Whitehead Process Theology vs German Dialectic Theology

Process Theologians imagine God in at least six ways, many of them drawing from, but not limited to, Whitehead's understanding of God as explained by John Cobb above. Each of the six ways carries the influence of Whitehead (and John Cobb) even as it moves past a strict adherence to Whitehead's (and John Cobb's) ideas.  Process Theology is in process.

Process Theology and Dialecticism

Reformed Forum

Charles Hartshorne, the father of modern process theology, argues that God is constituted of two poles of being and becoming that are in relation to one another in an historical process ordered to a goal. The two poles of God have a reconciling function in the order of the deity through the basic category of love. In contrast, Barth's dialectic makes direct access to God inaccessible and the dialectic itself is eternal.

This clip is from Christ the Center episode 638 - https://www.reformedforum.org/ctc638

Whitehead Process Theology

vs German Dialectic Theology

by R.E. Slater

AI Overview

While both process theology and dialectical theology explore the nature of God and reality, the key difference lies in their emphasis: process theology views reality as a dynamic, ever-changing process of "becoming," where God is actively involved and affected by the world, while dialectical theology focuses on the radical transcendence of God, emphasizing the vast difference and tension between God and humanity, often requiring a leap of faith to understand divine truths.

Key points about Process Theology:

• Focus on Becoming - Process theology emphasizes the ongoing process of creation, where God is not simply a static creator but actively participates in the world's continual evolution and change.

• Influenced by Whitehead - This philosophy is largely based on the work of Alfred North Whitehead, who saw reality as a network of "occasions of experience" constantly interacting and becoming.

• Panentheism - Process theologians often subscribe to panentheism, the idea that God is both immanent within the world and transcends it.

Key points about Dialectical Theology:

• God's Transcendence - Dialectical theology stresses God's complete transcendence over creation, meaning that God is completely beyond human understanding and cannot be fully grasped by human reason.

• Karl Barth - This theological approach is primarily associated with the theologian Karl Barth, who emphasized the "wholly otherness" of God.

• Dialectical Tension - Dialectical theology highlights the tension between God's grace and human sinfulness, often using a "yes/no" approach to express the paradoxical nature of God's relationship with humanity.

In summary: Process theology sees God as actively engaged in the world's dynamic process, while dialectical theology emphasizes the radical separation and mystery of God, requiring a leap of faith to access divine truth.

----

AI Overview

While both process theology and dialectical theology engage with complex theological ideas, the key difference lies in how they view God's relationship with the world: process theology sees God as actively involved in the ongoing, dynamic process of creation, constantly being affected by the world, while dialectical theology emphasizes God's transcendence, viewing God as completely separate from the world and only knowable through divine revelation, often highlighting the paradoxical nature of this relationship.

Key points about process theology:

• Dynamic God - God is not static but constantly becoming, experiencing the world and being affected by it, often described as "panentheistic" (God is in the world, but not identical to it).

• Philosophical influence - Primarily based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, who emphasizes the concept of "process" as the fundamental nature of reality.

• Focus on becoming - Process theologians emphasize the importance of change, evolution, and the ongoing creation of the universe.

Key points about dialectical theology:

• Transcendent God - God is completely beyond human comprehension and cannot be fully known through reason alone, requiring faith to access divine truth.

• Emphasis on revelation - Theological understanding is primarily based on God's self-disclosure through scripture and not solely on human reasoning.

• Dialectical tension - This approach often highlights the tension between God's grace and human sinfulness, emphasizing the paradoxical nature of Christian doctrine.

* * * * * * * *

Whiteheadian Suggestions

for Process Theology

article link

by Andrew M. Davis

July 24, 2024

The following article is a forthcoming chapter in the German Whitehead Handbook, to be published in German translation.

Introduction

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1948) was not the only “process philosopher,” but the landmark achievement of Process and Reality (1929) did earn him catalytic standing in the modern development of the field. As Delwin Brown, Ralphe James and Gene Reeves once rightly commented, “The sheer greatness of Process and Reality necessarily makes his philosophy the primary locus of modern process philosophy” [1]. It is a matter of fact, however, that as Whitehead’s philosophy struggled to find attention in modern philosophical discourse (and still does), theologians had long been engaging its insights in relation to various issues and debates of the theological tradition. Coupled with other formative texts of his latter Harvard period, such as Science and the Modern World (1925), Religion in the Making (1926), Adventures of Ideas (1933), and Modes of Thought (1938), Whitehead’s Process and Reality also functioned as the “primary locus” of modern process theology.

Whitehead, of course, was not a theologian; nor did he intend to stimulate the robust theological movement that Bernard Loomer likely first termed “process theology” [2]. Nevertheless, Whitehead did find it necessary to speak of “God” and did so in particularly innovative ways that would capture the attention of a diversity of philosophers and theologians in the United States, from the University of Chicago to Claremont School of Theology and beyond. Among them are Shailer Mathews (1863-1941), Henry Nelson Wieman (1884-1975), Charles Hartshorne (1887-2000), Bernard Meland (1899-1993), Norman Pittenger (1905-1997), Daniel Day Williams (1910-1973), Bernard Loomer (1912-1985), Schubert Ogden (1928-2019), Lewis S. Ford (1933-2018), Joseph Bracken (1930-2024), David Ray Griffin (1939-2022), Thomas Hosinski (1946-2022), John B. Cobb Jr. (b. 1925), Marjorie Suchocki (b. 1933), C. Robert Mesle (b. 1950), Bruce Epperly (b. 1952), Catherine Keller (b. 1953), Philip Clayton (b. 1956), and Roland Faber (b. 1960)[3].

Although process theology has always been a diverse phenomenon, its historical prevalence as a movement within Protestant Christianity surely extends from Whitehead’s own concern for “the tale of the Christian religion” as beholden to “the leaders of the protestant clergy” [4]. As evidenced in a chapter titled “The New Reformation” in Adventures of Ideas, Whitehead offered key suggestions as to how theology might continue to evolve in light of the tangled cosmological and metaphysical vision he had developed. Far from being an “attempted Christian hijack,” as some are wont to say, [5] Christian process theology can be seen as a thoroughly natural response to Whitehead’s suggestions. Noting my numerical divisions below, consider the richness of the following passage as one way of framing this discussion.

I am suggesting that [1] Protestant theology should develop as its foundation an interpretation of the Universe which grasps its unity amid its many diversities. The interpretation to be achieved is a reconciliation of seeming incompatibilities. But these incompatibilities are not hypothetical. They are there on the stage of history, undoubted and claiming interpretation.

[2] There stand in public view the persuasiveness of the eternal ideals, the same today as when realized in the Founder of Christianity, and the compulsoriness of physical nature, which passes and yet remains, and the compulsoriness of that realized urge toward social union, such as the Roman Empire, which was then, and is now as it were a dream.

[3] Nature changes and yet remains. The ideals declare themselves as timeless; and yet they pass on, as it were the flicker of a brightness.…

[4] The task of theology is to show how the World is founded on something beyond mere transient fact, and how it issues in something beyond the perishing of occasions. The temporal World is the stage of finite accomplishment.

[5] We ask of theology to express that element in perishing lives that is undying by reason of its expression of perfections proper to our finite natures. In this way we shall understand how life includes a mode of satisfaction deeper than joy or sorrow [6].

Each of the numerical divisions of this passage are suggestive of certain core convictions and/or themes of process theology. In what follows, I aim to demonstrate this by elaborating these suggestions as they relate to Whitehead’s wider metaphysics and its relevance to key dimensions of process theology, particularly its doctrine of God. The result will be a select overview of Whitehead’s influence on process theology as one the most important theological movements of the modern and now postmodern world [7].

1. Theological Foundations:

A Metaphysical Interpretation of the Universe

Protestant theology should develop as its foundation an interpretation of the Universe which grasps its unity amid its many diversities. The interpretation to be achieved is a reconciliation of seeming incompatibilities. But these incompatibilities are not hypothetical. They are there on the stage of history, undoubted and claiming interpretation.

Process theology is a philosophical theology which draws upon Whitehead’s metaphysical interpretation of the universe for specifically Christian doctrinal purposes. As process theologians have often emphasized, this is not unlike what Augustine did with the philosophy of Plato or what Aquinas did with the philosophy of Aristotle [8]. Whitehead’s metaphysical interpretation was itself an attempt to grasp the universe in terms of “its unity amid its many diversities.” He conceived the universe to have both a “pluralistic character” and a “monistic aspect” [9]. The “pluralistic character” refers to the universe as consisting of many actual entities, and the “monistic aspect” indicates that all actual entities are of the same kind. Despite their multiplicity, actual entities are all characteristically one in terms of being dipolar (physical/mental) events of experiential becoming. This is the case for every actual entity: their fundamental nature is one, but their actuality is many. What connects the many and the one for Whitehead is the universal thrust of creativity (or creative integration), where “the many become one and are increased by one” [10]. Put differently, Whitehead insists that “The creative action is the universe always becoming one in a particular unity of self-experience, and thereby adding to the multiplicity which is the universe as many” [11].

The many and one are not the only “seeming incompatibilities” that Whitehead’s metaphysical interpretation sought to reconcile. Indeed, he aimed to reconcile all seeming incompatibilities within the creative becoming of each moment: subjectivity and objectivity, mentality and physicality, eternity and temporality, necessity and contingency, God and world. These, for Whitehead, are among the “final opposites” that require each other in the creative advance of things: “joy and sorrow, good and evil, disjunction and conjunction…the many in one—flux and permanence, greatness and triviality, freedom and necessity, God and the World” [12].

With respect to God and the world, process theologians have incorporated Whitehead’s critique of traditional theological “habits” keen on paying God “metaphysical compliments” [13]. These metaphysical compliments manifest in the incompatibility of God and the world, such that what applies metaphysically to the world, does not apply to God and what applies metaphysically to God, does not apply to the world. As Whitehead stresses, the theologians “made no effort to conceive the World in terms of the metaphysical categories by means of which they interpreted God…and they made no effort to conceive God in terms of the metaphysical categories which they applied to the world…There was a gulf between them” [14]. This “gulf” was a result of faulty metaphysics which assumed God to be the great exception to the metaphysical situation of the world.

By contrast, process theologians have followed Whitehead in holding that “[w]hat metaphysics requires…is a solution which exhibits the World as requiring its union with God, and God as requiring his union with the World” [15]. It is this “solution” that is captured in Whitehead’s famous alternative suggestion as to how to reconcile longstanding metaphysical incompatibilities. “In the first place,” he states, “God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles, invoked to save their collapse. He is their chief exemplification” [16]. This metaphysical reconciliation is of no small consequence and is central to the “panentheism” and “naturalistic theism” promoted by process theologians [17]. Rather than supernaturally establishing the metaphysical situation (and thereby standing exterior to it), Whitehead conceives God as its primordial exemplification. It is this reconciliation that negates so-called “supernatural action” from “outside” the world, and instead makes divine activity part and parcel of the world’s normal, natural processes and never their competition or interruption. As process theologians have argued, this conviction carries important implications when considering a variety of current philosophical and theological issues, not least the relationship between science and religion [18].

The Creation of the World and the Expulsion from Paradise
by Giovanni di Paolo (d. 1482). A traditional image of God.

2. The Persuasiveness of Eternal Ideals:

From Plato to Christ to God

There stand in public view the persuasiveness of the eternal ideals, the same today as when realized in the Founder of Christianity, and the compulsoriness of physical nature, which passes and yet remains, and the compulsoriness of that realized urge toward social union, such as the Roman Empire, which was then, and is now as it were a dream.

One of the corresponding suggestions of Whitehead’s metaphysical reconciliation of God and the world is that divine activity is persuasive rather than coercive in nature. Whitehead shows his own indebtedness to Plato’s suggestion in this regard: “More than two thousand years ago, the wisest of men proclaimed that the divine persuasion is the foundation of the order of the world, but that it can only produce such a measure of harmony as amid brute forces it was possible to accomplish” [19]. According to Whitehead, Plato’s suggestion “that the divine element…is to be conceived as a persuasive agency and not as a coercive agency” should be seen as “one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the history of religion” [20]. Moreover, after pointing to the “intellectual discovery” of divine persuasion in Plato, Whitehead then points to the embodiment of this persuasion in the life of Christ as “the supreme moment in religious history.” He asks: “Can there be any doubt that the power of Christianity lies in its revelation in act of that which Plato divined in theory?” [21]. Whitehead answered this question decisively in his earlier book Religion in the Making: “The life of Christ is not an exhibition of over-ruling power. Its glory is for those who can discern it. Its power lies in its absence of force. It has the decisiveness of a supreme ideal, and that is why the history of the world divides at this point of time” [22].

Process theologians follow Whitehead in lamenting the fact that Christian theology did not hold fast to its founding revelation of divine persuasion in the formation of its doctrine of God. Instead, “the alternative doctrine” of coercive omnipotence prevailed. Where authentic divine power could have been upheld as persuasive love, as expressed in the life of Christ, the doctrine of God emerged as “the supreme agency of coercion” and was further “transformed into the one supreme reality, omnipotently disposing a wholly derivative world” [23]. This, for Whitehead, is what constitutes the “tragic history of Christianity” [24]. The “brief Galilean vision” of persuasive love flickered uncertainly throughout history and Plato’s suggestion was overpowered by theopolitical desires for omnipotence [25].

Process theology remains thus famous (for some, infamous) for its rejection of divine omnipotence as a “theological mistake” and its advocacy of a return to divine persuasion as part of a “new reformation” in theology, religion, and society at large [26]. Conceiving divine power as only persuasive carries important consequences for a variety of doctrinal concerns emphasized by process theology, from creation, to Christology, religious pluralism, and the problem of evil [27]. Where divine persuasion consists in the offering of eternal ideals (possibilities of value) given the context of each actual occasion, these doctrinal domains take on a new character and meaning. “There are experiences of ideals—of ideals entertained, of ideals aimed at, of ideals achieved, of ideals defaced,” Whitehead states, “This is the experience of the deity of the universe” [28]. Indeed, for process theology, it is up to the world to open itself to the “persuasiveness of the eternal ideals” in the formation of itself.

3. Changing and Remaining, Timeless and Passing: Dipolarity in World and God

Nature changes and yet remains. The ideals declare themselves as timeless; and yet they pass on, as it were the flicker of a brightness.

For Whitehead, it belongs not only to nature to change and yet remain; the divine nature also changes and yet remains. That both changing and remaining, timelessness and passing, coherently belong to the doctrine of God is, for process theology, a direct incorporation of Whitehead’s suggestion that both God and the universe are “dual” and “dipolar” in nature [29]. “Any instance of experience is dipolar, whether that instance be God or an actual occasion of the world,” Whitehead states. “Thus, analogously to all actual entities, the nature of God is dipolar” [30]. Every becoming event is dipolar in the sense of having both a physical and mental pole with essential functions for its concrescence. With the physical pole, occasions inherent (prehend) objective data of the settled past into their own subjective becoming, and with their mental pole, they anticipate and “decided” among available possibilities for their satisfaction. That God too is dipolar is another means of seeing God as an expression, rather than a deviation, from the metaphysical description also shared by the world.

The divine mental pole Whitehead terms the “primordial nature,” and the divine physical pole he terms the “consequent nature.” The primordial nature is God’s active entertainment (conceptual prehension) of all timeless ideals as pure possibilities (or eternal objects) to be realized in the world process. In abstraction from the consequent nature, this conceptual aspect of the divine nature is permanent, unchanging, and unaffected by the world. The consequent nature (God’s physical prehension), however, is “consequent upon the creative advance of the world” and thus “evolves in its relationship to an evolving world” [31] In the consequent nature, therefore, God truly evolves, feels, grows, and is historical. Where the primordial nature is timeless, it also passes on, “the flicker of a brightness” to each moment as it is realized in the temporal world and then received by consequent nature.

Process philosophers and theologians have incorporated the insights of Whitehead’s affirmation of divine dipolarity in a variety of ways. They have argued that dipolarity offers a richer portrait of the divine nature in that God is able to be fully inclusive of contraries in a given set (e.g., being vs. becoming, permanence vs. change, eternal vs. temporal, necessary vs. contingent, absolute vs. relative). Charles Hartshorne argued that these contraries were seen in a one-sided fashion by classical philosophical theism and inappropriately divided between God and the word. Classical theism was “monopolar” in that God was only understood to be the unchanging and thus, supposedly more perfect, side of contraries: e.g., only being, permanent, eternal, necessary, and absolute. By contrast, divine dipolarity as “neoclassical” can include both sides in a complimentary rather than contradictory fashion because they apply to God in non-identical ways [32]. Whitehead’s dipolar distinctions in God have also led some process theologians to draw fruitful implications with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity [33]. Moreover, process theologians have insisted that a dipolar God that is truly related to the world is not only more adequate philosophically, but also more consistent with the religious and biblical vision of divine love, relationship, change, sympathy, and suffering [34]. Griffin summarizes: “It was the one-sidedness of classical theism, involving the ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness’ which prevented the God of the philosophers from also being the God of religion” [35].

Dipolarity. Made with generative AI.

4. Beyond Transient Fact:
Objective Immortality in World and God

The task of theology is to show how the World is founded on something beyond mere transient fact, and how it issues in something beyond the perishing of occasions. The temporal World is the stage of finite accomplishment.

There is an inexorable evil in Whitehead’s interpretation of the universe that any theology must soberly confront. It concerns the transience of fact and the tragedy of times passage. “The ultimate evil in the temporal world is deeper than any specific evil,” Whitehead states, “It lies in the fact that the past fades, that time is a ‘perpetual perishing’” [36]. Despite the perishing of occasions, however, Whitehead also insists upon the persistence of their influence through “objective immortality.” Process involves the “appropriation of the dead by the living” and “objective immortality” names the fact that “what is divested of its own living immediacy becomes a real component in other living immediacies of becoming” [37]. The values achieved by the past live on in the present, and also make available the achievements of the future. Beyond and below “mere transient fact,” therefore, is the immortal influence of achieved value on the world process.

Process theologians follow Whitehead in holding that the past is not metaphysically neutral, nor is the settled historical truth out of which the present takes rise. Both constitute metaphysical and existential riddles that can only find resolve in the consequent nature of God as the final objective immortality of all achieved value in the universe. God is what ultimately distinguishes the was from the might have been, prompting process theologians to speak of divine memory. Finitude does not perish into nothingness; it perishes into God who is the memory of the past and the ultimate guarantor of meaning in human life. As Daniel A. Dombrowski states, divine memory in this sense “is the paradigm case of experiencing and provides the avenue by which to best understand why perpetual perishing is not the last word. God is not a mere spectator, but a participant in the process of the world with ideal memory” [38]. To speak of God’s “ideal memory,” Hartshorne insists, is to affirm that “…God forgets nothing, loses no value once acquired,” so that “our worth is imperishable in the divine life” [39].

Indeed, for Whitehead, “Every fact is what it is, a fact of pleasure, of joy, of pain, or of suffering,” yet, “[i]n its union with God that fact is not a total loss, but on its finer side is an element to be woven immortally into the rhythm of mortal things” [40]. The other side of the temporal world as the “stage of finite accomplishment,” therefore, is the everlasting preservation of what was accomplished in God. Thus, the “something more” upon which the world is founded, and which relativizes the losses of “mere transient fact,” is divine. Whether or not immortality can (or must) also be “subjective” in Whitehead’s interpretation of the universe remains an important debate among process philosophers and theologians, with a variety of implications for Christian eschatology [41]. It is often overlooked that Whitehead was open to more than just objective immortality, saying “There is no reason why such a question should not be decided on more special evidence, religious or otherwise, provided that it is trustworthy” [42]. As process theologians have argued, such evidence is in fact compelling [43].

5. Satisfaction Deeper than Joy or Sorrow:
Contributing to the Divine Life

We ask of theology to express that element in perishing lives that is undying by reason of its expression of perfections proper to our finite natures. In this way we shall understand how life includes a mode of satisfaction deeper than joy or sorrow.

Whitehead interprets the universe through a metaphysics of value-contribution. “Everything has some value for itself, for others, and for the whole,” he states. “This characterizes the meaning of actuality” [44]. The very becoming into being (concrescence) of every occasion is a value process where primordial ideals find actualization for individual occasions as they perish forward, giving themselves and their accomplishments to subsequent occasions. As Philip Rose has rightly stated, “to be” for Whitehead “is to be the source of values given and the centre of values felt” [45]. What is occurring in the process of creation Whitehead describes as “the becomingness of value” [46]. The antecedent standards of value presupposed by the world process do not come from nowhere; rather, they belong to the life of God whose existence “is founded in Value” and the whose nature is “founded on ideals of perfection, moral and aesthetic” [47].

It is within this framework that process theology affirms achieved value as “the element in perishing lives that is undying” in the life of God. Process theologians follow Whitehead in holding that God’s role in the process of creation is aesthetic and poetic rather than causal and productive; it is internal and teleological, rather than external and determinative. God is what initiates every event with the gift of its own self-creation, and how that event self-creates is, in turn, its gift back to God. As the “poet of the world,” God lures the world toward “truth, beauty, and goodness” as primordial perfections of the divine nature [48]. Thus, it is out of the divine nature that God meets the world with “perfections proper to our finite natures,” that is, with initial aims particularized for the moment at hand. God not only gives to the world; the world also gives to God in the form of its achievements and failures.

Wedded to this God-world dynamic is the contribution that every event and, indeed, every human life, makes to the world process in terms of value. “What does haunt our imagination is that the immediate facts of present action pass into permanent significance for the Universe,” Whitehead states. “The insistent notion of Right and Wrong, Achievement and Failure, depends upon this background. Otherwise every activity is merely a passing whiff of insignificance” [49]. As process theologians have emphasized, our contributions to the universe are also our contributions to the life God without which the meaning of our actions finally dissolve in the perishing of time. In this way, process theology involves what Hartshorne called a “religion of contributionism,” according to which “[w]e contribute our feelings to others, and above all to the Universal Recipient of feeling, the One ‘to Whom all hearts are open’” [50]. For Hartshorne, as for other process theologians, this is a way of honoring the Great Commandment of the Judeo-Christian tradition: that we love God with all our being and becoming. That we contribute value beyond ourselves to others, and finally, to the all-inclusive divine whole of existence, where our contributions are forever cherished, this is what awakens a mode of meaning and satisfaction that is “deeper than joy or sorrow.”

Theologian Charles Hartshorne speaks at a lectern. Photo held in the
Center for Process Studies archives, courtesy of Donald Wayne Viney.

Conclusion

According to Whitehead, Christianity “has been true to its genius for keeping its metaphysics subordinate to the religious facts to which it appeals.” Throughout history, these facts have been expressed through various metaphysical visions that have remained far from static. In this way, Christianity has been a religion “seeking a metaphysic” [51]. Process theology is a tradition that utilizes Whitehead’s metaphysics as a fruitful means of re-expressing the richness of Christian faith for the contemporary world. This is not disingenuous to Whitehead, but faithful to his own concern for the “tale of the Christian religion” and his suggestions as to how philosophers and theologians might further its evolution. While the foregoing discussion has offered one means of considering this, other ways can also be employed based upon various other suggestions in Whitehead’s rich corpus. One thing is clear: process theology remains in process and its Whiteheadian foundations continue to call forth of novelty.

---

Notes

Brown et al., Process Philosophy and Chrisitan Thought, v.

Refer to Faber, God as Poet of the World, 31; Epperly, Process Theology, 15.

For an elucidation of some of these figures as relevant to different schools and methodologies internal to the development of process theology, see Faber, God as Poet of the World, ch. I, §1-8. For a variety of earlier expressions of the importance and potential of process theology by these and other figures, see Brown, et al., Process Philosophy and Christian Thought; Cousins, Process Theology; and Cargas and Lee, Religious Experience and Process Theology. For more recent expressions, see McDaniel and Bowman, Handbook of Process Theology.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 171, 161.

E.g., Sjöstedt-Hughes, Modes of Sentience, 105.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 170, 172.

Refer to Griffin, God and Religion in the Postmodern World; Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy; and Keller and Daniell, Process and Difference.

See, for example, Pittenger, Alfred North Whitehead, 45 and Mellert, What is Process Theology?, 17.

Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 20.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 21.

Ibid., 57.

Ibid., 341., cf. Adventures of Ideas, 20.

Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 179.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 169.

Ibid., 168.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 343.

See, for example, Griffin, Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism and Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism.

Refer to Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism; Gilkey, Nature, Reality, and God; and Barbour, Religion and Science.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 160.

Ibid., 166.

Ibid., 166-167.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 47.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 166.

Ibid.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 342.

Refer to Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes; Dombrowski, Whitehead’s Religious Thought; and Davis, From Force to Persuasion.

See, for example, Keller, Face of the Deep; Cobb, Christ in the Pluralistic Age; Pittenger, The Word Incarnate; Griffin, A Process Christology; Suchocki, God, Christ, Church; Divinity and Diversity; and Griffin, God, Power, Evil.

Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 103.

Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 190; Process and Reality, 345.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 34, 345.

Ibid., 345.

Refer to Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity and Dombrowski, A History of the Concept of God.

See, for example, Bracken and Suchocki, Trinity in Process.

See, for example, Ford, The Lure of God; Gnuse, The Old Testament and Process Theology; and Farmer, Beyond the Impasse.

Griffin, Process Theology, 175.

Whitehead, Process and Realty, 340.

Ibid., xiii-xiv.

Dombrowski, A History of the Concept of God, 248.

Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, 110.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 139-140.

Refer, for example, to Suchocki, The End of Evil; Cobb, “The Resurrection of the Soul;” Bracken, World Without End, Ford, The Lure of God; and Griffin, Process Theology.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 97.

Refer, for example, to Griffin, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality and James and Whitehead on Life After Death.

Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 111.

Rose, On Whitehead, 3.

Whitehead, “First Harvard Lecture,” 52.

Whitehead, Science and Philosophy, 98, 101-102.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 346.

Whitehead, Science and Philosophy, 102.

Quoted in Griffin, Process Theology, 171.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 39.

Works Cited

Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1997.

Bracken, Joseph A. and Marjorie Suchocki. Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God. New York, Continuum, 1997.

Bracken, Joseph. World Without End: Christian Eschatology from a Process Perspective. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005.

Cargas, Harry James and Bernard Lee. Religious Experience and Process Theology: The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern Movement. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.

Cobb, John B. Cobb Jr. Christ in the Pluralistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1975.

Cobb, John B. Jr. “The Resurrection of the Soul.” In John B. Cobb, Jr. Selected Writings from a Christian Theologian, 179-195. Edited by Tripp Fuller and Wm. Andrew Schwartz. Grasmere: SacraSage, 2023.

Cobb, John B. Jr. and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1976.

Cousins, Ewert H. Process Theology: Basic Writings. New York: Newman Press, 1971.

Davis, Andrew M., editor. From Force to Persuasion: Process-Relational Perspectives on Power and the God of Love. Eugene: Cascade, forthcoming, 2025.

Delwin Brown, Ralphe E. James. Jr., and Gene Reeves, eds. Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1971.

Dombrowski, Daniel A. A History of the Concept of God: A Process Approach. Albany: SUNY, 2017.

Dombrowski, Daniel A. Whitehead’s Religious Thought: From Mechanism to Organism, From Force to Persuasion. Albany: SUNY, 2017.

Epperly, Bruce. Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Faber, Roland. God as Poet of the World: Exploring Process Theologies. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Farmer, Ronald. Beyond the Impasse: The Promise of a Process Hermeneutic. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1977.

Ford, Lewis S. The Lure of God: A Biblical Background for Process Theism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1978.

Gilkey, Langdon. Nature, Reality, and the Sacred: The Nexus of Science and Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Gnuse, Robert. The Old Testament and Process Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000.

Griffin, David Ray. A Process Christology. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1973.

Griffin, David Ray. God and Religion in the Postmodern World. Albany: SUNY, 1988,

Griffin, David Ray. God, Power, Evil: A Process Theodicy. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Griffin, David Ray. James and Whitehead on Life After Death. Anoka: Process Century Press, 2022.

Griffin, David Ray. Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism: Rethinking Evil, Morality, Religious Experience, Religious Pluralism and the Academic Study of Religion. Claremont: Process Century Press, 2014.

Griffin, David Ray. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany: SUNY, 1997.

Griffin, David Ray. Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

Griffin, David Ray. Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts. Albany: SUNY, 2000.

Griffin, David Ray. Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy: An Argument for its Contemporary Relevance. Albany: SUNY, 2012.

Hartshorne, Charles. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany: SUNY, 1984.

Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Keller, Catherine. Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Keller, Catherine and Anne Daniell, Process and Difference: Between Cosmological and Poststructuralist Postmodernisms. Albany: SUNY, 2002.

McDaniel, Jay and Donna Bowman. Handbook of Process Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2006.

Mellert, Robert B. What is Process Theology?. New York: Paulist Press, 1975.

Pittenger, Norman. Alfred North Whitehead. Makers of Contemporary Theology. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969.

Pittenger, Norman. The Word Incarnate. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

Rose, Philip. On Whitehead. Cengage Learning, 2001.

Sjöstedt-Hughes, Peter. Modes of Sentience: Psychedelics, Metaphysics, Panpsychism. London: Psychedelic Press, 2021.

Suchocki, Marjorie. Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.

Suchocki, Marjorie. God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2017.

Suchocki, Marjorie. The End of Evil: Process Eschatology in Historical Context. Eugune: Wipf & Stock, 1988.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Whitehead, Alfred North. “First Lecture: September, 1924.” In Whitehead at Harvard, 1924-1925. Edited by Brian G. Henning and Joseph Petek, 41-55. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2021.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Modes of Thought. New York: Free Press, 1968.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Corrected edition. Edited by D.R. Griffin and D. Sherburne. New York: The Free Press, 1978.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Religion in the Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1925.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and Philosophy. Patterson: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1964.

---

*Dr. Andrew M. Davis is an American process philosopher, theologian, and scholar of the cosmological wonder. He is program director for the Center for Process Studies where he researches, writes, teaches, and organizes conferences on various aspects of process-relational thought. An advocate of metaphysics and meaning in a hospitable universe, he approaches philosophy as the endeavor to systematically think through what reality must be like because we are a part of it. He is author, editor, and co-editor of ten books including Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy; Process Cosmology: New Integrations in Science and Philosophy; and Metaphysics of Exo-Life: Toward a Constructive Whiteheadian Cosmotheology. Follow his work at andrewmdavis.info