A Gnostic theodicy?

For some time, I have been working on a Gnostic theology. My plan is to produce a book (at this point it is not much more than a brief article) that would provide a systematic overview of a Gnostic Process perspective. I thought that it might be interesting to reproduce a little taste of it here for some feedback. Again, this material is very rough. In its current form, it presupposes a significant amount of theological familiarity. So if you get lost, I apologize.


*Please remember that others and myself posses a copyright on the following material. So, please refrain from utilizing this material without my permission.

Dealing with the theological question of theodicy, this particular mix of Process and Gnostic thought leads to conclusions which some might find shocking. Traditional approaches to the problem of evil invariably prove to be a logical knotwork focused on eliminating God from any possibility of casual responsibility. In this particular case, no such knotwork is even attempted. This is not because such work cannot be fruitful or cannot serve any purpose. Rather, the perspective represented here reflects a shift in perception from more traditional viewpoints. Briefly stated, utilizing the Process construction of a dipolar God with its Primordial and Consequential poles and a Gnostic sensitivity to trans-rational experiences, one is free to explore other possibilities from the traditional viewpoints. One such possibility is outlined below.

As was discussed earlier, the Process dipolar construction marries well with the teaching of the Catechism on the nature of God. In the Catechism, God is described as essentially “potential Being” and “Being in activity.” In the first case, this is can be understood as reference to the Primordial pole of God. In the second case, it can be understood as reference to the Consequential pole of God. Also earlier in this discussion, it was shown how the Initial Aim (a guiding principle toward beauty and complexity) originates within the Primordial pole of God. Hence, one could describe the Primordial pole in a generative way and the Consequential pole (made up of the total sum of the consequential actual occasions) in a managerial way. Lastly, it will be remembered that the Consequential pole of God was demonstrated to evolve and develop along with “creation.” Thus, one is lead to the conclusion that there exists no teleology (much to the disappointment of the historicist) and no omnipotent capacities on the part of Consequential pole. With this reminder in place, we can now turn to answering the question of theodicy directly.

As the demiurgic system is part of the Consequential pole of God (as was established earlier), it stands to reason that it should come as no surprise that the source of evil should be located in this pole as well. It may be recalled that the demiurgic system is the totality of occasions (especially the more primitive and chaotic), developed through the ongoing process of the Cosmos, which rejected the Initial Aim from the Primordial pole. But, the question in particular, is who or what is the source for the initial concrescence of the demiurgic system. And, the answer is simple: God. From within this particular perspective, the Consequential pole of God is the source of evil. In other words, the “Fall” refers to something that occurred within the development of the Consequential pole of God and not to a specific moment within time-space.

It is important to remember that the Consequential pole of God is undergoing development toward “individuation.” And, it is in the very beginnings of this process that we find the first occasion to reject or disregard the Initial Aim from the Primordial pole. Not only was this disregard the source of the Dissociative Identity Disorder of the triune personality (discussed in the chapter on God) but also the source of evil. It is this reason why the “Father” personality could be the chief exemplification of the demiurgic system and receives so much attention from Jung. At some point, as an occasion was processing through concrescence, it utilized it’s freedom to disregard the Initial Aim in compiling its subjective aim and was then shaped into something that lacked the realized beauty and goodness reflected in the offerings from the Primordial pole. Hence, the Consequential pole of God is the source of evil. But, while this has established an origin, it has not answered the question of culpability. And, the question of culpability is the real root of the problem of God’s justice.

To answer the question of culpability, it is important to remember the discussion on consciousness. It was established that there are four basic types of consciousness and that it is possible to develop through each type. Also, it was established that the Consequential pole of God, like us, does seem to be developing through each type. Briefly put, the course of Consequential development could be mapped as follows: (1) without sentience or subjectivity, (2) with sentience and subjectivity, without a state of awareness, (3) a developing state of awareness, and (4) total awareness.

With this in place, the question of culpability is easily answered. While the source of evil is the Consequential pole of God, the point of departure took place within the first phase or while the pole could be described as belonging to the first type of consciousness. It is clear from the subsequent development of disorder in the Consequential pole, as evidenced by the animalistic, primitive, and cthulonic qualities that seemed to manifest, that such an early date is quite reasonable (cf. Jung, Answer to Job). Therefore, the Consequential pole of God is not culpable. In fact, based on this construct, it would be absurd to imply any level of responsibility as the Consequential pole of God possessed no sentience or subjectivity.