“There is nothing bigoted in recognizing that certain cultures are superior to others… but they are superior only by grace & through grace.”
Doug Wilson
Pope of CREC
It’s hard to believe that this complete lack of intelligence passes for “deep thinking” by today’s clergy. Perhaps, equally as bad, is the fact that so few catch how thoroughly torpid this statement is.
First, that grace account for the superiority of one culture over another is banal because grace accounts for the superiority of anything over anything else. Whether we have been given ten talents, five talents, or two talents in any area is always only a matter of grace. God doesn’t owe any of us anything. So, Wilson’s statement is a NSS Captain Obvious statement that is right up there with the observation that “the Pope is Roman Catholic.”
Second, the person with a below average IQ would respond by noting that just as superiority of culture is all by grace so superiority of race is all by grace. As ICor. 4:7 explicitly teaches; “What do you have that you did not receive?” All blessings, talents, and abilities are gracious gifts from God. This is true of race and culture as well. Regardless of any superiorities we have — including our race and/or culture it is the truth that we are what we are by grace that keeps us from a selfish pride.
Third, to suggest (as Wilson is doing here) that one can have superiority of cultures by grace while still insisting that race has nothing to do with culture has to be the apex of Gnostic thinking. Culture doesn’t drop from the sky. According to God’s providence culture is the product of who a people are genetically as combined with what they believe about God. As peoples think in their heart so they are. Culture is driven by God’s grace in race and could not exist apart from race. To deny this is outright gnosticism.
Wilson’s attempt to divorce grace from race and race from culture are false dichotomies. If one culture can be, due to grace, superior over another culture than one race can also be, due to grace, superior to another. After all, reproduction does not exist outside of God’s divine sovereignty.
Keep in mind here that Gnosticism was the earliest and most effective heresy in Church history. It was so effective because it could often sound so much like Christianity and yet it was not Christianity.
I agree with what you are saying here and I see how Doug is wrong about what a culture is and how it does have to do with race as well.
But something that always confuses me very very often is when people use the word gnosticism about certain things that don’t fit the definition of gnosticism.
This is the definition of gnosticism:
Gnosticism is a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged in the early Christian era, emphasizing personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over orthodox teachings. Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that true salvation comes from awakening to the divine knowledge within oneself.
How does what Doug said fit into the “gnostic” category? I must not understand what gnosticism is because when people use that word to categorize something or someone, it almost never has to do with this definition.
Hello Michael
Thank you for writing.
You asked;
“How does what Doug said fit into the “gnostic” category? I must not understand what gnosticism is because when people use that word to categorize something or someone, it almost never has to do with this definition.”
And then offered this definition of Gnosticism;
“Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that true salvation comes from awakening to the divine knowledge within oneself.”
BLMc replies;
Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that the material realm was therefore lesser than the spiritual realm. Because of this belief the Gnostics either were ascetics denying the body normal necessities (since the body was evil) or to the other extreme pursued all kinds of licentious behavior since the body was a material reality that didn’t matter at all. Doug demonstrates his Gnosticism by suggesting that the material reality of race is not real. This is a Gnostic move. Only a Gnostic who denies the goodness of materiality would deny the reality of race.
I hope that helps.
Bret
Perhaps it would be more strictly, technically correct to merely accuse Wilson of “semi-Gnostic tendencies.” Or being on a slippery slope towards Gnostic worldview. Because he is of course nowhere near a full Gnostic, thus leading to puzzled reactions from readers like Micah Lantz.
Perhaps Wilson could be lightheartedly called a “Gnostic Octaroon” or a “Gnostic Quarteroon” if he stubbornly sticks to this “race means nothing” position, which ironically is like “one drop” of Gnosticism in his spiritual blood. Or like a cancerous clump that may yet become much worse if left untreated.
When do “Gnostic like tendencies” become “Gnostic?”
It is true that he could become “More Gnostic” than he currently is just as a pregnant woman can look more pregnant with the passage of time.
But pregnant is pregnant.
Opposing Gnostic or Manichean tendencies in the modern church can be a very worthy cause, IF done right. But alas, even “anti-Gnosticism” can be done wrong in this fallen world, for the wretched 2nd council of Nicaea of 787 AD defended the cult of icons by sanctimoniously declaring the anti-iconists to be damnable “Manichaeans” because of their opposition to material images – the logic being that if you claimed that Jesus Christ could not be truly depicted through art, through pictures made of matter, this was implicit Docetism & Manichaeism and denial of His true Incarnation.
(And it might be that some carelessly zealous opponents of icons had indeed argued in such a matter – “Christ cannot be depicted by lowly material means” – providing a nice juicy target for the iconodule polemicists by which to slander their entire cause.)
And by similar logic, all the Papist superstitions could be defended under the cover of “anti-Manichaeism”, or by claiming that their opponents were unholy ascetics who abominated the material world; “What, you have a problem with our worship of saintly relics? Do you think these material remains of holy people are icky, and unworthy of veneration, do you heretic?”
Good point.
To such people I can only point to the 2nd commandment while drinking a few beers.
As to venerating the Saints and the usage of relics… I only ask for Scriptural warrant.
“Keep in mind here that Gnosticism was the earliest and most effective heresy in Church history. It was so effective because it could often sound so much like Christianity and yet it was not Christianity.”
The Papists were also aware of this principle (quoting them here in same spirit as the Bible quotes the false prophet Balaam) – the most efficient heresies are those that are able to disguise themselves well, like Arianism famously differed from the orthodox doctrine by only one fateful letter:
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).