I would be curious to know how Anglicans approach some of the heterodox literature of the Early Church, particularly the Gnostic gospels and the Nag Hammadi texts. Doctrinally speaking, it's obvious that these queer strains of Christianity aren't at all compatible with the formal Christology of the Church of England, as the Gnostics variously believed Christ to be a spirit, or a phantom, a prankster god, or some sort of gnomic Buddha figure. But I wonder, rather, about the underlying principles in the stream of Gnostic thought, which are basically not that different from the theosis of the Eastern Christians, or the mysticism of Latin contemplatives like Meister Eckhart or John Scotus Erigena. Leaving aside their wacky cosmologies, the core of what the Gnostics preached was monistic mysticism, which Aldous Huxley considered the universal & perennial philosophy of humankind. Do Anglicans ever consider that the Gnostic schools of Early Christianity could be reevaluated in a positive light? Could they help the modern church rediscover its contemplative tradition, much as non-Christian writers like Maimonides and Avicenna influenced Aquinas? Or are they just vile and worthless heresies worth not an ounce of anyone's time? It's worth mentioning that Plotinus (who dedicated an entire Ennead to castigating the Gnostics for mythologically over-complicating things) nevertheless saw them as being in a stream of philosophy close to his own, whereas he was considerably more hostile to the orthodox Christians, with whom he saw only irreconcilable differences. And yet the orthodox would come to be very dependent on his Neoplatonism. Gnostics. Yea or nay? P.S. I'm not a Gnostic.