|
I am 98, and for that age, my faculties (sight and
hearing and even thinking) are quite good. The one about which I do
complain is memory. Probably I’m typical for my age. People are very
understanding. While I still can, I am reviewing my “legacy.” It is
mixed up with the legacies of many others in the process movement. I
conclude that my most important contribution is institutional. That
is because the institutions to whose existence I have contributed are
all acting responsibly in relation to what is happening. I think and
hope that none of them give priority to my opinions. They are already
out-dated.
The first is the Center for Process Studies. David
Griffin gave it extraordinary leadership. Andrew Schwartz succeeded
him, during a period when the future of the Center and the Claremont
School of Theology, of which it was a part, was uncertain. Despite
difficulties, he has helped move process thought from the margin of
the American discussion to a role in the mainstream. Although Andrew
and the School worked well together, it was clear that a friendly
separation would be good for both. That has taken place. And an
independent Center is once again acting as the “center.”
From the beginning, many of those most interested in
process thought were church folk. For them, we organized Process and Faith. It has worked
well for some evangelicals who are unable to swallow all of
traditional Christian doctrine, but who understand that there is much
in Christianity of great importance for them and for the world. Tripp Fuller has provided a home
for such people for many years and Tom Oord has recently offered an
alternative. I had nothing to do with establishing either of these
organizations, but since I have contributed to the process theology
that both find works well for them, I include them in the family. The
process theology they embody is Christian, but the Christianity
involved appreciates and learns from other spiritual traditions.
“Process” seeks to serve these other traditions as well. Process and
Faith has served other spiritual traditions as well as Christianity,
and an important role of process thought is to provide an inclusive
vision that makes positive sense of diverse traditions.
There are a number of very small-scale experiments
inspired by process thought. Bonnie Tarwater has established an ecological farm and church near
Salem. Sunday afternoon we worship in the barn with the ducks and the
goats. She is developing small groups for self-examination and group
action.
The Center for Process Studies operates chiefly in the
academic world. Another process organization worked with
institutions, including educational ones, but also ecological ones
and governmental ones. Eugene Shirley organized Pando Populus. When CPS moved
north as part of the Claremont School of Theology, Pando was designed
to keep an activist process organization alive in Los Angeles County.
The County has excellent goals, and Pando is recognized as a major
contributor to moving toward them.
American process thought caught the attention of
leading Chinese. Zhihe Wang came to Claremont and earned a PhD here.
His wife, Mei Wong has joined him. They have organized the Institute for the Postmodern Development of
China. Thanks to them, process thought has played a
large role in China.
When it was clear that CPS would leave Claremont
together with the School of Theology, we organized our local
activities under the rubric of the Cobb Institute. It has given
major attention to supporting the remarkable efforts of new Hispanic
leadership in Pomona to revitalize that city under the new
circumstances. But the activities of the Cobb Institute are often
based on working together electronically; so, it also evolved quickly
into a national and even international organization. The public
programs organized especially by Ron Hines every Tuesday morning are
an attractive way for outsiders to join our community. Jay McDaniel
has been the superb leader of the Institute. He is now taking more
responsibility for CPS and is being succeeded in the Cobb Institute
by Mary Elizabeth Moore.
For process thinkers feelings are the stuff of which
the world is made. Still, action should be guided by thought. Ideas
should have an effect, especially with respect to the global problems
that became crucial in the twentieth century. In 2015 the Center for
Process Studies organized a major conference subtitled “toward an
ecological civilization.” We have used that term to name what we see
as the most promising direction of activity and policy. Philip
Clayton has organized the Institute for Ecological Civilization.
Despite the multiplicity of process organizations, I
helped to add one more, a couple of years ago. We call it the Living Earth Movement. Some of
us became extremely troubled by the way in which the American goal to
control the planet was (in a sense rightly) recognizing China as its
greatest obstacle. Some leading Americans seemed open to a nuclear
war in response to that threat. Communications were breaking down,
and they were being replaced by mutual demonization. The most
advanced “chip,” of great importance for breaking new ground in
technology, is made chiefly in Taiwan, and the U.S. wants to prevent
China from having access. Although it formally recognizes Taiwan as
part of China, it armed Taiwan to enable it to fight China, and
blocked Chinese access to the chips. The world came close to war. We
organized the Living Earth Movement (LEM) to encourage open
discussion among nations, especially U.S./China. We believe that
there is little hope unless the two greatest economies and most
powerful countries cooperate and lead. Charles Betterton is making it
possible for the LEM to “move.”
Among American nongovernmental organizations and
movements, none are in better position to work with Chinese than the
process ones. We process folk are well-regarded in China and have the
trust of the Chinese government. But none of the organizations I have
mentioned, other than the IPDC, were in position to discuss how we
could fulfill the responsibilities inherent in the situation.
A major obstacle to good communication seemed to be
the success of American propaganda in portraying China as evil. The
Living Earth Movement has written around fifteen short papers, mostly
on topics on which China is vilified. They provide a more balanced
account, and we are just now getting ready to go public with them. We
now want to organize many interactions between Chinese and Americans.
Fortunately, Pres. Xi has called for strengthening connections at
many levels. Reports on the November Xi/Biden meetings in November in
the Bay area suggest that the American government will be less
opposed to reducing American hatred of China. The time may have come
for us to help implement a possibility that may make a significant
contribution to world peace.
We have asked Philip Clayton to take the lead in this
project. He is already highly respected in China as well as in the
United States. Greatly increasing conversation between Chinese and
Americans would be a first step toward China and the United States
taking joint responsibility for global leadership in the drastic
changes needed for the survival of civilization. We stand ready to do
what we can to help.
Finally, I rejoice not only that all of these
organizations are engaged in important activities with excellent
leadership and genuine sensitivity to the context in which they are
acting, but also that they support each other when that is needed.
There really is a process community, and I am only one contributor
among many. Nevertheless, I claim it as my legacy and am glad that my
passing will have little effect.
Meanwhile I wish each and all of you a Christmas and
new year of hope and joy.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment