Walsh uses Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Camus, and Voegelin as representative thinkers of catharsis, diagnosis, and spiritual therapy. In each
case, the thinker is able to explain philosophic Christianity in an illuminating way, because the existential core of truth is exposed as the fundamental
reality of transcendence. It is the experiential rather than the theological or dogmatic principle that is proposed as the remedy to the modern
disease of ideology. But, why is this so? Let us turn to what Walsh calls the "diagnosis," or Voegelin's conception of "gnosticism."
Gnosticism is not a modern phenomenon. Walsh points to the Hermetic-Kabbalist mysticism of the Renaissance and belief that humans could be
transfigured with divine power. Puritan moralism and the Neo-Platonism of Joachim of Fiore, Marsilius Ficino, and Pico della Mirandola all
represent the divinization of man that at its core is a revolt against God. Originating from the Greek "gnosis" or knowledge, gnostics believe
they have cornered the truth, that they have the ultimate insight into reality, and consequently, the ultimate answers. Because man has the capacity
for such divine knowledge, the transcendent is immanentized or secularized. What is divine and transcendent is brought fully within the finite orbit
of human existence. The modern ideological movements reveal this gnostic trait in the apocalyptic promises of Marx's "socialist man," or Nazism,
fascism, and the like. I believe America's indulgence in technology and progress mirrors this type of autonomous reason.
According to Voegelin, the modern crisis of ideology stems from gnosticism, a metaphysical and spiritual rebellion against God and the world as it
exists.
Q1 - Do you think this is the correct diagnosis?
Walsh continues that if gnosticism, or knowledge held as immovable dogma, is the disease, then the remedy must be along another plane. In
other words, more knowledge will not resolve gnosticism—only experience of the transcendent can reach the depths of "living truth." This is what
Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Camus, and Voegelin provide—the ability to live within the tension of God and human existence as it is, while also being
changed by an encounter with the divine in a non-dogmatic form. Quoting Voegelin, Walsh writes, "The problem may be defined as an inclination to
abolish the tension between the eschatological telos of reality and the mystery of the transfiguration that is actually going on within
historical reality." (127) What ideology wants to do is remove that tension and re-create the world in the image of man. This is accomplished
by the use of human power, which is the fatal deception. It is only through spiritual truth as experienced within the soul that man can be
transformed into the image of God.
Voegelin believed Christianity itself has within it a gnostic problem, because of its eschatological horizon of meaning, and concomitant devaluing
of this world. Consider St. Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ and his immediate desire to be with God in heaven, which allowed him to view the
cosmos as emanating from his consciousness. The existential tension between God and man must be nullified so that a speculative theological
system can arise. Walsh disagrees as he thinks that the Christian experience of the transcendent and then speculative claim of comprehensive
knowledge is a distortion of Christianity, not something embedded within it.
Q2 - Do you agree with Voegelin or Walsh about Christianity and gnosticism?
In ascending from the depth of ideological blindness and gnostic conceit, Walsh refers to the works of Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, and Camus. He
says about them that, "The bearers of philosophic-Christian illumination must be able to show how the experience provides the most profound realization
of our humanity." (183)
Q3 - Why do you think Walsh chose these thinkers?
Q4 - What do you think of Walsh's use of these thinkers?
Q5 - What do we learn from these thinkers?
