Usually, the Gnostics are understood as a kind of fringe cult, rejected by the early church for their strange, exotic theologies. However, in Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, the reader is shown another version of that story, but this time instead of a conflict around ideas, we see the Gnostics being rejected for their unwillingness to submit to the hierarchal structure of the new church.
It makes sense that Gnostics would have resisted their authority structures. Their theologies were typically rooted in abstract metaphors and mystic thought experiments, so they might have resisted the organization of Christianity into the Catholic church because they feared suppression (which did happen, in fact). Not only that, but the actual Gnostic gospels contain images of transcendence. Their view of Jesus is less political and more metaphorical. Therefore, the resistance to authority probably has to do with the transcendentalist, metaphysical concerns of the Gnostics.
Properly understood, the Gnostics represent a class of Christianity all their own, one where Jesus's sacrifice, death, and resurrection are understood as mysteries to be solved. Contrast that with the typical Christian mode: Most Christians hold their beliefs about Jesus's death and resurrection as the center of their dogma, but the Gnostics refuse to answer those questions with hard-and-fast solutions.
One can see how the Gnostics might have seemed to the early church, struggling in its rise to power. Indeed, there is a serious conflict between the Gnostic interpretation of scripture and the orthodox interpretation, but more than that, there is a conflict of interests. The Gnostic mysteries have been mostly excluded from the Christian faith because of those political disagreements, but the Christians were taught that the reason was heresy. Now Pagels is bringing the stories back into the discussion.
