"On the one hand, we have to meet the argument that gnosticism has value for Christians head on, dismantling what's false and disingenuous about its ideas."
Of course he is going to be critical of the views and perspectives of Gnosticism, his 'brand' of faith doesn't allow for deviance of doctrine. Therefore, everything that is not his own is false and disingenuous -- not just Gnosticism but everything else.
"In some sense, Elaine Pagels is a problem — her books make disingenuous arguments and distort the history of the early Church."
First off Pagels is an academic and her claims are based on years of research. I think it is disingenuous to argue against her in such an ad hominem fashion. Instead attack her thesis, and do so in an academic manner instead of an appeal to tradition or an appeal to emotion. There is much research being done now on the subject of Gnosticism and various early Christian sects. Not only by Pagels but many other scholars as well. I have found her books to be thoughtful and compelling. I don't know if I accept everything she writes, but I am open to her scholarship -- like I am open to any scholarship that is well argued. Holding onto a tradition simply because it is a tradition is, I believe, very disingenuous.
"The response must be positive, not negative, because Pagels and gnosticism are filling a void that can and should be filled with legitimate Christian spirituality tied to the life-giving words of the Gospel."
This is the heart of the matter! Christians need more legitimate Christian spirituality and not Gnostic heresy! Or so it would seem that is what Chris+ is arguing for. It is interesting where people draw the line at their orthodoxy. Some Catholics would say that being in communion with the Pope is absolutely essential to the faith, while independent Catholics cannot make this claim because their very independence cuts them off from communion with Rome. The word legitimate is a very loaded term. Can someone be a legitimate Catholic and not recognize the sovereignty of the Pope in matters of faith? A Roman Catholic would say no, an independent Catholic would say yes. Who is more orthodox? Which position is legitimate, and which is illegitimate? There is also the nature of the sacraments and the position on women's ordination. Most independent Catholics think women's ordination is acceptable, while the Roman Catholic position is that it is not. Whose orthodoxy is legitimate and who is illegitimate?
What I think is the real solution is to stop hiding behind the veil of orthodoxy. Christians, Gnostic or Orthodox, should learn to find common ground. To dwell together in peace to and learn from one another. Instead of building walls that foster enmity build bridges to allow for understanding. What matters most is faith, not acceptance of a creed. As Kierkegaard wrote faith is a paradox and cannot be gained through reason or rational thought. This being the case, and I believe it is, then it seems more human to embrace differences rather than scorn them. Elaine Pagels is not the problem. Ignorance is the problem. Gnosis renders the veil unnecessary.
