Dan dissents regarding the post, Is Mysticism Gnostic?:

Tony writes:
“In my Monday post, I mused that the “secret knowledge” vibe expounded
by some conservative Christians opens them to the charge of gnosticism.
Some commenters mentioned that the other primary characteristic of
gnosticism is a strict, platonic dualism.”

I don’t see the first charge as being valid for conservative
Christians at all. Unless Paul’s statement that spiritual truths are
only discerned by the mind that is energized by the Holy Spirit is seen
as “secretive”. It may be true of some charismatics, but wouldn’t be
true of any of the folks I read or listen to.

The Platonic dualism might have some validity in a second-hand way.
Conservatives don’t get too involved in the arts for example. But that
has more to do with a narrow moral focus than an actual belief that
matter is evil or that knowledge is a secret mysticism. Oddly, when
conservative get involved in politics they’re told they’re too worldly
and should stick to spiritual things. We can’t win.

And “lack of interest in creation-care”… Please. One can care about creation without buying Al Gore’s magic elixir.

I’m guessing the original charge against you, Tony, is that you seem
to have a high degree of skepticism about the objective knowability of
truth. You seem to ground knowledge in the experience of the local
community to such a degree that one cannot really know much of anything
with confidence. You seem to say that knowledge is cultural and
experiential and mystical. That seems to separate knowledge from the
concrete. That seems closer to gnosticism than the conservative
thinking of a Ravi Zacharias or a Francis Schaeffer or a J.P. Moreland
or an Al Mohler.