But what I think is also a fair estimate of post-Renaissance and Enlightenment spirituality is the other shift - the one towards reason and learning as counterweights to mystery and superstition. All this is of course a laudable part of Western culture and history, but it doesn't take a History major to understand that these weights and counterweights more often than not go too far.
The pendulum that swings between the finer points of theology has given rise to rather naughty codification, regulation, and the inevitable schisms that those two habits produce. This, I think, is where catholicity and sacramentalism should have been left as the supreme unifiers of the broad church. The position taken by the Johannite Church on matters of conscience is "not to take a position", other than to point to the "Statement of Principles" and the Sacraments administered following the apostolic tradition.
None of us is able to see clearly enough, or sufficiently commune with the Divine, to understand why different people are given distinctive consciences, with a plurality of viewpoints on a great many spiritual matters. Sadly, this type of inclusive, "agreement to disagree" was increasingly abandoned by the Catholic Church, not only as a result of its institutionalization by Constantine, but also as the living memory of the apostolic age grew dimmer and dimmer with the passing of generations.
Over the past few years, I have noticed that the orientation of many Johannites has changed in some subtle, but important ways. There are quite a few more self-professed Christians, as opposed to the more usual term "Gnostic", than when I first entered the seminary. I still shy away from identifying myself as a Christian without adjectives, not because I don't respect the tradition, but precisely because that which has become known as "Christian" is, in effect, only one part of the historical and spiritual story of the Christ, the Saints Mary, and all twelve apostles.
During Holy Week, for example, there are "Tenebrae" services, fasts, and all manner of traditional Catholic observances, but not a single mention of the other part of the Gnostic account - the one that denies the centrality of the human sacrifice of Jesus and emphasizes the message of love and devotional diversity. Christ came to crucify the world, not the other way round - at least according to one Gnostic gospel; perhaps more than one if I thought about it long enough.
Beyond the Christian imagery there is equally a Gnostic tradition, the one which saw Jesus as a man who indeed reached all the levels of Egyptian Initiation. These words, found in the Johannite Liturgy for at least 200 years, are not empty, or embarrassingly out-of date; they form the basis of another view of the nature and history of the movement later called Christianity and Gnosticism. But the modern Johannite liturgical reference doesn't stand alone. From the earliest years, communities of Christ-followers who differed from the proto-orthodox, were recording their ideas: their "gnosis".
One example is the Gospel of Philip, which reminds us of many important aspects and nuances of an alternative way of approaching Christ and Christianity. This gospel neither confirms nor denies a literal, historical crucifixion, but it does stress the spiritual reality that the image evokes:
"Christ came to ransom some, to save others, to redeem others. He ransomed those who were strangers and made them his own. And he set his own apart, those whom he gave as a pledge according to his plan. It was not only when he appeared that he voluntarily laid down his life, but he voluntarily laid down his life from the very day the world came into being."
And again:
"Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die."
The gospel later continues:
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ."
As a matter of personal reflection during Holy Week, I take great strength from knowing that our communion does not seek to control or coerce us, nor does it condemn one approach to the Divine as opposed to another. This is the strength and meaning of the Johannite Tradition, which has been synonymous with Holy Gnosis for twenty centuries.
As a minister of "this" gospel as well as the others, I cannot in good faith stand before my parish and require my friends and neighbors to believe in a certain thing; to think a specific thought, much less to act in a way that I think is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. I don't have the right to demand anything of anyone when it comes to his or her path. There were as many ways of interpreting the work and life of Jesus as there were people who surrounded him. Sometimes the gospel stories about Jesus paint a contradictory picture of his temperament and ideas. That is not so different from you and me.
So long as our heritage is still recognized as Esoteric, Gnostic, Christian, and Apostolic, we are all safe to enliven our spiritual journeys together. So long as we do not confuse the images for literalism, or atonement for grace, that portion of our religion will remain another twenty centuries with its candles lovingly lit, and the doors of its collective heart opened widely.
