Against The Protestant Gnostics by Philip J. Lee (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 355 then any questions it might generate are spurious, belonging to the pseudoreality of the originary system, but not to reality itself. Moreover, whatever political action accompanies such new questions will be equally spurious , more likely destructive than constructive. So, the value of New Left politics depends on the ontological truth of immanence. Howard's model for political theory seems to be natural science, or technology, in which old questions and problems do indeed give way to new. But philosophy, including political theory, is not reducible to natural science, and its history amply demonstrates that the big questions perdure. St. John's University Jamaica, New York MICHAEL HENRY Against The Protestant Gnostics. By PHILIP J. LEE. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Pp. xii + 347. $27.95. At the heart of Lee's book is an impassioned plea that theological reflection be more accessible to pastors and that pastors be better grounded in theology (233-5). Fortunately, this is more than a concluding wish; it is a model that Lee, the pastor of a Canadian congregation, exempli:fiies himself in the present study. The primary thesis of Lee's book is that in North America (i.e., Canada and the U.S.A.) Protestantism, both historically and in its present form, manifests numerous characteristics in common with classical Gnosticism. His argument is developed in three stages. First, he provides a description of Gnosticism as a type of religion. Second, he seeks to demonstrate the presence of many ·of the characteristics of Gnosticism in the various forms of North American Protestantism. Finally, he sets forth his recommendations for degnosticizing contemporary North American Protestant churches. Lee's description of Gnosticism is not a historical sketch. Rather, it is an attempt to map the tendencies and characteristic forms of the Gnostic mindset. The resulting summary is one of the most readable and insightful treatments of Gnosticism presently available. Particularly highlighted are the elitist, escapist, and narcissistic tendencies of Gnosticism. To anyone familiar with the ongoing discussion of heresies and orthodoxy in the early Church, it will come as no surprise that Lee devotes the last section of this description of Gnosticism to arguing that the classic Biblical, Catholic, and Protestant traditions, while they may have shared some similarities of tone and conviction with Gnosticism, did not embrace 356 BOOK REVIEWS the most fundamental Gnostic convictions about nature, the human problem , or the goal of salvation. His most extended discussion in this regard focuses on exonerating his own theological forefather-Calvin. In general, his arguments are convincing. However, he often seems to imply that a dearer line can be drawn between Gnostics and non-Gnosties than seems historically demonstrable. The middle section of Lee's book is both the most insightful and the most troubling. His analysis of similarities between classic Gnostic tendencies or beliefs and developments in the Protestant (primarily, Reformed ) tradition originally transferred to the New World are frequently discerning and convincing. Moreover, it is clear he is not merely grinding some narrow theological axe. His candidates for the alleged Gnostification of the Protestant tradition are drawn from all types in the theological spectrum. Indeed, he seems particularly concerned to demonstrate that the extremes of fundamentalism and liberalism, despite their clear differences , ultimately share an underlying Gnostic bias. At the same time, there are several cases of alleged gnostic similarities that are far from obvious and, thus, leave one with the impression that Lee is trying to tar all perceived deviants from the classical tradition with the same brush. (Gnostic tendencies a1~e blamed for everything from our current lack of ecologically sensitive theology, to U.S. policy in Central America, to the spatial separation of families!) Similarly, one often could wish for a more perceptive treatment of the difference between related currents in the North American Protestant scene. For example, Lee repeatedly equates evangelicalism with fundamentalism and/or revivalism, without adequately acknowledging the significant differences within and among these groups. Or again, he issues a broad indictment against premillenialism without distinguishing between its dispensational and nondispensational forms-a distinction of particular relevance in regard to the issue being discussed (96). Against this background of critque, what are Lee's...