On Gnosticism:  The Lust for Massively Possessive Experience

. . . .The attempt at constructing an eidos of history will lead into the fallacious immanentization of the Christian eschaton.  The understanding of the attempt as fallacious, however, raises baffling questions with regard to the type of man who will indulge in it.  The fallacy looks rather elemental.  Can it be assumed that the thinkers who indulged in it were not intelligent enough to penetrate it?   Or that they penetrated it but propagated it nevertheless for some obscure evil reason?  The mere asking of such questions carries their negation.  Obviously one cannot explain seven centuries of intellectual history by stupidity and dishonesty.   A drive must rather be assumed in the souls of these men that blinded them to the fallacy.

The nature of this drive cannot be discovered by submitting the structure of the fallacy to an even closer analysis.  The attention must rather concentrate on what the thinkers achieved by their fallacious construction.   On this point there is no doubt.  They achieved a certainty about the meaning of history, and about their own place in it, which otherwise they would not have had.   Certainties, now, are in demand for the purpose of overcoming uncertainties with their accompaniment of anxiety; and the next question then would be:  What specific uncertainty was so disturbing that it had to be overcome by the dubious means of fallacious immanentization?

One does not have to look far afield for an answer.  Uncertainty is the very essence of Christianity.   The feeling of security in a “world full of gods” is lost with the gods themselves;  when the world is de-divinized, communication with the world-transcendent God is reduced to the tenuous bond of faith, in the sense of Heb. 11: 1, as the substance of things hoped for and the proof of things unseen.   Ontologically, the substance of things hoped for is nowhere to be found but in faith itself; and, epistemologically, there is no proof for things unseen but again this very faith. 24

 The bond is tenuous, indeed, and it may snap easily.   The life of the soul in openness toward God, the waiting, the periods of aridity and dullness, guilt and despondency, contrition and repentance, foresakenness and hope against hope, the silent stirrings of love and grace, trembling on the verge of a certainty that if gained is loss—the very lightness of this fabric may prove too heavy a burden for men who lust for massively possessive experience.  The danger of a breakdown of faith to a socially relevant degree, now, will increase in the measure in which Christianity is a worldly success, that is, it will grow when Christianity penetrates a civilizational area thoroughly, supported by institutional pressure, and when, at the same time, it undergoes an internal process of spiritualization, of a more complete realization of its essence.

The more people are drawn or pressured into the Christian orbit, the greater will be the number among them who do not have the spiritual stamina for the heroic adventure of the soul that is Christianity; and 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. . . .

The New Science of Politics, Chapter 4,
GNOSTICISM The Nature of Modernity
§ 4, pp-187-188.
[U.Chicago ed., p 121-123]

Footnote 24.  Our reflections on the uncertainty of faith must be understood as a psychology of experience.  For the theology of the definition of faith in Heb. 11:1, which is presupposed in our analysis, see Thomas Aquinas Summa theologica ii-ii.Q.4, Art. I.)