Gnosticism's continuing conundrum

Folks, my recent post, Gnosticism at the root of terrorist worldview, has become part of a conversation piece in various blogs and discussion boards. "Brother Jeremy," blogger at Summer Harvest, takes direct issue at the post saying that such claims are not only completely baseless, they’re completely devoid of any kind of provable assertion. Voegelin et al base their arguments about the Gnostics on what was said by the enemies of the Gnostics, not on what was said by the Gnostics. The subject has also taken wings at their forum.

We find madcap, blogger at Thoughts on God, bravely holding the line against the Gnostic jabberwocky. In a right-on quote, madcap states that

I would have to say that Jeremy’s definition of the Gnostics, as anarchists who set out to demolish the illusion of the world in order to create a new order, lends even deeper insight into the validity of Voegelin’s understanding of Gnosticism. Jeremy described what Voegelin would call the Gnostic enterprise. He confesses to possessing the desire of “demolishing the world.” He clearly states that the reason for this demolition is so that the Gnostic can “rebuild it.” His motivation for this endeavor must be that he views the world as intrinsically poorly organized. God screwed up, and Jeremy’s going to fix it!

I have a confession to make--and this will mark me as not completely knowledgeable of the current debate--I didn't know about Eric Voegelin until these conversation strings popped out around my post.

According to the Wikipedia, Eric Voegelin was a political philosopher. He was born in Cologne, Germany, and educated in the fine arts at the University of Vienna, where he became a professor of political science at the Faculty of Law. In 1938 he fled with his wife from Nazi Germany, emigrating to the United States, where they became citizens in 1944. He then spent considerable parts of his academic career at Louisiana State University, University of Munich and the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. I can tell why the Gnostics are sore at him.

Frankly, I don't feel at all that Br. Jeremy's criticism that what I've said about the Gnostics is based "on what was said by the enemies of the Gnostics, not on what was said by the Gnostics" applies to me. If you remember, I took it upon myself over a year ago to briefly deconstruct Gnostic ideas in Bearer of Bad News: A brief analysis of the so-called Gospel of Judas. This is what in academia they call "primary source analysis."

Nevertheless, I think that Eric Voegelin's analyses are gaining well-deserved currency, but that more study is needed to connect the ideas of ancient Gnosticism to modern ideologies. The connections requireas a little tightening. Kudos to madcap for doing so.