God, Sin and Process Theology

God, Sin and Process Theology

by R.E. Slater

INTRODUCTION

According to the Oxford Dictionary "sin" is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law: "Such and such is a sin in the eyes of God."

Per Wikipedia, "In religious context, sin is a transgression against divine law or a law of the deities. Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. While sins are generally considered actions, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful.""

SIN IN A CHRISTIAN CONTEXT

In the Christian vocabulary the subject of sin falls under the concept of hamartiology. Hamartiology is the branch of theology that studies sin. It explores the nature, origin, consequences, and resolution of sin, primarily within a Christian framework. The word "hamartiology" comes from the Greek word "hamartia," which means "missing the mark" or "error".

• Definition of Sin - Hamartiology examines what constitutes sin, often defining it as a willful transgression of God's law or a failure to meet God's standard of righteousness.

• Origin of Sin - It investigates the origins of sin, often citing the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden as the point where sin entered the human race.

• Consequences of Sin - Hamartiology explores the effects of sin, including alienation from God, the consequences of sin on individuals, and the potential for eternal judgment.

• Resolution of Sin - Examination of how sin can be forgiven and addressed through salvation / atonement via confession and repentance - particularly within the context of Christian atonement through Jesus' sacrificial death.

• Key Concepts - Hamartiology also delves into related concepts like original sin, total depravity, and salvation - exploring their implications for human nature and relationship with God.

SIN IN A NON-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

Naturally one might ask whether it is possible to consider whether "sin" exists outside of a religious context? While the term "sin" is primarily a religious concept, it can be re-evaluated in a philosophical or ethical sense. This involves looking at actions and behaviors that violate a moral code or cause harm, even without religious beliefs.

• Philosophical Sin - According to Wikipedia, philosophical sin refers to morally bad acts that violate a natural order of reason, rather than divine law. This concept is used by societies whose aim is to create a moral, ethical ,and legal system independent of religious beliefs.

• Secular Sin - Some suggest that "secular sin" could be an insensitive or malevolent transgression that causes harm to another soul. This could include actions that violate a person's own standards of behavior, causing them regret and a loss of self-dignity.

• Moral Frameworks - Even without religion, individuals and societies can establish moral frameworks based on principles like empathy, fairness, just-ness, and the avoidance of harm. Actions that violate these principles could be considered "wrong" or "sinful" within that moral framework.

• Consequences - Whether or not actions are considered "sinful" in a religious sense, they often have personal / societal consequences. For example, causing harm to others or violating societal norms can lead to negative outcomes, regardless of religious beliefs.

WHY IS THERE SIN?

Instead of using the term sin perhaps we ask the question "Why is there harm, alienation, or disharmony?” This would imply action words like: Breakdown, disruption, disharmony, misalignment, estrangement, violence, or even destructive agency.

Such terms may explore why things go wrong—internally, relationally, socially, ecologically—without invoking the theological baggage of “sin” as divine offense or moral stain.

HOW MIGHT CHATGPT ANSWER THE QUESTION, "WHY IS THERE SIN?"

I. Reframing Sin: A Process-Based, Non-Theological Definition

Let’s begin by loosely defining “sin” as any action, structure, or pattern that inhibits the flourishing of relational life—whether among people, species, societies, or ecosystems.

In a non-theistic, non-Christian, or even post-metaphysical frame, this becomes:

“Sin” is that which undermines creative advance, wholeness, or harmony in relational becoming.

This allows sin to be understood not as cosmic rebellion, but as:

• A consequence of fragmentation or fear

• A failure of relatedness

• A misdirection of potential or misuse of freedom

---

II. Why Is There 'Sin' (or Disharmony)?

Let’s consider four broad, non-religious lenses:

---

1. Evolutionary & Biological Explanation

• Disharmony arises because competition, error, and aggression are part of evolutionary processes.

• Organisms—including humans—have drives for survival that can conflict with communal well-being.

• These behaviors aren’t “evil”; they’re maladaptive or contextually unfit in a social world.

➡️ Disharmony is an emergent consequence of life navigating complexity and survival.

---

2. Psychological & Developmental Explanation

• People act destructively due to:

  • Unmet needs (attachment, safety, recognition)

  • Trauma or wounding

  • Cognitive biases and emotional dysregulation

• “Sin” is not metaphysical evil but the expression of internal fragmentation, fear, or unresolved pain.

➡️ Destructive behavior is symptomatic of disconnection—from self, others, or the world.

---

3. Sociological & Structural Explanation

• Oppression, exploitation, and systemic harm are institutionalized forms of sin.

• These patterns persist due to power imbalances, historical trauma, or economic systems prioritizing profit over dignity.

➡️ Disharmony is often structurally embedded, not merely personal.

---

4. Process-Philosophical Explanation

• In Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, reality is always becoming—it is a web of interrelated actual occasions, constantly prehending one another.

• Evil or “sin” in this frame is:

  • The rejection of creative transformation (the lure of possibility)

  • The inhibition of novelty

  • The objectification of others (reducing them to fixed, controllable roles)

➡️ “Sin” arises when entities (individuals, societies) resist relational openness and fall into destructive patterns of self-isolation or dominance.

---

III. Key Summary Table

Term/Concept	Traditional View of Sin	Reframed, Non-Religious Equivalent
Sin	Offense against God	Breakdown in relational harmony
Evil	Rebellion against divine law	Misuse of freedom, alienation
Repentance	Confession of moral failure	Reorientation toward wholeness
Salvation	Deliverance from damnation	Restoration of connection and flow
Grace	Unmerited divine favor	Relational gift, forgiveness, openness

---

IV. So, Why Is There 'Sin'? (Without Sin)

We might say:

There is “sin” because creation is unfinished. Life is emergent, contingent, and full of tension. The freedom that allows love also allows harm. Missteps, alienation, and destruction are not signs of damnation—but of the struggle toward PROCESSUAL BECOMING.

In this sense, “sin” becomes a diagnosis of distortion, not a divine verdict. Processual terms, "sin" is the evolutionary response of living systems adjusting to the cosmos, to external environments, to one another, and - if sentient - to self awareness (sic, acts of consciousness).

A PROCESSUAL APPROACH

The image above is fairly typical of broad approaches to sin. Let's reframe these approaches using Process Philosophy. Let's begin by taking the traditional salvation spectrum from the image (Calvinists → Atheists) and reframe each view through the non-religious, process-informed lens we posited earlier, focusing on:

• Human becoming

• Relational harmony

• Ethical responsibility

• Creative transformation (instead of divine judgment)

We'll translate each viewpoint not in terms of sin and salvation, but in terms of how they address harm, alienation, and restoration in the human experience.

---

🌈 Reframing the “Spectrums of Salvation” through a Process-Based, Non-Theistic Lens

Original Label	Original Focus	Process Reframe
Calvinists	Predestined salvation/damnation	Life’s outcomes are pre-scripted; this leaves little room for novelty and reflects a static metaphysic where creativity is stifled by total (divine) determinism. Alienation is built-into one's view of God and life, and reconciliation is selective.
Arminianists	Choice-based salvation; time-limited decision	Emphasis on personal agency, but within a rigid dualism of right/wrong. Harm is understood as failure to choose correctly. Processual reframing: moral agency exists while becoming is ongoing and never final. Growth isn’t locked in by death.
Cafeteria Believers	Good people make it; vague criteria	Offers a relational ethic but is often morally thin. In process terms, this view intuitively values harmony and kindness but needs grounding in a broader metaphysical vision of interconnectedness.
Mormons	Tiered outcomes based on behavior + belief	Reflects a graded ontology of becoming, but still hierarchical. In process terms, this could evolve into a view where all beings are on a path of unfolding with  ontological hierarchy giving way to mutuality and co-flourishing.
Buddhists & Hindus	All reach liberation, but over lifetimes	This is the closest alignment to process thought: samsara is the rhythm of becoming; karma mirrors relational consequences. Salvation = awakening into harmony. Process embraces this as a cosmology of transformational continuity.
Atheists	No afterlife; meaning through memory or legacy	Rejects metaphysical constructs of salvation, yet emphasizes immanent ethics and contribution to shared becoming. Process agrees: what matters is the quality of becoming and the ripples we leave in relational space.

---

🔄 Key Translation Shift: From “Salvation” to “Creative Transformation”

Instead of asking:

“Who gets saved and how?”

We might rather ask:

“How do beings—human or otherwise—heal, grow, and co-create / co-evolve in an ever evolving complex cosmos?”

This makes the core concern not judgment, but:

• Coherence vs. fragmentation

• Freedom vs. rigidity

• Participation vs. alienation

• Creative advance vs. stuck repetition

---

🌀 Process Theology’s Alternative: A Spectrum of Becoming

We could propose a Process Spectrum of Relational Healing as such:

• Static Rigidity <----------> Open Relational Flow

• Pre-determined fates (e.g., Calvinism)  <----> Co-creative unfolding (e.g., Buddhist/Process/Relational ethics)

• Moralistic binary judgment <----> Compassionate, context-aware responsiveness

• Disembodied Heaven/Hell <---->Embodied transformation in every moment

God then is removed from the human view of divine Judge to the more holistic view of divine initiator and conflator of Healer, Helper, Co-Evolver, Redeemer, et al to One who lures all creation toward deeper relational harmony; who suffers with the world in its brokenness; and who persistently offers new possibilities for transformation, renewal, and creative advance in every moment of becoming."

The Processual God of Salvation

God is no longer Judge -
    upon a throne of absolutes.

But Is the Deep Relational Lure -

    within all things.

God is -

    the Whisper of healing,
    the Breath of becoming,
    the Companion of all creatures in their wandering.

God is the Healer of ruptures -

    not by force,
    but by God's nurturing presence;

God is the Helper of woes -

    not by forced intervention
    but by redemptive invitation.

God is a Co-Evolver -

    One who suffers the world's sorrow,

    yet sings new harmonies into each broken note.

God is not the ender of stories -
    but the Initiator who widens processual horizons.

God is not the punisher of sin -
    but the Wooer towards processual renewal.

God is...

    the One who never ceases to offer -

    a more beautiful next in an infinitely

    evolving complex series of "nexts".

R.E. Slater & ChatGPT
May 30, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved

SUMMATION

In summary, contrary to classical theology Process theology shifts the view of God from divine Judge to divine Saviour by emphasizing the following elements of renewal:

• God's divine companionship as versus the classic church view of condemnation.

• God heals relational brokenness through persuasive love as versus being viewed as the divine Punisher.

• God's divine redemption is not a legal pardon but an ongoing co-creative process moving towards atoning wholeness.

• God's continually lures towards redemptive restoration.

• God continually provides opportunities for relational harmony, wholeness, and sanity amid both humanity’s and the cosmos' deep unrest and fragmentation.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, Process Theology, atonement is not a single event, but the divine rhythm of at-one-ment - wherein God works relentless towards weaving broken relational threads into new patterns of beauty.

Rather than demanding self-imposed guilt, punishment, or flagellation, the processual God of loving restoration absorbs the pain of the world to transforms it - not by decree, but by invitation.

The tragedy of harm and suffering is very real, but never final. In God, the processual future always holds another possibility because God is a continuing presence in the life of his creation.

May every reader's path be full of widening horizons, compassionate presence, and the ongoing rhythm of creative becoming. Thank you for walking through these processual steps with me together. May peace be yours in every unfolding moment however difficult your trial.

R.E. Slater

May 30, 2025

These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” - John 16.33 (NASB)