Moderate Gnosticism

"Esoteric Christianity" is a book originally published in 1905. The author, Annie Besant, was the leader of the Theosophical Society Adyar, a new religious movement originally founded by the colourful Madame Blavatsky. Although most members were Westerners (Besant was British), the society was headquartered in India. Besant subsequently played a certain role in the Indian independence movement, as well.

This new edition was published by Quest Books in 2006, and includes an introduction by Richard Smoley. He has also written a number of critical notes. I don't know whether Smoley is a member of the Adyar society, but it's intriguing that Quest Books (Adyar's publishing arm) lets somebody criticize Annie Besant! New religious movements are usually more dogmatic and inflexible.

The message of "Esoteric Christianity" is a blend of Theosophy and moderate Gnosticism, which Besant claims is the real but secret message of Christianity. The closest thing to moderate Gnosticism in the ancient church would have been the Alexandrian fathers, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and Besant therefore gives them a prominent place in her narrative. She has also discovered a remarkable statement by Ignatius, in which this literalist Church Father mentions the existence of a secret message! (I also "discovered" this quotation a few years ago.) Valentinus, Pistis Sophia and even the epistles of Paul are other sources Besant believes points to the esoteric message.

Besant believes that the literalism of the official Churches is an acute threat to Christianity, since modern man simply cannot believe in such a simplistic message. However, her alternative isn't rationalist liberal theology, but rather a kind of occultism. Ironically, her occult explanations of miracles, transubstantiation, prayer and the resurrection are just as "supernatural" as the (non)-explanations of official Christianity, making her esoteric message feel closer to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy than to modern, rationalist Protestantism. For instance, Besant literally believes in angels answering prayers.

Besant's exposition of the Gospels is contradictory. On the one hand, she believes that an event can be both literally true and yet have a spiritual significance pointing to the supernatural. (This position is similar to that of the Church Fathers!) But if so, why not take the Gospels literally, while claiming that the Gnostic message is an addendum? However, Besant doesn't seem to take the Gospels very literally, despite her view that even the physical resurrection could be literally real (she believes the physical body can be re-animated by a highly developed spiritual body). Instead, she spins a ridiculous theory according to which the real Jesus lived 100 BC, the only "proof" for such a theory being some modern clairvoyant (unclear which one - Leadbeater? Blavatsky?). Why not admit that Jesus did live during the rule of Pontius Pilate and explain all his miracles in the occult manner?

The editor Smoley takes Besant to task for her strict belief in karma and consequent denial of the power to forgive sins. I never read Smoley's own books, but apparently he is closer to "official" Christianity on this point. In that, he is surely right: the main difference between the Gospels and the Eastern conception of karma is precisely the remission of sins - that's why Jesus is said to have come in the first place. To Besant, sins cannot really be forgiven unless the karmic debt is repaid in some horrendous fashion, and when Jesus "forgives" sins in the Gospels, he is simply stating that the individual in question has *already* repaid his karma with the appropriate sufferings. Her view of the crucifixion and resurrection, while surprisingly "literal", has nothing to do with remission of sins either, but is rather a demonstration of the power of spiritual evolution - everyone can become a Christ. It's also a kind of allegory for the initiation into the "Lesser Mysteries".

From a scholarly viewpoint, most of what Annie Besant is saying in "Esotetic Christianity" can be problematized. Most scholars would argue that she is projecting the views of Valentinus, Clement, Origen and even Blavatsky onto the earliest Church, which had a different message. Still, her book is interesting, precisely because of her more sophisticated, semi-literalist stances. Also, it's interesting that Besant somehow assumed that her occult and supernaturalist explanations of the Gospel stories would appeal to a rationalist audience. Perhaps they did - she was there, I wasn't. Today, however, I suspect that her book might rather appeal to decidedly non-rationalist New Age believers or even some Catholics of a more mystical bent.

Once again, a commendation to Quest Books to republish "Esoteric Christianity" with critical comments by a sympathetic fellow traveller.