, leaving the Soviet people living in a modern Garden of Eden - from each according to ability, to each according to need.

We see the manifestation of this mystical, gnostic vision every day in liberal politicians' belief that individuals are incapable of fending for themselves, that only the national political state can do the job. There is always something wrong with society and always a politician confident that one more set of regulations or one more welfare-state program will make everything OK.

Gnosticism's message that life really can be made perfect here on earth, I believe, accounts for the mass appeal of Ron Brown's "Da Vinci Code," which is a sort of adult version of Harry Potter wizardry.

People want to believe that a body of secret knowledge will free them from Christianity's stern admonitions to work hard, save for a rainy day, abjure hedonism, and recognize that perfection of human life is impossible in the earthly realm. It's so much easier to eat, drink, be merry, and let the government take care of us.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Then the Republican Party is the Christian Party?

That's not what I said and you know it. What is especially annoying about your quote of my material is that you elided the next section, knowing that it was inconsistent with your glib response.

There are a lot of R's as well as D's who are also nominal Christians for reasons of either family history or political expediency but who hold a humanist worldview.

It is very hard to read the New Testament as a believer and to hold a humanist worldview--regardless what party you belong to. Some genuine believers apparently do in some regards; but I suspect that is the result of their not having studied the New Testament or not having thought through what it means for political philosophy.

But if you want to continue to twist what I said into the silly oversimplification above, go ahead.

Instead of asking questions, how 'bout you answer one? Do you think the New Testament is consistent with a liberal worldview or, for that matter, with any humanist worldview?

That's not what I said and you know it. What is especially annoying about your quote of my material is that you elided the next section, knowing that it was inconsistent with your glib response.

I didn't say you said anything. I asked a question. I edited out the irrelevant part. I didn't ask for a Bible lesson. I asked a simple question that could be answered with a yes or no.

Instead of asking questions, how 'bout you answer one?
Do you think the New Testament is consistent with a liberal worldview or, for that matter, with any humanist worldview?

I think the New Testament is consistent with the world view of the Semitic peoples of 2000 years ago. I think Jesus was a great Jewish teacher who brought the teachings of Socrates to the masses.

I'm not a Christian nor a Jew, so my opinion of the New Testament differs from yours. My opinion of the DaVinci Code also differs from yours. I don't see it as heresy. I see it as silly nonsense that is getting way more attention than it deserves.

My concern is the political situation we now find ourselves in. The GOP is becoming a Religious party representing fundamentalist Christians. This is political suicide for the GOP.
.

I think the New Testament is consistent with the world view of the Semitic peoples of 2000 years ago. I think Jesus was a great Jewish teacher who brought the teachings of Socrates to the masses.

You should read N.T.Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God." He does a great job of putting early Christian teachings in the context of Hellenistic philosophy. Christ's teachings were profoundly different than Socrates'. It's a good read too by a major theologian and historian.

I'm not a Christian nor a Jew, so my opinion of the New Testament differs from yours.

The New Testament says what it says. You don't have to be a believer to understand the worldview there. All you have to do is spend some time studying it, regardless of your political or religions affiliation. So I'm not sure what you mean by having a different opinion. Do you mean that my description of the New Testament worldview is wrong? Or that you don't believe Jesus was resurrected? Or something else?

My concern is the political situation we now find ourselves in. The GOP is becoming a Religious party representing fundamentalist Christians. This is political suicide for the GOP.

Just a couple of points. Nothing I have said in my posts is particularly 'fundamentalist.' I am not a fundamentalist. But, here my Catholic friends on the thread may be able to help, I don't think my post 15 is at all inconsistent with Roman doctrine. It was a pretty straightforward statement of stuff that folks who study the New Testament really don't have much of an argument about.

That said, I too think it would be a mistake to turn the Republican party into Pat Robertson's party--many good conservatives are not Christians. Similarly, it would be a mistake for the Republican party to drive off the Christians, as we comprise well over half the party. Christians have a lot in common with conservatives. The reason for that is that the conservative worldview is, in my opinion, derived directly from the Christian worldview. And conservatives share many values with the Republican party.

Part of what you are seeing is that the dems have become the home of fundamentalist humanists, if you will. In their zeal to drive Christianity out of the public square and believing Christians out of policy making, they have provoked a backlash that has come, primarily from the Republicans. For the most part, that conflict has helped the Republicans as many values voters who used to be democrats have seen what their party actually stands for and have started to vote Republican. In fact, we probably won the 2004 election because we were successful with believing Catholics on values issues. OTOH, clowns like Pat Robertson have hurt the party.

Another part of what you are seeing is that the formerly democrat south is now Republican. There are a lot more believing Christians in the South, percentage wise, than elsewhere. That has been another reason the secular vs Christian split between the two parties has become so pronounced. A large number of the believing Christians have left the democrat party over the past twenty years.

So as a practical matter, believing Christians are disproportionately represented in the Republican party vs the dems. Because the parties represent their members, that has changed both parties and has made the values differences more stark.

For the Rockefeller Republicans and business Republicans, that is uncomfortable as they are both humanist and their main interest seems to me to be the facilitation of being free to make money--the culture issues are less important to them. That's because their worldview is a different kind of humanism than the dems. But it is humanism and so they really have no home. The dems don't want them because they believe in economic freedom but they are uncomfortable with the Christian worldview so don't feel at home in the Republican party.

There's no easy realignment of the parties that fixes that.

Thank you...That is what I wanted to hear.

Then you should have just said so. (friendly grin here) Your first question, which launched my post on worldviews was, "can Christians be liberals." That is a very interesting question but it necessarily provoked a Christian response based on scripture. That's what I thought you were looking for.

The question you were really asking--"can non-Christians be good conservatives" is easy and requires no theology--only empirical evidence. My brother, who is very dear to me, is one of the most solid conservatives you might ever want to meet and a militant agnostic.

As I said in one of my posts, much of the conservative worldview--particularly its beliefs about human nature--is descended from the Christian worldview. That's why, imho, so many conservatives are Christians and vice-versa.

So, do we all hold hands now and sing Kumbayah? Or would Kumbayah be mixing worldviews? :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.