On Fundy Gnosis
(Addressing the Problem of Evil and the
theology of
By James M. West. Copyright © February 16, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
Recently I received a letter from a
reader in response to my article On the Origin of Evil. This person will
be identified here as “Bob” which is not his real name. Bob wrote to me in
protest because I deny that God is the ultimate source of Evil. Gnostic
tradition teaches in various ways that evil enters the universe either through
Error or the rebellion of lower angels. However, Bob disagrees and he insists
that Evil originates from God himself; and that evil is one of the instruments
by which God educates humanity about the value of goodness. (Similar statements
are made in the Tripartite Tractate, but this treatise represents the
exception in Gnostic tradition and not the rule.[1])
Of course I have heard variations of
these arguments before from mainstream “orthodox” leaning Christians. What
makes Bob’s argument worth mentioning is that Bob believes that Evil is not
really evil at all. Bob supported his opinion by presenting me with the link to
an online book entitled:
“The Problem of Evil and the Judgments of God”
by Adolph E. Knoch (1874–1965) [2]
This book represents an effort by one
“orthodox” leaning theologian to explain the paradox of evil, and, in my
opinion, to rescue the war-god Jehovah and his evil-doings from a logical moral
scrutiny. The author attempts to accomplish this by claiming that there is a
difference between “evil” and “sin”; and that the real onus of
immorality or injustice is tied to sin and not evil. The author defines “evil”
as an amoral force which causes mayhem and thereby brings curses, famines,
plagues, wars, misery and death upon sinners. The author conveniently refuses
to make any connection between the evil orchestrated by “God” and the murders
and other mayhem which result from the said evil.
I believe it is a very dangerous thing
for religious men to deny evil for what it is: evil. I see this as a
very convenient way that fundy Christians rescue their evil biblical war-god from
the implications of his own morality. But even more important, and more
dangerous, is that when theologians seek to excuse the evil that scripture
(written by men) assigns to their own god, these same men inevitably remove the
onus from the evil that might otherwise define their own actions. This danger
can be seen in the following statement from Jeremiah 42:6, where the loyal
followers of Jehovah proclaim:
“Whether
it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God.”
(Jeremiah 42:6)
Even Al Queda henchmen or Hamas suicide
bombers, or KKK Klansman, could say something like this. This type of reasoning
becomes the justification for persecuting people of another race or creed. Evil
is not really evil, but is an instrument by which “sinners” or infidels are
punished. Whether in theory or in practice, I believe this reasoning is morally
wrong, and evil. There is no doubt that the history of Christianity has been
scarred by this kind of twisted logic. I direct my readers to the book Foxe’s
Christian Martyrs of the World for a record of the macabre atrocities that
“Christian” leaders have been able to justify and inflict on other Christians.
The behavior of “orthodox” Christians in
late antiquity, and in the Middle Ages, is a reflection of the same evils that
are attributed to Jehovah in the Old Testament. Jehovah is a god of war who is
involved in all kinds of heinous atrocities, which anyone of us today would
call crimes against humanity. Jehovah sends his followers on military campaigns
to invade the lands of other people and to butcher women and children like
animals (e.g. Deuteronomy 2f., Joshua 6; see my article On
God and Justice). Are we really to believe that this is what “God” is
like? Is this what I’m supposed to believe? In Isaiah
Personally, I think that Knoch’s book “The
Problem of Evil and the Judgments of God” is one of the most wicked books I
have ever read. But to be fair, I doubt that Mr. Knoch, as a theologian, was
really trying to justify evil behavior in the literal sense, or in his personal
life. (But certainly the logic that Knoch uses has been used by other
Christians in the past to justify their vicious crimes.) In my opinion the
flawed and dangerous reasoning of Knoch was driven by his need to rehabilitate
the theology of the only religion and “God” that he knew. Rather than simply
admit that the God of the Old Testament is evil and move on, Knoch turned
instead to quibbling and diluting the definition of evil in order to create a
moral loophole for his cherished god.
The most fundamental problem with guys
like Bob and Mr. Knoch is that these men insist on believing that the Bible is
the literal, infallible “Word” of God. These men fail to understand that many
of these scriptures were written by men who were concerned with mundane
struggles for power as opposed to a genuine spiritual quest. I would like to
summarize my point with a quote from my article On God and Justice:
“[T]he
real issue at stake in the Old Testament has nothing to do with what is right
or wrong – the real issue is the acquisition of Power by the Israelites and
their priesthood. …the Law of Moses, and the history of
Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t
have a grudge against ancient Hebrews whose religious beliefs reflected their
primitive times and struggles. On the other hand, I do believe it is a mistake
to take these ancient, arcane writings and to erect these as if they are some infallible
record of God’s nature and actions. To simply rely on these writings as
explanations for the mysteries of God and the origins of evil is to play the
fool. And this is exactly how I feel about people like Bob and Adolph Knoch.
These guys regard the Bible as an infallible revelation of what God’s nature is
really like. These guys fail to understand that the Bible is a collection of
other people ideas about God that are second hand at best. I am not about to
accept the proposition that God is the source of evil just because some guy
says the Bible says so. Ultimately, all true Gnostics understand that this is a
question of introspection and soul-searching and has nothing to do with what
the Bible says. (Bob of course fails to notice that I don’t rely on the Bible
in my article On the Origin of Evil yet he brings forth a fundy Bible
theologian in his effort to correct me.)
Even more bizarre is that Bob believes
that Knoch’s opinions represent a form of “gnosis.” By which he means that
“evil” is some sublime mystery which has come out of the heart of God, and by
which men and women are educated and initiated into a higher understanding
regarding God’s nature, and the nature of evil. If I didn’t know any better I
would think that this came from some esoteric or ‘Gnostic’ wing of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses (if they had a Gnostic wing). I suppose that what I am
confronted with here is a kind of ‘Fundy Gnosis’ (hence the title of
this article). All I can say on this point is that I think that such
rationalizations serve the purpose by which fundy Christian justify the
continued adoration of their false and evil god. And this goes back to Bob’s
contradictory stance in that he needs the assistance of a fundy Bible
theologian in order to back up his own gnosis.
Next we will now go to the second issue
in this article which is the problem of
Both Bob and Mr. Knoch reason as if this
one passage is the last word on Paul’s theology. But these guys fail to
acknowledge that “Paul” says all kinds of things; and when all of Paul’s
theological statements are brought together, these statements do not constitute
a unified theological system (see below). This, in a nutshell, is the whole
problem with Paul that theologians and scholars have struggled with for ages.
Bob and Mr. Knoch pretend that Paul’s theology can be summarized in one little
passage; but this is just more of the same wishful thinking that so often characterizes
the myopic opinions of fundy Christians.
The question we will now consider is did
Paul ever affirm the Unity or Monarchy of God? Again, if we base our answer
solely on Romans
Let us begin once again with Romans
11:36,
“For
of him, and through him, and in him, are all things.”
1 Corinthians 15:24–28,
“Then
cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and
power. … The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. … And when all things
shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be subject [unto the Father]
…that God may be all, and in all.”
Note that in Romans “Paul” says that all
things are in God, whereas in 1 Corinthians Paul says the opposite: all things
are not in God; and for this reason “all rule and all authority and power” must
be subdued or destroyed so that “God may be all, and in all.”
Can these two passages be reconciled? I
think the answer is no. I believe the problem here is that Bob and Mr. Knoch
are taking Paul’s statement in Romans too literally without acknowledging the
true complexity of Paul’s theology as is truly reflected in the second passage.
The reality is that Paul does not believe in a simple unity of the biblical
godhead.
I see Paul’s statement in Romans 11 as a
speech intended for public consumption. Paul does not get into the deeper
issues of theology that appear in Galatians or the Corinthian letters (see below).
Paul speaks of God in a popular way that is familiar to Greek-speaking Jews and
Gentile God-fearers who often thought of God along the lines of Stoic ideas [3].
I don’t believe Paul is writing to “initiated” people as in other letters; most
notably in 1 Corinthians 2 where Paul reveals that there are “spiritual” men
and “natural” men and that spiritual wisdom cannot be received by the natural
man (1 Cor. 2:14). This ties into Paul’s statement that there is a “hidden
wisdom” which is spoken in a “mystery” among the “perfect” meaning the
initiates (teleiois; 1 Cor. 2:6f.). The meaning here is that Paul does
not say all things to all men (cf. Romans
“And
unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to them that are
under the Law, as under the Law, that I might win them that are under the Law.”
Given the complexities of Paul’s ideas
and statements, I believe I am under no obligation to recognize Romans 11:36 as
a concise summary of Paul’s theology. I’ll leave that for the fundy simpletons
who are always in search of fast and easy answers to everything. (In this case
Adolph Knoch simply chooses to accept Old Testament scripture for what it says
about evil and the nature of God—rather than resist and deny like many other
fundies do. Knoch admits that “God” is an evil-doer and then tries to rehabilitate
from that point. Knoch’s error is in his failure to understand that he is
wrestling with the ethics of a different age. This leads him to conclude that
“God” is the source of all evil.)
Next I would like to get into the
question of whether Adolph Knoch and
Think. Why would Paul deliberately
contradict the Law by saying that the Law was ordered by angels? By adding this
concept of angels Paul is at best confusing the meaning of scripture. And at
worst he is guilty of twisting biblical theology—and for what purpose? I
believe that Paul’s introduction of angels was intended to undermine and deny
the notion of a unity of God in scripture—without compromising the basic tenet
of monotheism.
My point over all is that Paul does not
embrace either the same theology or mode of Bible interpretation that Adolph
Knoch does. These guys come from two different schools of theology—and Knoch
carries on the “orthodox” tradition of projecting his theology into Paul’s
writings. Again, guys like Mr. Knoch take the Bible literally and believe that
the “Law” was given by God; but this is not what Paul says.
Mr. Knoch believes that Paul was
defending the sovereignty and unity of God in Romans 9:18–22. But again, does
Paul really say all things to all men?—is Paul stating his true opinions in
Romans 9, or is he trying to convict Jews using their own scriptures? (Note: there
is no solid evidence that Romans 9 was part of the original Romans letter.) In
comparison with Romans 9 we can look at Paul’s statements in 2 Corinthians
3:12–4:4. Here there is language which shows that Paul did in fact attack the
authority of the Lawgiver. This passage contains Paul’s interpretation of
Exodus 34:27–35 where Moses received the second set of tablets from the Lord,
and he spent forty days and nights in the presence of YHWH on
In Paul’s interpretation Moses placed a
veil over his face in order to conceal the “fading” glory, and he accuses Moses
of blinding and deceiving the Israelites. Paul’s exact remarks are as follows: “Seeing
then that we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech: And not as Moses,
who put a veil over his face, that the children of
In the above passage Paul is making a
connection between Moses and the “god of this world.” Thus Paul writes further
“Therefore seeing that we have this ministry…we do not fail; but have renounced
the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor handling the
word of God deceitfully… But if our gospel is veiled it is hid to them that are
perishing; in whom the god of this world has blinded their minds…” (2 Cor. 4:1–4)
Again, Paul did not simply believe that
the Law of Moses or the “covenant” came from God as Mr. Knoch does. This means
that Paul did not regard the writings of Moses as wholly inspired or
infallible.
The reality here is that Paul interprets
the books of Moses in light of some other tradition and theology. And without a
doubt Paul is denying the supreme sovereignty of YHWH the Lawgiver. Paul
identifies the Lawgiver with the “god of this world.” Paul insists that
salvation can only be achieved by beholding the glory of the unveiled face of
Jesus Christ (2 Cor.
Guys like Mr. Knoch want to place all
the emphasis on Romans and the theology as it appears in that text. Everything
else that Paul says in his other letters is simply ignored. A further problem
is that one cannot even be sure as to the original form and length of Paul’s
letters or even the context of Paul’s statements. This in turn raises the
question of whether Romans really gives an accurate picture of Paul’s theology?
Sure, Mr. Knoch can point to things that resemble “orthodox” opinions. But I
can point other things that are unorthodox or otherwise do not conform to
Knoch’s ideas. If Paul’s letters are not wholly orthodox then they are
unorthodox. It is really up to people like Mr. Knoch to prove that Paul’s
letters really are theologically correct, or otherwise preserve a correct
theological system.
Getting back to the issue with Bob: Bob
wants to style himself as a Gnostic; and as someone who knows more about
“gnosis” than I do. Yet he has to rely on the dubious research and
rationalizations of fundy Bible theologians who take the Bible literally—and
who rely wholly upon the Bible for everything they know about God. This is not
what Gnostic tradition is about. It is true that Gnostics do study the Bible
and other texts and traditions in search for spiritual insights. There are
certain elements of the Bible that reflect the thoughts of true aspiring mystics.
In this context there are spiritual nuggets spread throughout the Bible, both
Old and New Testaments. And the incredible truth in this regard is that the
Bible contains the seeds of its own heresy. But ultimately the true Gnostic is
concerned with discovering the reality of God in his/her own being. It is here
that we discover the true nature of God, and we realize that we are spiritual
beings and not animals. We realize that God is not the source of evil: but that
evil originates from ignorance. If Bob’s God has some grand plan for evil in
our lives then it is because Bob’s God is himself an ignorant and limited
being… In truth this “God” is the Demiurge and he lives and creates and
governs in the shadow of his own ignorance.
My other comments on the inherent
goodness of God have already been stated in my article On
the Origin of Evil. —jw
Notes
1] The Tripartite
Tractate is the one “Gnostic” text that does state that God the Father has
a grand plan to reveal evil to mankind. Hence it is the Father’s Will that “man
should experience the great evil, which is death, that is complete ignorance of
the Totality, and that he should experience all the evils which come from this
and, after the deprivations and cares which are in these, that he should
receive of the greatest good… Because of the transgression of the first man,
death ruled. It was accustomed to slay every man…because of the organization of
the Father’s Will, of which we spoke previously” (107f. ET: H. Attridge, D.
Mueller, Nag Hammadi Library, HarperCollins, pg. 89). The Tripartite
Tractate is atypical among Gnostic texts which are generally concerned with
separating God from evil and materiality. A comparison of these traditions is
presented in my article Orthodoxy, Heresy and Jesus, III: The
Pattern of Gnostic Truth.
Elsewhere in the
Nag Hammadi Library this very philosophy, as stated above, is condemned in the Book
of Thomas the Contender. Here Thomas asks Jesus: “What teaching shall we
give to these miserable mortals who say, ‘We have come to [do] good and not to
curse,’ and will [say] further ‘If we had not been born in the flesh we would
not have known iniquity’ ”?
Jesus answers
Thomas: “To tell the truth, do not think of these as human beings, but regard
them as animals. As animals devour each other so people like this devour each
other. They are deprived of the kingdom… They pursue derangement not realizing
their madness but thinking they are wise.” (141, M. Meyer, Nag Hammadi
Scriptures, pg. 242.)
Note that Jesus
condemns this kind of thinking in the strongest terms. People who argue that
God has a purpose for evil, and thus for the world, choose to believe such
things because in reality they love the world and are not really troubled by
the evil that goes on. For this reason Jesus condemns them like animals—which
is a metaphor for the material man who loves materiality and worships the
material god.
2] Based on
everything I have been able to learn about Mr. Knoch, from his writings, he is
a fundy Bible theologian—by which I mean that he believes the Bible is the
literal revelation and word of God. On the other hand, Mr. Knock also brings
ideas to the table which may not be shared by every fundy theologian. For
example, Knoch believes that God’s plan was based from the very beginning on a
dialectic between good and evil: Good + Evil = knowledge of God’s supreme
Goodness. Thus God created both good and evil from the very beginning in order
to guide human evolution and to perfect human nature. Mr. Knoch also rejects
the doctrine of eternal damnation and believes instead that there will be a
complete reconciliation of everything in God “all in all.” Mr. Knoch’s ideas
seem to resemble a form a Stoic philosophy which holds a similar view of good
and evil in the Stoic theory of the unfolding providence of God (see note #3).
3] The influence
of Stoic thought in early Christian theology will be addressed in a forthcoming
article. Stoicism was an ancient, pagan
By James M. West.
Copyright © February 16, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com