What Does a God-in-Process Mean in relation to Providence?

A TimeFull God of Providence

Article Link here

by Thomas Jay Oord

December 26, 2019

Most Christian theologies assume God is essentially timeless. By ‘essentially timeless,’ I mean they assume God does not experience in relationship with others moment by moment. Many assume God ‘sees’ history – beginning to end – from an eternal now, without engaging in giving and receiving relations with creation.

Scholars offer various theories for how the timeless God acts. But each theory shares the view God is fundamentally nontemporal. The timeless God is ‘outside,’ ‘beyond,’ or ‘above’ time.

Open and relational theologies believe God experiences time sequentially — moment by moment — in relation with others. God’s experience is in process, we might say. God experienced the actual past, experiences in the present, and faces an open, yet-to-be-experienced future. God’s experience is timefull not timeless.

Some open and relational theologies say God always experiences in Trinity, as divine members give and receive love. Others say God always relates timefully with creation, never having existed without creaturely others. Some think God relates in Trinity and with creation.

Providence

The idea God everlastingly experiences time makes a difference for a Christian doctrine of providence. The implications of thinking God experiences moment by moment are vast. Exploring them all is not possible in this essay.

I will, however, point to four general characteristics of God-in-process views. I’ll explain what these characteristics typically mean for accounts of providence. I’ll address other characteristics in a future essay.

Open and relational theologies make better sense of the biblical witness, personal experiences, and the world science explores. They also make better sense of the idea love is God’s providential mode of operation.

Open and relational theologies vary. No set of ideas is embraced by every theologian who accepts the label. But family resemblances can be identified. These resemblances shape this view of providence that says God is timefull not timeless.

An Omniscient God Experiences

Open and relational views of providence take the reality of time seriously. Not only is existence fundamentally in process, but God also experiences the process of time. The living and loving Creator everlastingly relates with others moment by moment.

God-in-process views say God faces an undetermined future. That’s the meaning of ‘open’ in open and relational theologies. An undetermined future implies God cannot with certainty know now all that will occur. Exhaustive divine foreknowledge would only be possible if the future were settled, fixed, and complete.

Lack of foreknowledge, however, doesn’t mean God’s knowledge is limited. The future does not yet exist to be known. It does not provide information anyone could know. The future is inherently unknowable because not yet actual. So God should not be thought limited because not knowing what is inherently unknowable.

Open and relational theologians believe God is omniscient, however. God knows all that’s knowable. God knows the completed past, the unfolding present, and possibilities for the future.

This view of God’s omniscience makes better sense of how most Christians relate to God. Petitionary prayer makes better sense, for instance, if the future is open and not yet decided. Why ask God to do something if the future is already settled? To put it another way, petitionary prayer makes little sense if God is timelessly unresponsive.

God in One Sense Affected and Changing;
in Another Sense Unaffected and Unchanging

Many of the most influential Christian theologies say God is unaffected by creation. God is ‘impassible,’ to use the ancient language. God is unmoved.

By contrast, open and relational theologies say creatures affect God, because God is passible. Many today use the word “relational” to talk about how others influence God. This view fits biblical accounts that portray God responding to creation and feeling emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, joy) in light of what creatures do.

God undergoes changes in experience. Divine experience is mutable, dynamic, or interactive. God may even change plans – repent – in light of what creatures do. In fact, more than forty biblical passages say God does just that: repents. The idea that God interacts with creation also fits well with the covenants reported in Christian scripture.

Most open and relational thinkers make a distinction between God’s changing experience and unchanging nature. Some call this distinction divine “dipolarity.” I call it God’s “essence/experience binate.” The shared point is that God’s essence is impassible and immutable as eternally constant. But God’s experience is passible and mutable. The phrase ‘God in process’ refers to ongoing divine experiences not the unchanging divine essence.

We best understand biblical statements about an unchanging God (e.g., ‘I am the Lord who does not change’) in light of the immutable divine essence. But we understand passages describing God repenting, responding, expressing emotion, feeling compassion, or making covenants in light of God’s mutable experience.

Genuine but Limited Freedom

Some theologies deny that creatures have genuine (libertarian) freedom. Theologies that adopt divine determinism explicitly reject creaturely freedom. They assume a sovereign God controls all things. Other theologies say humans are free, and yet somehow God simultaneously controls them. This called “compatiblism.” Open and relational theologies say both determinism and compatibilism make no sense.

Open and relational theologies affirm that humans express genuine but limited freedom. Various biological, environmental, historical, epistemological, and other factors limit creatures. But humans freely choose in each moment among limited options arising from and suitable to their circumstances. We are not entirely controlled by God, atoms, genes, neurons, or any environmental factors. But we are influenced by them.

Some open and relational theologies assume other creatures express genuine but limited freedom. Still others speculate that less complex creatures have agency, self-organization, or spontaneity. Some embrace panpsychism, which affirms responsiveness in even the least complex entities of existence. But open and relational theologies differ among themselves about how far down the complexity scale creaturely agency goes.

Open and relational theologies assume God is not free to do some things. In addition to being unable to do the illogical, the divine nature prevents God from acting in other ways. God is not free to stop existing, for instance, because by nature God exists necessarily. [Nor is] God free to stop loving, cannot sin, etc., because God cannot contradict Godself.

Some open and relational theologies argue God’s freedom in relation to creation became constrained once God created the universe ex nihilo. Others say God’s freedom has always been constrained, because God has always been creating and relating to uncontrollable creatures. In either case, God has genuine but limited freedom. Whatever one means by ‘divine sovereignty,’ therefore, divine power must be understood in light of God’s nature, metaphysical laws, and/or what is logical.

God is not Culpable for Evil

Open and relational theologies think about God’s power differently than timeless God theologies. Because God does not predetermine or foreknow, for instance, God neither pre-causes nor foresees evil.

Process theology is best known for arguing God’s power is inherently limited. Some process theologians say these limitations come from the God-world relationship; others say from God’s relation to creativity; others say metaphysical laws constrain God. The strength of such claims is hard to overemphasize: the God process theology describes cannot coerce and is therefore not culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. God cannot cause evil nor singlehandedly prevent it!

Other open and relational theologies say God voluntarily self-limits. This means God ‘allows’ or ‘permits’ evil. Some believe God made a promise at creation never to intervene. Others say once creation exists, God’s power becomes limited.

Such claims partly answer questions of evil. They reject the idea evil is pre-decided or foreknown. But divine self-limitation theologies are not as strong as process theology when it comes to solving the problem of evil. Survivors wonder why the voluntarily self-limited God doesn’t occasionally un-self-limit, in the name of love, to prevent their suffering.

God-in-process views vary in their views about demons and a devil. Some reject the idea such ontological beings exist but acknowledge demonic non-agential principalities and powers. Others embrace demons and a devil as ontological beings. These theologies blame at least some disorder, tragedy, and evil to the activity of destructive agents.

Conclusion

In this essay, I’ve laid out four ways theologies of providence that assume God is timefull differ from theologies assuming God is timeless. Much more could be said, of course, and I’ll write a second essay laying out other ways.

It matters to think God experiences time rather than standing outside it.

* * * * * * * * * *

A TimeFull God Creates & Acts

with an End in Mind

Article Link here

by Thomas Jay Oord

January 30th, 2020

Many people think a timeless God created the universe and is its eschatological hope. By contrast, I think we make better sense of creation and eschatology if we think God is timefull rather than timeless.

In a previous essay, I identified four dimensions of an open and relational — “God-in-process” — view of providence. Here’s a link. In this essay, I continue my previous train of thought and address the beginning and end from a timefull God theological perspective.

God Continually Creates

Open and relational theologies affirm God is Creator. God created in the past and creates in the present. God continually creates (creatio continua). Creation depends moment-by-moment upon divine creativity.

The idea God continually creates fits nicely with the general theory of evolution. The vast majority of contemporary biologists say new species emerged slowly over a long period, thanks to various forces and factors.

Most open and relational theologies agree with the general theory of evolution. But they claim God acts in the evolutionary process. A timefull God creates through evolution (and other forces).

God also empowers creatures to co-create alongside their Creator. This view fits nicely with biblical claims about God calling creation to create (Genesis 1) and contemporary scientific views that speak of the emergence of new species. God’s creating is noncoercive. Random genetic mutations, natural selection, creaturely self-organization, evolutionary dead ends, and natural evils are compatible with God’s uncontrolling, creative love.

Creation out of Nothing?

Open and relational theologies differ on whether God ever creates from a ‘blank slate,’ i.e., out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Although the view isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, some affirm creation from nothing for metaphysical reasons. Creatio ex nihilo implies that creation depends upon God. It also implies that God differs from creation in a crucial way.

Other God-in-process theologies say God never faced a completely blank slate. They reject creatio ex nihilo, and they think God everlastingly creates. God differs from creation in some ways but not others.

Most who accept creatio ex nihilo and reject it affirm with contemporary science that this universe began with a big bang roughly 13.8 billion years ago. And they affirm with Scripture that God is Creator. (For more on the diverse views, see a book of scholarly essay I edited: Theologies of Creation: Creatio ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals.)

God-in-process views offer a methodological advantage for thinking about theology and science. These views says efforts to understand existence require both scientific and theological contributions. Any scientific theory claiming to explain reality fully without reference to God is false. Any theology claiming to explain reality fully without reference to nature is false.

We need both science and theology to make sense of life.

God Has Plans but No Blueprint

Most theologies assume God’s providence follows a foreordained and foreknown plan. The God who is outside time predetermined creation’s current events and future outcomes. Or this God foreknows – in some mysterious way – precisely how history plays out.

From a timeless God perspective, divine providence is like a detailed blueprint portraying all events in advance.

Open and relational theologies deny that God foreordains or foreknows exhaustively. The future is open, and the present becomes what a timefull God and creation decide. An uncontrolling God cannot guarantee or foreknow all outcomes.

The God of open and relational theology has plans and desires, however. God leads creation toward fulfilling them. This is not the God of deism watching from a distance. Nor is this an aloof and detached deity.

God makes plans for love to win. And God empowers creatures to cooperate in fulfilling those plans. God works in each situation to call, persuade, or command creatures to choose well-being.

God-in-process models might think of providence like an improvisational play. The play has a Director and general direction. But creaturely actors play essential roles in deciding how the plot unfolds.

God-in-process models might also think of providence like a jazz session. Each musician contributes, and there’s a general movement toward the possibility of beautiful art. But the artists determine together how the music develops.

These models might also think of providence like a family. A perfectly loving Parent nurtures and instructs children. This Parent directs the whole family toward well-being. But the family’s health depends on the decisions of all members, not just the Parent.

(For more, see the blog essay, “Ways to Think about Providence.“)

God Acts with the End in Mind

Open and relational theologies embrace diverse eschatologies. Their views on the end contrast those theologies that assume God is timeless. Divine providence does not proceed according to a preset eschatological scheme.

Open and relational theologies describe a God motivated by persuasive love. God imagines a better future and calls creation to embrace the best in each moment, depending on what’s possible. (For what this means in terms of heaven, hell, or annihilation, see my “Relentless Love” view of the afterlife.)

Those who embrace love cooperate with God’s work to redeem all creation. Their cooperation promotes overall well-being. Those that fail to cooperate reap the natural negative consequences that come from saying no to the well-being God offers. Their lack of cooperation negatively affects others too.

If God foreordained and foreknew all that will occur, the future must already be settled, complete, and fixed. If the future is complete, creaturely decisions cannot be made freely in relation to possible futures. There is only one way things can play out.

Without genuine creaturely freedom, it’s hard to imagine how creatures are morally or socially responsible. Without social and moral responsibility, it’s hard to see how creatures ultimately matter. God-outside-of-time views are difficult to reconcile with our the deep intuition that what happens in our own lives makes an ultimate difference.

Open and relational theologies say creatures make a real difference to how history unfolds. Our lives count.

Conclusion

How one believes God relates with time matters. Timefull theologies offer plausible views of how God created and creates. They also offer hopeful views of what the future can be.

Is God Relational? If So, How Does This Affect His Impassibility?

Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. ... However, in Christianity there is an ancient dispute about the impassibility of God (see Nestorianism). - from Wikipedia, "Impassibility"

A Standard Christian Creed of the Church

Recently I received an email from Tom Oord discussing the various aspects in which God is both passible and impassible. This subject seems to be generated whenever one speaks to the "Relationality between God and creation." Especially when framed by Process Theology which speaks to the idea that God is experiencing creation's timefulness with us rather than apart from it, above it, or beyond it.

These questions arise when thinking of whether God is primarily or secondarily affected by the creation He has made. If He is affected primarily by it then we are speaking to a process-based theology; if secondarily, then we are back to Calvinism's old legacies of the problem of sin and evil (theodicy) amongst other very basic questions about the Person and Work of God.

Certainly this topic is more complex than these simple introductory notes but to think of God as primarily relational seems to help us humans who are also primarily relational. Here are some examples of this relational puzzle:

• We are not things, or automotons, or non-beings. We are not bodies housing souls, or souls clothed by bodies, but whole beings composed both of soul and body. This would speak to the Jewish idea of wholeness vs. the Greek-Hellenistic idea of di/trichotomy;

• Moreover, man's essence is not found in his soul/spirit apart from his body as taught by Greek Stoicism for one; in Paul's day this work out in the books of Romans et al as the problem of antinomianism in the early church;

• In parallel with these adverse teachings are the many derivations of Persian Zoroastrianism which have subtended into the Christian gnosticisms of pelagianism primarily disputed in the third and fourth centuries of the church through to the Medieval Ages and even into contemporary times (cf. various Christian sects, denominations, and worship styles arranged around this topic) where Jesus is viewed as less than God because He was a man (or, conversely, more than a man because He was God).

The offshoots from the doctrine of relationality can become a doctrinal maze leading away from the pith of the idea of what humanity is in its essence. But, in sum, subtracting all the noise that can arise here, we are essentially beings with a heart, soul, body, and mind bearing a sense of self in relationship to the God of the universe as well as to creation itself.

By thinking of God as primarily relational than it also can speak to the idea that God has led out by divine decree and act through love ahead of all other attributes such as justice. Knowing that all things - whether metaphysical or physical - have been led out in love resolves a lot of questions but essentially reinforces the idea that God is first-and-foremost a relational God.

As such, for all these reasons, Calvinism has pushed back with the the paradigm that if God is relational than He is passible and not the God of the bible which speaks of Him as impassible. Certainly this is an untrue assertion by a system dealing with in its core/centeredness of a God more Force than Person, more Transcendent than Here (Jesus), more Other than Father, Son, and Spirit.

Further, the doctrine of Calvinism must lead out in God's judgment untempered by His grace than by God's grace which tempers His judgment (sic, the Law v Grace discussions of the church here). For all these initial reactions a Relational, Loving God is unwanted by church systems built up on doctrines of fear, uncertainty, guilt, and second-guessing (our future, for instance, when doing wrong and wondering how God will later punish us). A RELATIONAL Process Theology subverts all this, and when it does, comes under fire from the very systems which cannot answer the most basic questions of theology without reasserting their own creedal structures opposed in their core to the idea of God's relationality.

Thus my interest many years ago to revisit Arminianism to discover if Calvinism could be biblically replaced without any lose of God in all His love, divinity, power, and presence. After years of research and investigation (I've indexed many of these under topical discussions to the right) I found that I could. And when preceding forward then discovered Relational Process Thought (I stress "relational" because without this aspect Process Thought itself can be dry and barren).

Which brings us back to the subject of God's divine impassibility vs His passibility. I would submit that God is both:

God is Other than we are as relational beings but He is primarily Relational in the fullness of His being. To say it another way, God is wholly relational at all times and in His Otherness is also found to be fully relational. This retains the mystery of God while keeping to the Personhood of the Tri-une God at all times.

If we were to draw a circle of the universe and place all creation within that circle we could then draw another larger circle encompassing the creation-circle. This second, larger circle is the God of creation who exists both within our creation-circle and outside of it. This illustration allows God His "Otherness" if you will. But I would also like to think of the God-circle as being more than just itself. In truth, God is not only found "within" His God-circle but in all the empty space "outside" of the God-circle. This then would capture the idea behind classical theism while including the idea of panentheism as illustrated below which is central to the idea of Process Theology.

And this is the God we worship. A God "Who"! (not "What"!) is Truth, and Light, and Beauty. Who loves us, spawned us, is WITH us, and saves us. He is God for the very reason that He is. Whose Being gives all of creation its purpose and meaning driven by His Divine will to re-center all back to Himself in fullness through free will allegiance (the idea of a submitting partnership between both the Divine and the Human, if you well).

This is the process of redemption. It is a divine process which refuses to let go of creation until it is fully and completely united within the fellowship of the Godhead even as that fellowship is partially displayed now in the time, place, and loci of our very lives when we seek God and allow Him His gracious rule in our lives.

R.E. Slater

September 5, 2017

* * * * * * * * * *

A Relational God -- Thomas Jay Oord 

September 5, 2017

View in browser 

Affirming a Relational God

I'm find puzzling those who think God is impassible in all respects. By "impassible," I mean the idea that God is not affected by give-and-receive relations with us.

As I read Scripture and think about the logic of love, it seems obvious that God is passible/relational. I don't think all aspects of God are affected by creatures. For instance, I think God's eternal nature is unaffected and immutable. Affirming an unchanging and impassible nature seems important if we are to say God's love is steadfast.

But I don't understand why some are reluctant to say God is relational in ANY respect. The biblical witness strongly suggests otherwise. We creatures influence our Creator.

I find it most helpful to say God is impassible in some ways and passible in others. To do this, I distinguish between God's timeless nature and God's time-full experience. God's nature is impassible and immutable. But God's moment-by-moment experiential life is passible and relational.

I'm nearly finished writing an essay affirming "strong divine passibility." As I use the phrase, it means that a necessary aspect of God is everlastingly passible.

My essay will appear in a "4 Views" book on divine impassibility. If you've got any advice for me as I complete my essay, let me know asap.

I'm attaching a few links to recent blog essays on God's relationality. I'd love to hear your thoughts on them too!

Tom

Recent Blog Essay: "God IS Relational"

Recent Blog Essay: "What does 'God is Relational' Mean?"

Recent Blog Essay: "The Jesus Argument for a Relational God"

---

New Book Coming Out this Month:

Theologians and Philosophers Using Social Media: Advice, Tips, and Testimonials

I've been working on a major book project that includes more than 90 theologians, philosophers, biblical scholars, and religious leaders. Each essayist describes how they use social media and technology. The book is big: 460 pages!

This is the kind of resource just about everyone will want, because it provides tips and advice. It's more of a practical "how to" book than a theoretical "here's why" book. Some of the most influential scholars and leaders write essays, along with some rising stars.

The book is published by SacraSage Press and will be available in print and as an ebook. Look for Theologians and Philosophers Using Social Media by mid September on Amazon and other booksellers.

- Tom

Process Studies - Introduction To Process Philosophy

R.E. Slater side note

Around the time Process Studies was beginning there was another movement going on known as "Boston Personalism" that has been lost to the historical records but seems to have had a very large effect upon the germ of Process Theology. For more on this subject go to the article in Relevancy22 titled: "Roger Olson - Is God Infinite or Personal? The Rise of Boston Personalism as Foundation to (but different from) Process Theology and Revival in Open and Relational Theology."

Wikipedia's link on Personalism describes it as the following but "personally" I like Roger Olson's introduction to the subject far better.

Personalism is a philosophical school of thought searching to describe the uniqueness of 1) God as Supreme Person or 2) a human person in the world of nature, specifically in relation to [other humans and] animals.

One of the main points of interest of personalism is human subjectivity or self-consciousness, experienced in a person's own acts and inner happenings—in "everything in the human being that is internal, whereby each human being is an eyewitness of its own self".

Other principles:

• Persons have unique value, and
• Only persons have free will

According to idealism there is one more principle

• Only persons are real (in the ontological sense).

As an introduction to Process Philosophy I've listed several video channels that are fun to watch, informative and helpful in assessing where this branch of theology has grown and is going over the past decades.

As an Arminian Christian you'll love these videos but as a Calvinist Christian you won't. Having grown up as a Baptist in the mixed environment of both Calvinism (God Rules All) and Arminianism (God Gives Free Will) I appreciate both approaches but have lately, these past ten years, moved away from the excesses of Calvinism to a stronger position of Arminianism.

Consequently, "Process Theology + Piety + Personalism (it seems)" has opened up another world of perspective upon the subject of God, the Bible, and humanity's role in God's Sovereign plan. A plan more marked in my mind with "providing for creation's needs, giving up divine rule, and seeking strength through weakness (the Cross, Church, our growth of Faith, etc)" than it is by God "pre-determining all (closed futures), insisting on His divine adulation (idolatry), and showing strength through judgment (rule and prophetic schematas)." The first approach is guided by Divine Love. The second by Divine Judgment. I much prefer the idea that judgment is born out of love rather than love from judgment.

As further resource, throughout Relevancy22 you will find hundreds of topics dealing with hundreds of perspectives between the correlation of these ideas as they conflict with, and presage, each other. Thus Relevancy22's birth. To lend to the church another theological viewpoint into the halls of its experience with God and this world. And one, for myself, that seems to make a lot of sense giving a better understanding of God, the reading of His Word, the juxtaposition of sin and evil to the will of God, and the difficulty of faith and faith living in this life.

Thank you,

R.E. Slater

August 12, 2017

* * * * * * *

"The Philosopher's: (YouTube) Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_N01_L-fiORG_voNXvv7Kw

"The Philosopher's" Video Lists:

https://www.youtube.com/user/kasperjo28/videos

Published on Jun 12, 2016

An introduction to process philosophy. A short documentary on process philosophy and process thinking - by the danish process philosopher Kasper Johansen. This documentary was filmed in the spirit of process thinking.

Published on Jul 22, 2017

A further explanation of what is process philosophy. - This video is a continuation of a documentary I made on process philosophy last summer. This is a more indepht documentary on process thinking and how to understand process philosophy.

Published on Aug 8, 2017

This video is about the philosophical method of walking and doing philosophy. It helps to move your thoughts physically. This is what learned during a session of walking and philosophizing in deep in the woods of Northern Sweden.

Published on Dec 10, 2015

What is Process Theology?

Interview with Thomas Jay Oord at the Whitehead Conference in Claremont (CA), June 5th 2015.

Published on Jan 10, 2016

A short introduction to the process philosophy & process theology of Alfred North Whitehead (*1861, †1947), containing several photos and 4 speakers, describing some core hypotheses of Whitehead's metaphysics. The speakers are: John B. Cobb, David Ray Griffin, Charles Hartshorne and Rupert Sheldrake.

* * * * * * *

Process theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Not to be confused with Process Church.

Process theology is a type of theology developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947) process philosophy, most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) and John B. Cobb (b. 1925). Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought."

For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to affect and be affected by temporal processes, contrary to the forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable), and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theology does not deny that God is in some respects eternal (will never die), immutable (in the sense that God is unchangingly good), and impassible (in the sense that God's eternal aspect is unaffected by actuality), but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible.[1]

According to Cobb, "process theology may refer to all forms of theology that emphasize event, occurrence, or becoming over against substance [being]. In this sense theology influenced by [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel is process theology just as much as that influenced by Whitehead. This use of the term calls attention to affinities between these otherwise quite different traditions."[2][3] Also Pierre Teilhard de Chardin can be included among process theologians,[4] even if they are generally understood as referring to the Whiteheadian/Hartshornean school, where there continue to be ongoing debates within the field on the nature of God, the relationship of God and the world, and immortality.

History

Various theological and philosophical aspects have been expanded and developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin.[5] A characteristic of process theology each of these thinkers shared was a rejection of metaphysics that privilege "being" over "becoming", particularly those of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.[6] Hartshorne was deeply influenced by French philosopher Jules Lequier and by Swiss philosopher Charles Secrétan who were probably the first ones to claim that in God liberty of becoming is above his substantiality.

Process theology soon influenced a number of Jewish theologians including Rabbis Max Kadushin, Milton Steinberg and Levi A. Olan, Harry Slominsky and, to a lesser degree, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Today some rabbis who advocate some form of process theology include Bradley Shavit Artson, Lawrence A. Englander, William E. Kaufman, Harold Kushner, Anton Laytner, Michael Lerner, Gilbert S. Rosenthal, Lawrence Troster, Donald B. Rossoff, Burton Mindick, and Nahum Ward.

Alan Anderson and Deb Whitehouse have applied process theology to the New Thought variant of Christianity.

The work of Richard Stadelmann has been to preserve the uniqueness of Jesus in process theology.

God and the World relationship.

Whitehead's classical statement is a set of antithetical statements that attempt to avoid self-contradiction by shifting them from a set of oppositions into a contrast:

• It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.

• It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.

• It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.

• It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

• It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.

• It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.[7]

Themes

• God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.[8]

• Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.

• The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.[9]

• God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.

• Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.

• Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.[10]

• Dipolar theism is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence).[11]

Relationship to liberation theology

Henry Young combines Black theology and Process theology in his book Hope in Process. Young seeks a model for American society that goes beyond the alternatives of integration of Blacks into white society and Black separateness. He finds useful the process model of the many becoming one. Here the one is a new reality that emerges from the discrete contributions of the many, not the assimilation of the many to an already established one.[12]

Monica Coleman has combined Womanist theology and Process theology in her book Making a Way Out of No Way. In it, she argues that 'making a way out of no way' and 'creative transformation' are complementary insights from the respective theological traditions. She is one of many theologians who identify both as a process theologian and feminist/womanist/ecofeminist theologian, which includes persons such as Sallie McFague, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki.[13][14]

C. Robert Mesle, in his book Process Theology, outlines three aspects of a process theology of liberation:[15]

• There is a relational character to the divine which allows God to experience both the joy and suffering of humanity. God suffers just as those who experience oppression and God seeks to actualize all positive and beautiful potentials. God must, therefore, be in solidarity with the oppressed and must also work for their liberation.

• God is not omnipotent in the classical sense and so God does not provide support for the status quo, but rather seeks the actualization of greater good.

• God exercises relational power and not unilateral control. In this way God cannot instantly end evil and oppression in the world. God works in relational ways to help guide persons to liberation.

Relationship to pluralism.

Process theology affirms that God is working in all persons to actualize potentialities. In that sense each religious manifestation is the Divine working in a unique way to bring out the beautiful and the good. Additionally, scripture and religion represent human interpretations of the divine. In this sense pluralism is the expression of the diversity of cultural backgrounds and assumptions that people use to approach the Divine.[16]

Relationship to the doctrine of the incarnation

Further information: Incarnation (Christianity)

Contrary to Christian orthodoxy, the Christ of mainstream process theology is not the mystical and historically exclusive union of divine and human natures in one hypostasis, the eternal Logos of God uniquely enfleshed in and identifiable as the man Jesus. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all people when they act according to a call from God. Jesus fully and in every way responded to God's call, thus the person of Jesus is theologically understood as "the divine Word in human form." Jesus is not singularly or essentially God, but he was perfectly synchronized to God at all moments of life.[17] Cobb expressed the Incarnation in process terms that link it to his understanding of actualization of human potential: "'Christ' refers to the Logos as incarnate hence as the process of creative transformation in and of the world".

Debate about process theology's conception of God’s power

A criticism of process theology is that it offers a too severely diminished conception of God’s power. Process theologians argue that God does not have unilateral, coercive control over everything in the universe. In process theology, God cannot override a person’s freedom, nor perform miracles that violate the laws of nature, nor perform physical actions such as causing or halting a flood or an avalanche. Critics argue that this conception diminishes divine power to such a degree that God is no longer worshipful.[5][18][19][20][21]

The process theology response to this criticism is that the traditional Christian conception of God is actually not worshipful as it stands, and that the traditional notion of God’s omnipotence fails to make sense.[22]

First, power is a relational concept. It is not exerted in a vacuum, but always by some entity A over some other entity B.[23] As such, power requires analysis of both the being exerting power, and the being that power is being exerted upon. To suppose that an entity A (in this case, God), can always successfully control any other entity B is to say, in effect, that B does not exist as a free and individual being in any meaningful sense, since there is no possibility of its resisting A if A should decide to press the issue.[24]

Mindful of this, process theology makes several important distinctions between different kinds of power. The first distinction is between “coercive” power and “persuasive” power.[25] Coercive power is the kind that is exerted by one physical body over another, such as one billiard ball hitting another, or one arm twisting another. Lifeless bodies (such as the billiard balls) cannot resist such applications of physical force at all, and even living bodies (like arms) can only resist so far, and can be coercively overpowered. While finite, physical creatures can exert coercive power over one another in this way, God—lacking a physical body—cannot (not merely will not) exert coercive control over the world.[26]

But process theologians argue that coercive power is actually a secondary or derivative form of power, while persuasion is the primary form.[25] Even the act of self-motion (of an arm, for instance) is an instance of persuasive power. The arm may not perform in the way a person wishes it to—it may be broken, or asleep, or otherwise unable to perform the desired action. It is only after the persuasive act of self-motion is successful that an entity can even begin to exercise coercive control over other finite physical bodies. But no amount of coercive control can alter the free decisions of other entities; only persuasion can do so.[27]

For example, a child is told by his parent that he must go to bed. The child, as a self-conscious, decision-making individual, can always make the decision to not go to bed. The parent may then respond by picking up the child bodily and carrying him to his room, but nothing can force the child to alter his decision to resist the parent's directive. It is only the body of the child that can be coercively controlled by the body of the physically stronger parent; the child's free will remains intact. While process theologians argue that God does not have coercive power, they also argue that God has supreme persuasive power, that God is always influencing/persuading us to choose the good.

One classic exchange over the issue of divine power is between philosophers Frederick Sontag and John K. Roth and process theologian David Ray Griffin.[28] Sontag and Roth argued that the process God’s inability to, for instance, stop the genocide at Auschwitz meant that God was not worthy of worship, since there is no point in worshipping a God that cannot save us from such atrocities. Griffin’s response was as follows:

One of the stronger complaints from Sontag and Roth is that, given the enormity of evil in the world, a deity that is [merely] doing its best is not worthy of worship. The implication is that a deity that is not doing its best isworthy of worship. For example, in reference to Auschwitz, Roth mocks my God with the statement that “the best that God could possibly do was to permit 10,000 Jews a day to go up in smoke.” Roth prefers a God who had the power to prevent this Holocaust but did not do it! This illustrates how much people can differ in what they consider worthy of worship. For Roth, it is clearly brute power that evokes worship. The question is: is this what should evoke worship? To refer back to the point about revelation: is this kind of power worship consistent with the Christian claim that divinity is decisively revealed in Jesus? Roth finds my God too small to evoke worship; I find his too gross.[28]

The process argument, then, is that those who cling to the idea of God’s coercive omnipotence are defending power for power’s sake, which would seem to be inconsistent with the life of Jesus, who Christians believe died for humanity’s sins rather than overthrow the Roman empire. Griffin argues that it is actually the God whose omnipotence is defined in the “traditional” way that is not worshipful.[28]

One other distinction process theologians make is between the idea of “unilateral” power versus “relational” power.[29] Unilateral power is the power of a king (or more accurately, a tyrant) who wishes to exert control over his subjects without being affected by them.[30] However, most people would agree that a ruler who is not changed or affected by the joys and sorrows of his subjects is actually a despicable ruler and a psychopath.[31] Process theologians thus stress that God’s power is relational; rather than being unaffected and unchanged by the world, God is the being most affected by every other being in the universe.[32] As process theologian Bob Mesle puts it:

Relational power takes great strength. In stark contrast to unilateral power, the radical manifestations of relational power are found in people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus. It requires the willingness to endure tremendous suffering while refusing to hate. It demands that we keep our hearts open to those who wish to slam them shut. It means offering to open up a relationship with people who hate us, despise us, and wish to destroy us.[29]

In summation, then, process theologians argue that their conception of God’s power does not diminish God, but just the opposite. Rather than see God as one who unilaterally coerces other beings, judges and punishes them, and is completely unaffected by the joys and sorrows of others, process theologians see God as the one who persuades the universe to love and peace, is supremely affected by even the tiniest of joys and the smallest of sorrows, and is able to love all beings despite the most heinous acts they may commit. God is, as Whitehead says, “the fellow sufferer who understands.”[33]

Process theologians

Bradley Shavit Artson

Thomas Berry

Charles Birch

Joseph A. Bracken

Philip Clayton

John B. Cobb

Monica Coleman

Bruce G. Epperly

Roland Faber

Paul S. Fiddes

Stephen T. Franklin

Terence E. Fretheim

Franklin I. Gamwell

David Ray Griffin

Charles Hartshorne

Nancy R. Howell

Tony Jones

William E. Kaufman

Catherine Keller

Harold Kushner

Michael Lerner

C. Robert Mesle

Jay McDaniel

Schubert M. Ogden

Thomas Jay Oord

Blake Ostler

Arthur Peacocke

Norman Pittenger

Richard Rice

Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki

Alfred North Whitehead

Daniel Day Williams

George V. Pixley

See also

Conceptions of God

Essence–Energies distinction

Liberal naturalism

New Thought

Open theism

Panentheism

Philosophical theism

Philosophical theology

Postliberal theology

Process philosophy

Synergism (theology)

Theopoetics

Earthseed

Neo-Hasidism

References

1. Viney, Donald W. "Process Theism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
2. Cobb Jr., John B. (1982). Process Theology as Political Theology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-664-24417-0. ISBN 0-66424417-3.
3. O'Regan, Cyril (1994). The Heterodox Hegel. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 448: "Any relation between Process Theology and Hegelian ontotheology needs to be argued. Such argument has become more conspicuous in recent years". ISBN 978-0-791-42005-8. ISBN 0-79142005-1.
4. Bonting, Sjoerd Lieuwe (2005). Creation and Double Chaos. Science and Theology in Discussion. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-451-41838-5. ISBN 1-45141838-8.
5. John W. Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 342.
6. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Process Philosophy", retrieved September 6, 2014.
7. Whitehead, Process and Reality, Corrected Ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 348.
8. Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes(Albany: State University of New York, 1984), 20-26.
9. John Cobb and David Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 14-16, chapter 1.
10. Hartshorne, 32-36.
11. Donald Wayne Viney, Charles Hartshorne, "12. Dipolar Theism", retrieved September 6, 2014.
12. http://processandfaith.org/writings/article/process-theology
13. Center for Process Studies, "CPS Co-directors," retrieved September 6, 2014.
14. "The Body of God - An Ecological Theology," retrieved September 6, 2014.
15. C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1993), 65-68, 75-80.
16. Mesle, 101.
17. Mesle, 106.
18. editor, John S. Feinberg ; John S. Feinberg, general (2006). No one like Him : the doctrine of God ([Rev. ed.]. ed.). Wheaton. Ill.: Crossway Books. p. 178. ISBN 978-1581348118.
19. Roger E. Olson, “Why I am Not a Process Theologian,” last modified December 4, 2013, Patheos.org, accessed May 7, 2014.
20. David Basinger, Divine Power in Process Theism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), 14.
21. Al Truesdale, God Reconsidered (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2010), 21.
22. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 268.
23. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 265.
24. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 267.
25. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 9.
26. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 8.
27. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 6.
28. David Ray Griffin, "Creation Out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil," in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen Davis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 135.
29. Robert Mesle, “Relational Power,” JesusJazzBuddhism.org, accessed May 7, 2014.
30. Schubert M. Ogden, The Reality of God and Other Essays (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992), 51.
31. Charles Hartshorne, "Kant's Traditionalism," in Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers: An Evaluation of Western Philosophy, ed. Charles Hartshorne (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 174.
32. Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 58.
33. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 351.

Further reading

• Bruce G. Epperly Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (NY: T&T Clark, 2011, ISBN 978-0-567-59669-7) This is "perhaps the best in-depth introduction to process theology available for non-specialists."

• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki's God Christ Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology, new rev. ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989, ISBN 0-8245-0970-6) demonstrates the practical integration of process philosophy with Christianity.

• C. Robert Mesle's Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993, ISBN 0-8272-2945-3) is an introduction to process theology written for the layperson.

• Jewish introductions to classical theism, limited theism and process theology can be found in A Question of Faith: An Atheist and a Rabbi Debate the Existence of God (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994, ISBN 1-56821-089-2) and The Case for God (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8272-0458-2), both written by Rabbi William E. Kaufman. Jewish variations of process theology are also presented in Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Anchor Books, 2004, ISBN 1-4000-3472-8) and Sandra B. Lubarsky and David Ray Griffin, eds., Jewish Theology and Process Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, ISBN 0-7914-2810-9).

• Christian introductions may be found in Schubert M. Ogden's The Reality of God and Other Essays (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-87074-318-X); John B. Cobb, Doubting Thomas: Christology in Story Form (New York: Crossroad, 1990, ISBN 0-8245-1033-X); Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984, ISBN 0-87395-771-7); and Richard Rice, God's Foreknowledge & Man's Free Will (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1985; rev. ed. of the author's The Openness of God, cop. 1980; ISBN 0-87123-845-4). In French, the best introduction may be André Gounelle, Le Dynamisme Créateur de Dieu: Essai sur la Théologie du Process, édition revue, modifiée et augmentee (Paris: Van Dieren, 2000, ISBN 2-911087-26-7).

• For essays exploring the relation of process thought to Wesleyan theology, see Bryan P. Stone and Thomas Jay Oord, Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood, 2001, ISBN 0-687-05220-3).

• The most important work by Paul S. Fiddes is The Creative Suffering of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); see also his short overview "Process Theology," in A. E. McGrath, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 472–76.

• Norman Pittenger's thought is exemplified in his God in Process (London: SCM Press, 1967, LCC BT83.6 .P5), Process-Thought and Christian Faith (New York: Macmillan Company, 1968, LCC BR100 .P615 1968), and Becoming and Belonging (Wilton, CT: Morehouse Publications, 1989, ISBN 0-8192-1480-9).

• Constance Wise's Hidden Circles in the Web: Feminist Wicca, Occult Knowledge, and Process Thought (Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-7591-1006-9) applies process theology to one variety of contemporary Paganism.

• Michel Weber, « Shamanism and proto-consciousness », in René Lebrun, Julien De Vos et É. Van Quickelberghe (éds), Deus Unicus, Turnhout, Brepols, coll. Homo Religiosus série II, 14, 2015, pp. 247–260.

External links

• The Center for Process Studies

• Process and FaithReference works

Reference Works

• Donald Viney, "Process Theism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• John B. Cobb, Jr., "Process Theology," Religion-Online

• Byrne, Peter; Houlden, Leslie (2013). "Process Theology". Companion Encyclopedia of Theology. London: Routledge. ISBN 1-13492200-0; ISBN 978-1-13492200-0.

• An encyclopedic-type article

• Michel Weber and Will Desmond (eds.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Frankfurt / Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008 (ISBN 978-3-938793-92-3).