Beyond belief

Christian Century, July 13, 2004 by Carol Luther, Elaine Pagels, John Burgess

JUST ABOUT EVERY review of Elaine Pagels's book Beyond Belief, including the CENTURY'S review by John Burgess ("Going creedless," June 1), seems to bristle with a kind of "us and themness"--our Gospel of John vs. their Gospel of Thomas, our "doctrinal" Christianity vs. their "experiential" Christianity. It almost kept me from reading the book. But as in the case of The Gnostic Gospels, the book I read was not the book the reviews had led me to expect.

Far from being antiorthodox, Beyond Belief is a nuanced work of exegesis. Pagels recognizes that doctrine that is not enriched by experience is like faith that is not expressed in works, to paraphrase James. At a time when biblical literalism and ideological readings of doctrine threaten to drown out more subtle expressions of faith, she turns to the early church as a way of exploring pluralism in the context of history. She suggests that the Gospel of John, from which most orthodox teaching has been derived, is such a dense and mysterious text that it is difficult to know exactly what it means and that the early church fathers encountered many difficulties in trying to interpret it. She reads the Gnostic texts in a way that seems to me more commentary than alternative. Pagels's book is a great tribute to Christian unity.

Carol Luther

Church of the Redeemer (Episcopal),

San Rafael, Calif.

First, I am writing to thank John Burgess for his many insights in a thoughtful review of my book Beyond Belief.

Second, I want to correct a major misreading of what I wrote that appears in his review. Does the book--or my own practice as a Christian--advocate "going creedless," as the title of the review implies? Not at all. As the book clearly shows, I belong to an Episcopal church that practices chanting, singing or saying the creed in every major worship service. The book neither dismisses nor deprecates beliefs, but attempts to place the Nicene statement in historical perspective.

One obviously cannot go "beyond belief" without going as far. Yet it is clear that the book was not written for Christians as fully satisfied with Nicene Christianity as Burgess. What I find unsatisfying is the tendency to take sets of beliefs, including this ancient and influential fourth-century creed, as if creedal orthodoxy were the sole--or even most important--element of Christian Faith.

Consider how the Nicene Creed looks from the viewpoint of someone who spends as much time as I do rummaging around ill the first, second or third centuries before that creed was formulated. Those first three centuries witnessed the most significant and enormous growth of Christianity that we have ever seen-growth from an illicit sect to the religion of the empire. Consider, for example, the convert Justin Martyr, who lived in Rome in the mid-second century until he was tried on charges of being a Christian, and sentenced to scourging and beheading for the faith. For Justin, "being a Christian" certainly involved faith in the One God and in Jesus Christ.

Although he never heard of the Triune God of Nicea, Justin nevertheless brought converts to the faith-at the cost of his life--and he tells us what was required of catechumens be fore they received baptism. First, he says, we teach those who come to us the precepts of Jesus; and "those who agree to live accordingly" we bring to the water and baptize--a baptism that, he said, conveyed illumination through the Holy Spirit; then we invite the newly baptized to join in worship, prayer and communion. To me this kind of commitment and participation in the worship of the church looks considerably more demanding than accepting a creed--although now, of course, post-Nicea, these need not be mutually exclusive, and are not in most churches.

Burgess is right to say that I see Nicene orthodoxy as a step toward "faith seeking understanding." As evidence of third- and fourth-century monastic literature shows, such a view was widely shared in those centuries among monks and other inquiring Christians--including, no doubt, the Egyptian monks who translated such works as the Gospel of Thomas (which, yes, I do regard as a remarkable treasure of the first two centuries, along with the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, that were commonly accepted for public reading in many churches by the early third century). The evidence of the texts buried near the ancient monastery of St. Pachomius suggests that much of what was lost through the zeal of Archbishop Athanasius were sources on spiritual formation.

My perspective on Nicea as a historian differs considerably from that of a systematic theologian like Burgess. His review is otherwise too perceptive--and the issue too important--to let stand without correction.

Elaine Pagels

Princeton, N.J.

John Burgess replies:

Carol Luther sees Gnostic texts as commentary on canonical scripture, not as alternatives to it. I would note that early Christian noncanonical literature is diverse. At points alternative Christianities complement and enrich our understanding of Nicene Christianity; at other points the differences are theologically significant. Neither an unquestioning affirmation of early Christian pluralism nor a stance of "us against them" is very illuminating. Rather, we need to understand why Nicene Christianity has never been able to think of itself as just one valid theological option among many. Perhaps truth (and the living God) really does force us to make theological choices.