In evaluating the modern theological critiques of modern Gnosticsâas made by Mark A. Pierson in his piece titled, Old Heresy, New Hereticsâthere is an ironic structural blind spot regarding how history and philosophy are weaponized.
âTitles such as Savior, Redeemer, Son of God, Light of the World, and Logos made Jesus a prime candidate for being this enlightened revealer of secret knowledge... Gnostics, therefore, needed to adopt Jesus without embracing the central claims of the New Testament.â
Pierson writes about these contemporary communities with palpable disdain, framing their modern spiritual path as a predatory, counterfeit faith. Yet, his argument suffers from a glaring historical double standard. To condemn modern Gnostics for syncretism while masking orthodoxyâs own deep debt to Neo-Platonism, Aristotelian logic, and Roman legal structures is an act of historical convenience.
Furthermore, Pierson's rhetorical strategy betrays a distinct disdain not just for those he critiques, but for his own readers. If the authorâs primary goal were authentic theological education, he could have easily cited the historical doctrine of Docetismâthe early Gnostic assertion that Jesusâ physical body, suffering, and crucifixion were merely a phantom-like illusion (dokein, "to seem"). Docetism represents the ultimate historical "smoking gun" for why early proto-orthodox writers rejected Gnostic traditions, as it directly undermined the core New Testament tenets of the literal incarnation and bodily resurrection. Instead of treating his audience as thinking readers capable of understanding complex early Christological disputes, Pierson reduces history to a flattened, emotional caricature. He chooses weaponized outrage over historical substance. 1, 2
In the arena of ethical rhetoric, the author commits a modern heresy: a total violation of dialogical ethics. As Martin Buber notes, dialogical ethics requires an honest, authentic engagement with contemporary practitioners as they exist.3 When a writer uses utilitarian persuasionâdeliberately leaving out half the historical picture just to score an apologetic point against modern peopleâthey abandon true dialogue in favor of monologic manipulation.
This abandonment of true dialogue reveals a deeper, more structural duplicity. While Pierson castigates modern Gnostics for their fluid, syncretic approach to spirituality, he ignores the reality that modern practitioners are generally transparent about their mystical relationship with history and philosophy. Conversely, the modern apologist relies entirely on an epistemological double standard: he utilizes a theological vocabulary that could not exist without orthodoxyâs historical immersion in Pan-Hellenic and Roman thought, yet he willfully denies those very roots to secure his authority over modern dissenters.
Crucially, this methodology does more than just break the secular rules of communication; it actively defies the spiritual ethics and the very writers of the doctrine Pierson claims to defend. Orthodox Christian theology is structurally anchored to the concept of truth as a divine attribute. By distorting history to build a false narrative, Pierson weaponizes untruth to protect what he defines as the truth. This deceptive framing directly violates the baseline ethical commands found across the New Testament and early church teachings regarding honesty, humility, and the prohibition against bearing false witness against oneâs neighbor.
This argument becomes doubly specious when considering that it is published within a Protestant framework. By the strict standards of sixteenth-century Catholic orthodoxy, Martin Luther was himself condemned as a dangerous heretic who used novel text interpretations to challenge established tradition. Furthermore, early Christian history is defined by a shared reliance on classical philosophy; both Catholic and Protestant traditions eagerly leveraged the writings of Plato and Aristotle to validate their frameworks. This historical amnesia recalls the "Defender of the Faith"âa title granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X after the king authored the 1521 treatise Defence of the Seven Sacraments to aggressively attack Martin Luther and his heresy, right before Henry enacted his own strategic schism from Rome.4
Pierson further betrays his anxiety over losing intellectual dominance when he laments the modern revival of these ideas in pop culture:
âThe new Gnosticism... is providing countless skeptics, atheists, and agnostics the perceived intellectual high ground they need to dismiss the New Testament. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are prime examples... it appears the new Gnosticism is not going away any time soon.â 5
Ultimately, Piersonâs sense of superiority over modern Gnostics mirrors the very elitism he accuses them of harboring. His writing functions to project disdain rather than facilitate clear, ethical dialogue.
This environment of duplicitous, utilitarian persuasion reminds me of the transformation of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Before his conversion, Augustine was a master of Roman imperial rhetoricâa system where the primary goal was to construct whatever argument was necessary to win, regardless of absolute truth. He later looked back on this in his Confessions, famously condemning his former profession as a "chair of lies" (cathedram mendacii).6 Augustine turned to Christianity precisely because he sought to escape that world. When contemporary apologists engage in selective history to bash modern spiritual movements, they fall backward into the very chair of lies that Augustine rejected.
By prioritizing a dogmatic win over historical truthfulness, mutual respect, and the foundational ethics of his own creed, the author fundamentally undermines his own defense. For a Protestant apologist to stand on the historical mountaintop built by centuries of political consolidation and philosophical syncretism, only to look down with disdain upon modern spiritual communities for engaging in those exact same practices, is an act of supreme irony. Ultimately, Piersonâs essay is heresy on a meta-level.