I’ve been reading Irenaeus’ great work Against Heresies. I’ve
just finished the second of five books and I thought I would write a bit about
this important work. Much of this
will be bullet-point reflections rather than a comprehensively organized essay.
1.
Irenaeus wrote in the latter part of the second
century. Against Heresies is dated around AD 180. The full title of his work is actually A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So Called and is
taken up with a refutation of the Gnostics.
2.
For those attempting to read Irenaeus it is
important to get perspective on his big project. I’m also reading Mary Ann Donovan’s One Right Reading?: A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical
Press, 1997). Donovan’s book walks
through Against Heresies in a
section-by-section manner. In
doing this her book acts as a map for Irenaeus. One should be wary, however, of some of Donovan’s
perspectives and interpretations.
At times Donovan’s rhetoric regarding the Gnostics is a bit too positive
for my tastes. Here is one
example:
The face of the adversary [the Gnostics] begins to emerge as the face
of a fellow Christian who is far more at ease with plurality of interpretation
in many areas of life than is Irenaeus.
The Gnostic is intellectually adventuresome in terms of both doctrine
and interpretation, and given to the development of new liturgical forms. (p. 46)
Notice the language—“plurality of
interpretation;” “intellectually adventuresome”—doesn’t that sound so much
superior than some stuffy orthodoxy?
As I read Irenaeus he is the one wearing the “white hat” and the
Gnostics are the villains. This
simple reading of mine comes from the fact that Irenaeus points people to the
Jesus of the canonical Gospels and the Gnostics point away from him.
3.
Second century Gnosticism was a serious threat
to the Christian faith. Although
reading about the Gnostic system today can be tedious and mind-boggling, in its
day it was seen as a progressive and sophisticated movement. James Thomas Carlyon, in his essay “The
Impact of Gnosticism on Early Christianity,” writes:
It was a species of mental culture, perhaps the most vigorous cultural
factor in the life of antiquity.
Gnostics were the thinkers of the time, serious-minded men who combined
genuine religion and piety with healthy intellectuality.[1]
Carlyon
quotes S. Angus in this same vein:
It was the religious reaction of the syncretistic centuries to the
intellectual forces of the time.
It was a long-sustained attempt to reconcile religion and culture and to
make religion at once rational and uplifting and enthusiastic.[2]
Gnostic Christianity was the
“progressive” theology of its day.
It was trendy and “advanced” in its thinking. It was also a grave threat to the gospel of Jesus
Christ. Gnoticism ultimately leads
people away from Jesus and into vain philosophical speculations that pander to
pride.
4.
In his introduction Irenaeus speaks of the
deceptive nature of error:
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being
thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as,
by it outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the
expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. (AH I. preface, 2)
The heretics of Irenaeus’ time were
just like the one’s today. They
use the language of orthodoxy but in profoundly unorthodox ways—“because their
language resembles ours while their sentiments are very different.” (AH I. preface, 2)
5.
In Book One of Against Heresies Irenaeus goes into extensive detail—almost
excruciating detail!—regarding the teachings of the Gnostics. Irenaeus has obviously mastered their
system. He not only knows the
truth but he also knows the intricacies of the Gnostic teaching. He takes the time and energy to lay out their system so that he can accurately and effectively contrast the Gnostic
teaching with orthodox teaching of the apostolic gospel. In this Irenaeus provides an example
for today’s defenders of the faith.
There is a place for some defenders to immerse themselves in the error
of their time so as to defend the eternal truth of the gospel. This will, at times, render their work
time-specific in that the details of false systems are transitory and, usually,
do not have generational “staying-power.”
So, although, this kind of work is “seasonal” in nature it is still
crucial for the health of the Church.
