In a class I took last fall, a seminar on God and evil, I got a fresh taste of academic humility. It was a class in systematic theology which, until recently, I was not particularly fond of. I usually approach the topic of evil and suffering through a biblical lens. However, during this seminar, I encountered a philosophical definition of evil that I can only describe as theological gaslighting.
One week, we focused on Saint Augustine’s concept of privatio boni. For those who are not familiar with the concept, it asserts that evil has no “substance.” It is not a thing itself; it is just a lack of good (or God), just as darkness is a lack of light. This has become the dominant, even “traditional” Western philosophical account, “that evil is just a privation of good – malum est privatio boni.”1 In another popular way of framing it, evil is viewed as parasitic.
I made the argument, in a brief discussion assignment, that I find this idea is a form of “theological gaslighting.” I really thought nothing of my word choice. But the professor did. In class that week, he read my comments aloud. I saw my classmates giggling in their Zoom boxes. Yikes. When I tried to defend my claims, I absolutely butchered my words and provided an even more laughable experience.
That may be the most significant lesson in academic humility I have learned. I was afraid to say another word in that class for the rest of the semester, but I continued to engage—I just chose my words more carefully. I doubted my argument for several weeks.
However, as I continue to process that anxiety-inducing moment, I find myself largely in agreement with what I argued before—I can just reason it a tad better. So, here I am for round 2 of why the Augustinian concept of privatio boni is theological gaslighting.
Carl Jung’s Rejection of Theological Gaslighting
Psychology, as a study, is in no way a strength of mine, and I often question the ethics of early analysts. However, I hold some respect for Carl Jung, specifically for his willingness to challenge theological assumptions.
Jung detested privatio boni. While he understood the boundary between psychology and theology, he admitted he must “get polemical when metaphysics encroaches on experience and interprets it in a way that is not justified empirically.”2 He writes:
“This classic formula robs evil of absolute existence and makes it a shadow that has only a relative existence dependent on light… If, therefore, evil is said to be a mere privation of good, the opposition of good and evil is denied outright.”3
This, I find, is a compelling argument. If one accepts evil as a privation, then they must lose the dualistic idea of good versus evil in exchange.
Substance or Absence?
I am not inclined to view evil as a passive “lack.” My experience—and the biblical narrative—suggests that evil is an active force. It has agency. Apologists for this concept are quick to give semantic pushbacks. They say, “No, we are not denying that evil exists. We are saying it is not a substance. It’s an absence.”
Okay… I do not think evil being a “substance” is an issue for anyone. This is especially true in the Bible. Satan is not an “absence” of God. Satan is God’s worshipping angel turned adversary. That is a presence, not a void.
Evil itself may not be a substance, but neither is good. Augustine’s examples—that sickness is a privation of good health and character defects are privations of good virtues—are logically sound in a vacuum. But they are dangerous in practice.
You do not say to a sick person, “You aren’t suffering, you are just in bad health.” You do not say to someone suffering from severe depression, “You are just lacking positivity.” In short, my ultimate argument is this: the concept of privatio boni is theologically and ethically useless. It can make you a better philosopher, but it will not make you a better pastor or chaplain.
The Problem of Theodicy
There is only one use and one purpose in the existence of privatio boni: theodicy. When confronted with the problem of evil/suffering, theists need an explanation. For much of Christianity, this can be a sensitive topic, as it should be. But it’s especially difficult given the harsh depictions of suffering and evil in the Bible. So philosophical answers become a solution, such as the free will defense or privatio boni.
It becomes an attempt to “Get God off the hook.”
When we are so desperate to avoid associating God with any evil, we turn to downplaying the suffering of other people. We say that evil is a semantics debate, not a force to be confronted.
Theological Gaslighting
I hate buzzwords, especially those associated with mental health. Coping skills, boundaries, and gaslighting, while important issues, are overinflated in meaning to the point that we rarely even know what they mean. But I was not using the word to sound young and hip.
I was using my behavioral health experience to convey an important, practical point. According to Psychology Today, “Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves.” It is a form of abuse that can take a drastic toll on one’s health and wellbeing.
Privatio boni may not outright deny the existence of evil. It tells a victim that the evil attacking them has no substance. To a person experiencing deep trauma, this effectively questions their reality. It tells them the monster they see is just a shadow.
Regardless of its philosophical validity, it is almost always the wrong information at the wrong time. I believe there is zero practical use in the idea.
I am grateful that I did not discover this concept before graduate school. More so, I am grateful no Christians used this pseudo-theology on me when I became skeptical. I imagine I would have become agnostic a lot sooner. But seeing as how many do, in fact, cling to this concept, I feel I must challenge it.
Back in that Zoom class, I didn’t have the words to explain why I felt so uneasy. But I do now. We don’t need to protect God’s reputation by telling victims their pain is a void. We need to sit with them in the dark, acknowledging that the darkness is real, their pain exists, and their voice is heard.
- Mary Stefanazzi, “Privatio Boni: Evil Through the Eyes of Carl Jung and Victor White,” 67. ↩︎
- Ibid., 69. ↩︎
- Ibid., 70. ↩︎