The recent and dramatic rise of modern Gnosticism, implemented in part, by the capture of the vocabulary of reality, is merely the continuation of the effort, identified by Eric Voegelin, to form a Western civil theology by immanentizing the Christian eschaton. The totalitarians of the previous century in effect were examples of this political action and the failure of these sundry regimes indicates the results when the gnostic movement moves through reality challenging Christianity and proclaiming a new civil theology and the end of history. At least so far. History has shown it is a difficult proposition to vitiate the differentiated reality of two millenia of philosophical and theological analysis, not to mention the event of the Christ.
The modern Gnostic order has not receded nor does it tack in quite the same direction as it did during the totalitarian era. The modern Gnostic movement, represented by the current administration of President Barrack Obama and his particular Marxist variant, a combination of, among other things, a virulent scientism, progressivism, and the Obama cult of personality that suggests a racist component, is much more subtle, seeking to appeal to the economically “challenged” by promises of transfer of wealth through punitive taxation on the wealthy, placing responsibility (and guilt) for African Chattel Slavery on the white middle class, and to move the country, economically, away from market capitalism.
The Obama regime proffers on the basis of the immanetization of human existence, a false representation of concrete society as an eschaton, the fallacious Utopian dreamworld of a madman.
Christianity which stands to be destroyed if Gnosticism wins the day, finds itself in reduced circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church is faced with a bitter and fractious critique related to various officials “hiding” pedophile priests from civil prosecution. The mainstream Protestant churches, perhaps continuing to suffer from the effects of their own gnostic revolution (the Reformation), have become nearly completely immanentized. It should be noted that contemporary Christianity as a result of the rise of materialism, individualism, existentialism and to a lesser extent dialectic-materialism has not succeeded in deeply penetrating many social institutions. Also, Voegelin adds, “…the likeliness of a fall from faith will increase when civilizational progress of education, literacy, and intellectual debate will bring the full seriousness of Christianity to the understanding of ever more individuals.” All of which indicates the tenuous position of Gnosticism’s primary opponent in the current struggle between good and evil.
Still the challenge facing the classical Gnostic movement may be occurring much quicker than it would in, for example, Europe, and may be an indicator that the corruption is not as pervasive as once feared.
The best illustration of that challenge is the so-called Tea Party Movement (TPM). Here it is plainly visible that the TPM represents an opposition to a rising state repressiveness and while we may criticize the planning, execution, and indeed effectiveness of the TPM, at least to date, we should realize that these people represent the initial cadre of free citizens who are seeking redress of grievance from a regime that is more than willing to resort to violence. History has numerous examples of derailed and psychopathological Gnostics, unable to recognize reality, and immersed in their counterexistential dream world, reacting violently to their greatest fear, “the horror of existence and a desire to escape it.”
Indeed, we are living in truly interesting times.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:42 am
TPM Gnostics are largely Libertarians. I’m not sure what the other TPM are, but the Obamacons don’t seem much different from the neocon socialism of the evangelical movement, many of whom are also showing up at TPM events. From my view, you are a big government authoritarian supporting bigger government, taxes, foreign wars, domestic drug wars, and unneccessary and politically motivated incarcerations. Democrats and Republicans both do this. So is the Voegelin idea?
April 6th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
Counterexistential dream world, indeed!
Mr. Cheeks, please read the following:
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. – Ryan Lizza
As Daniel Larison once counseled Matt Taibbi, you should write out these two sentences a few thousand times until you’ve absorbed their message. Then perhaps you can explain how Obama is trying to “immanentize the eschaton” by accommodating himself to existing institutions.
A few other points:
- Even after health care reform, Lizza’s characterization hasn’t changed much. The bill he signed was essentially nationalized Romneycare. True lefties don’t like it.
- I would love to know – specifically – how the current administration places responsibility and guilt for African chattel slavery on the white middle class.
- It’s arguably a contradiction in terms to call someone a “subtle” utopian, or a “subtle” immanentizer of the eschaton.
- You fail to explain in what circumstances the administration is willing to resort to violence. Since every administration in American history (the bulk of them decidedly non-utopian) was willing to resort to violence in certain circumstances, your statement was essentially meaningless.
- It’s not a formal inference, but your post implies that Christianity is (necessarily?) identified with “free-market capitalism”. We could put this into the form of an analogy. Gnosticism: social democracy :: Christianity: capitalism.
I would argue that this is borderline idolatrous. You might also want to consider that Fukuyama, in the afterword to his End of History, writes that capitalist democracy and social democracy “are differences of degree and not principle.” Indeed, as Samuel Brittan writes, even Hayek accepted a social security minimum. It seems ridiculous to use language like “immanentizing the eschaton” to describe a fight over the extent – not the existence – of the welfare state.
April 6th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
Mr. Crimmins:
Re: your inquiry: “Then perhaps you can explain how Obama is trying to “immanentize the eschaton” by accommodating himself to existing institutions.” I would point out that, for example, Adolf Hitler made use of “existing institutions” in his rise to power and he was certainly someone who “immanentized the eschaton” vigorously.
Re: “Romneycare” I understand the people of Taxechewsetts are not happy with their version of socialized medicine and that former Gov. Romney has apologized for signing the legislation into law.
Re: “white guilt,” it is an implicit part of Obama’s project and not explicit (he is, after all, a politician). Generally, this transposing of “guilt” is what’s referred to a “playing the race card” and its been a part of black/white relations at least since the Civil Rights Era. Shelby Steele has an excellent book related to this subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5385701
and here’s an interesting article concerning Rev. Dr. Wright and “reparations” :
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/obama-and-the-drive-for-slavery-reparations/
It should be noted that Pres. Obama has rejected the idea of “reparations,” but a cynic might argue that his decision was politically driven. Re: Obama’s efforts at “playing the race card (white guilt)” I’d point to the unhappy incident of the black Harvard Professor and the white Cambridge Policeman, where Obama initially and erroneously accused the white officer of race crimes, and never apologized!
Re: my use of the word “subtle” I was merely trying to illustrate the difference between the level of force utilized by the 20th Century totalitarians versus the methods of persuasion utilized by Pres. Obama. But you have a point in that we are in the beginning of the Obama regime and, if we might have some fun speculating, his resort to violence may be triggered by an event (Reichstag fire?) that “requires” him to take extreme action to “save the nation.” It’s not like it hasn’t been done before and I believe you folks on the left accused Bush the Lessor of such crimes.
Re: your quote of Fukuyama’s work, I would point out that his account re: the changes of the late 20th Century is a “Hegelian speculation on the progressive manifestation of the logos in history through Western liberalism.” Fukuyama misinterpreted the events as “an end of history,” rather than a “shared tragedy involving both the ‘East’ and ‘West.’”
Thank you for your criticism.
April 9th, 2010 | 11:04 am
[...] Cheeks recently wrote a piece on the prevalence of Gnosticism in current American politics. His basic argument is that our [...]
April 18th, 2010 | 7:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ernie Vogel, Ironked. Ironked said: RT @ehvogel: Obama, the Tea Party, and Immanentizing the Christian Eschaton … http://bit.ly/9azXL5 | Cryptic English but interesting [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact