When I was a child and began learning to read we were taught by using ‘Dick and Jane’ books. They went something like:
So, now every time I run into something I don’t understand I try and ‘Dick and Jane’ my way through it. That’s to say I try and break things down into the simplest possible form, kick the result around a bit, then assess that result against what is logical or rational.
Let’s do that just a little bit with the Gospel of Thomas and a simple question of redemption/salvation. Does that Gospel contain secrets that must be uncovered in order to achieve ‘salvation’. The obvious short answer is no, but let me caveat that ‘short no’ with a ‘I hope not’ and a ‘maybe’ forward going.
Why is a historical ‘no’ the right answer to that question?
What happens if the answer to the question ‘Is understanding the secrets in the Gospel of Thomas necessary for salvation’ is yes. That would mean that (here comes the Dick and Jane part) there was no salvation for the billions of folk that perished over the 1800 to 2000 years that the gospel patiently rested in literal anonymity, not to mention the forthcoming billions more who will never know it’s worth (if there is a worth) because Christendom has left no room for that voice. Well, if the answer is ‘yes’ then it’s going to take more than just a little reflection to flesh out what our relationship with God is really all about. ‘Yes’ then becomes unpalatable and we must abandon the ‘yes’ else-wise our understanding of God is a complete misunderstanding.
It could (not would) also mean that God allowed these billions of folk to pass on un-redeemed. (Another question for another time: I wonder where they’ve gone?) I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just stating that this could be so and it could be part of God’s plan. Or it could be so and not part of His plan. Finally (because I am clearly whipping this pony overly vigorously) it may not be so regardless of the existence or absence of a plan. In any case the appropriate response by leaders of all religious slants appears to be to either ridicule or ignore the Gospel. Given the perplexing nature of the volume, both responses seem appropriately styled.
So is ‘no’ the hope of all mankind? Actually, ‘no’ is the hope of that subset of all mankind that ‘hopes’. This subset is quite happy where they are at with God and would really, really prefer that no new late to the party Gospel upset their neatly ordered little afterworld. With that said, there is an alternative instantiation where ‘yes’ becomes an acceptable response for this group: when the solutions to the secret sayings are thought to be found in the religious practices the ‘faithful’ currently adhere to.
So, what about the ‘maybe going forward’ as an answer to the question? This response allows all of the faithful to keep the God they have (along with the salvation of the generations past and future) and introduces new potential paths for others. It would sorta work like all of our Old Testament hero’s get in along with the 1st covenant crowd, and all of the ‘saved’ from the New Testament adherents, and then now this new ‘Third Testament’ riddle solvers have earned a spot on the roster as well.
Now, the Dick and Jane approach to all of these hypotheticals leaves us utterly without answers. We are more empty at the conclusion of our quest than at the outset. It seems that it’s that emptiness that may be what we need in order to be filled. So, be filled with empty for a moment. Be in the desert. While in that desert consider what Jesus says in the 78th Saying:
In a book chocked full of metaphors could the desert of 78 be in our mind or soul or spirit. Perhaps empty is a good place to be sometimes.