Examining Thornton Wilder's Question of "Determinism," (an Introduction to Parts 1-5)

 

The Bridge

A roped bridge spanning a deep chasm gave way,

Five lives were lost - "Was this the will of God?"

Or, "Cost of ravaged time on fraying hemp-thread?"

Asked the friar as his parish shook their saged heads.

The burdened friar searched the pasts of each

Fallen victim for proof or plan that might show

God's justice within each life of fey unfortunate;

How their days were traced, their cares laid bare,

Though no divine pattern could hold them there.

Yet in the failing of the aged, neglected span,

A silence deeper than death's deadly chasm rang,

Hurtling downwards upon a friar's pained heart,

Whether fate, or wrath, or heavenly design,

To echo within sudden tragedy's gaping maw....

And as he looked and prayed he startled found,

Love had shaped each victim's meager course,

As breath gave way there loved remained,

Not nakedly nailed to heaven’s door, but in

Determined assent woven within the core.

Plainly, The Bridge was not God’s answer sent -

But became the space where love had leant,

Subtle instruction forsaken reasoned query,

Slipping all answers 'cept Loving Care,

as aftermath to a sorrow's befallen tragedy.

R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

May 11, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

References to be Read ahead of this article:

• Thornton Wilder - "Our Town"
• Thornton Wilder - The Bridge of San Luis Rey
• Quotes from Thornton Wilder's, "The Bridge of San Luis Rey"

* * * * * * *

Thornton Wilder's Question of  "Determinism"

an Introduction to Parts 1-5

by R.E. Slater

When reading Thornton Wilder's "Bridge of San Luis Rey" the author and its several mitigants throughout his brief tract asked whether God is involved in everyman's circumstances, including death? And if so, to what extent and for what purpose? Or, if death is but sole cause alone, has become in itself, the cold, cruel process which it is oft times portrayed as heartless claimant to everyman's right to live and die?

In the law, a mitigant - or a mitigating circumstance - is a factor which reduces the severity of a crime or penalty. It becomes not an excuse, nor a justification, for the ill circumstance befallen the injured but serves to explain why a fate might have resulted, or a penalty incurred, especially in light of no known criminal record or blackard sin resulting from the afore sufferers experience of mitigating factors resulting in oppression, injury or death.

In the bible a similar circumstance had befallen 18 unfortunates to which Jesus asked whether they were sinners come to be judged by God? At first, Jesus' inquirers tell of Pilate's factious murder of visiting Galileans to the Temple whom Pilate deemed as "malicious rioters"; Jesus' inquirers posed this question to draw Jesus out politically, whether for-or-against Rome's puppet, Pilate. In answer, Jesus asks his audience whether God judges sin or not by using this illustration:

The Tower of Siloam (Lk 13.1-11)

13.1 There were present at that season some that told Jesus of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they had suffered such things?"

3 I tell you, "Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

4 Of those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and had died, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

10 And Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.

The common Christian question put forth in all three instances of this parable is whether one's heart has been changed - not whether God is judging sin but whether one's own self has regarded the times and the seasons of life and is ready at all times for ill fortune or death's demise?

From Jesus' observation he dismisses the four assumptions most people make of an assumed befallen tragedy:

1) Suffering is proportional to sinfulness.

2) Tragedy is a sure sign of God’s judgment.

3) Bad things happen only to bad people.

4) We have the right to make such judgments.

To each assumption Jesus says, "No."

1) Suffering is NOT proportional to sinfulness;

2) Tragedy is NOT a sure sign of God's judgment;

3) Bad things DO NOT happen only to bad people; and,

4) We DO NOT have the right to cast such judgments upon others.

Therefore, in answer, to Thornton Wilder's assessment spoken through Friar Juniper and all succeeding voices within his tract, The Bridge to San Luis Rey, we may answer similarly. That the fate befallen the five victims of the broken rope bridge were not being judged by God nor were sinners whose time had come.

Which leaves but the single most pertinent question which Wilder was attempting to answer but couldn't - or, as most critics would say, Wilder was presenting the problem in the form of a question without any interest in answering the question... as it was an exercise in futility.

The question?

Does God determine the course of every life force on earth? Does God command all futures and calamities, all blessings and fortunes, including our deaths?

Framing Wilder's Question

Wilder sets up the collapse of the bridge as a test case for divine determinism. Brother Juniper’s question is blunt: "Why did these five people die and not others?" He tries to prove that God had a reason, perhaps rooted in virtue, vice, or a cosmic plan. His “scientific theology” attempts to rationalize providence's actions or lack of actions.

Ultimately the friar's inquiry fails. His book is burned. The Catholic Church condemns him. And the narrator (Wilder’s voice) concludes not with answers but with the all too casual statement, “The bridge is love.”

So while the novel begins as a deterministic inquiry, it ends with a kind of existential surrender to relational meaning - but not as an explanatory logistical treatment of the expose.

Classical Theology’s Answer

In traditional Christian theology (especially Calvinist: cf, John Calvin), God indeed, determines all things, including:

• Life and death,
• Fortune and fate,
• Who is saved and who is not.

This is known as theological determinism—but it comes with problems:

• It risks making God arbitrary or cruel.
• It undermines human freedom and responsibility.
• It offers little comfort in suffering except “God willed it.”

Thornton Wilder who was raised religiously shows that he is unsettled in this view and does not wish to affirm it. As such he asks the question of God's rightness and justness in willing everyman's life force to its fate or fortune.

A Loving Theology's Answer

Typically, a non-Calvinistic, non-deterministic theological response might be summarily listed using an Arminianist Protestant approach (cf, Jacobus Arminius) emphasizing human free will and the compatibility of God's sovereignty alongside human agency. As such, it reframes the posed question entirely:

• No, God does not determine fate or death.
• Yes, God is present in every moment—but not as controller.

17th Century Arminianism has come a long way since morphing in its journey to become more properly expressed in the current theology known as "Open and Relational" Free will theology. But rather than keeping its philosophical foundation planted in an Western-European ecclectic, if not Platonic et al thought, another more expansive philosophic theology has been gaining traction since it's proposal in the late 19th century spanning both Western and Eastern thought forms.

It is known as process philosophy with its derivative, process theology, and can be found in the sciences such as the quantum physics or processual evolution along with Jungian psychoanalytic thought and Eastern Buddhism per se. It is a more mature, nuanced version of Western thought begun under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and articulated through Alfred North Whitehead who himself was dissatisfied with hardheaded Victorianism (cf. Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist or A Tale of Two Cities).

In process theology Wilder's questions may be restated to say:

• God offers possibilities, not guarantees.
• Every event is shaped by past actualities, human decisions, and divine persuasion.
• Death is real—not part of a secret plan; but must be considered as a living process in which all life-forces participate.
• God suffers with us, and holds every life in loving memory.

And so, when five unfortunates, possible innocents, and all vital life-forces within the web of life, fall to their deaths from a breaking backwater Peruvian bridge in the 15th century:

• It is not because God chose it.
• But God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward.
• And that is why “the bridge is love”—not control.

A Bridge of Love

God does not chose our fate or fortune but God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations of all that ripple outwards to-and-from our lives. And throughout the process of life - whether we describe God's acts as from above, from below, or from the sides and peripheries of life; whether they are seen or unseen, whether they are causal or acausal - in all of God's loving acts is God's patient abiding, presence, and fellowship as we allow God's presence to be felt, experienced, and followed.

Such divine comradery is unlike the church's more dreadful teachings on the fear of God's wrath, punishment, and judgments in this life and the next. As Thornton Wilder observed in The Bridge, whenever one questions the church's teachings on God one may do so at one's peril - as illustrated by the burning at the stake of poor Brother Juniper accused of heresy (who apparently was an actual historical personage according to Wilder's notes) having experienced personal execution at the hands of his fellow parish brothers during the extensive cruel time of the Spanish Inquisition. All in the name of God. To preserve God's fear. God's attribution of Name. And God's severe high holiness.

One might also expect the more common act of excommunication by the church which many a Christian congregant has experienced in times of hardship and peril in today's 20th and 21st century churches of conservative fame and claim.

None of these "Christian acts" is because God chose or directed it. As they were not. But God is assuredly there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward. And it is why the existential or spiritual bridge is always one of divine love and not of divine control.

Conclusion

Those three simple lines capture the process-relational alternative to providential determinism—and when unpacking their meaning deepens both the personal, emotional and theological meaning.

Let’s expand upon them meditatively and metaphysically:

1) “It is not because God chose it.” This is a rejection of divine determinism. In process theology (Whitehead, Cobb, Hartshorne), God is not the author of death, disaster, or tragedy. The universe is not scripted. God does not pick winners and losers, nor orchestrate suffering “for a greater plan.”

Instead, God invites, lures, offers the best possible outcomes given all conditions. Why? Because the world is a real space for real living. Living that can be free, relational, and very fragile. Accidents happen. Choices matter. Structures fail. But to say “God chose it” is to rob the world of its agency and God of divine compassion.

2) “God is there in the grief, the echoes, the transformations that ripple outward.” This is Whitehead’s “consequent nature of God”: God experiences all things with the world. Every joy, every loss, every falling body and breaking heart is registered and felt by God.

God is the cosmic rememberer - holding even death tenderly. But God is more: God becomes the source of transformation. In grief, we may love more deeply. In loss, new connections may arise. In sorrow, beauty may emerge - not as compensation, but as creative consequence. God is not the one who prevents the fall, but the one who walks with those left behind, guiding what comes next.

3) And this is why ‘the bridge is love’ - not control.” This is Wilder’s final line, recast through Whitehead’s lens. “The bridge is love” means: Not that the deaths were meant to happen, but that the lives mattered, and the love they shared transcends any fall.

Love, in process thought, is the coherence of becoming: It’s what binds events together across time. It’s what lingers, deepens, and carries forward. It’s the energy of divine relationality, not divine sovereignty. Control says: This happened because I willed it. Love says: This happened, and I will be with you through it all.

R.E. Slater

May 11, 2025

The Importance of Torah and Community vs. Maga Anarchy and Imperialism

The Importance of Torah and Community

vs. Maga Anarchy and Imperialism

On the whole I have understood the term anarchy as a violent reaction to legal authority which has more recently been applied to maga-evangelicalism's activist rejection of America's Constitutional authority as evidenced in it's severe reaction to Donald Trump's presidential loss in 2020 to President Biden on January 6, 2021, in it's mass violent demonstrations in Washington, D.C.

I am also of the firm belief that America's conceived liberal democracy adjudicating for legal fairness and equality within its form of liberal democracy for all races and religions is the gold standard for any society wishing to pursue peaceful policies for cooperative and humane society building.

Today I am including an article which advocates for these same ideas by "radicalizing" or "twisting" the term "anarchy" away from it's violent connotations to a non-violent form of response to unfair governance and rule.

Which is ironic when applied to America's Constitutional political process... and yet imaginable in that America's Republican party has failed in its leadership role and guidance towards societal fairness and equality:

Presently, under President Trump, Maga-Republicans are actively advancing maga-majority white rule via maga-based Hillsdale (Christian) College's Project 2025 which advocates the resurrection of the bad-old days of Colonial Western-European rule over non-whites and non-white religion.

In my idealism of America's Civil Right's for women, gays, non-whites, and non-Christians it seems that the nation's white Christian population is not as benevolent nor societally-minded as its originating Constitutional contract put in place in 1776.

In my naivete I had thought that rightness would displace wrongness but maga-evangelicalisim's societal response to color and difference has shown to me only my misguided idealism for the Christian church.

An idealism which I had held within my white evangelical church setting until lately coming to the new maga-reality under the Trump-era commencing in c. 2015 to the present day.... How very wrong I was.... Nor do I suspect the evangelist Billy Graham could have foreseen the church's deep misapprehension of Jesus' Gospel by today's maga-church.

The Middle-Eastern Jesus I had come to love and preach has unfortunately been historically aligned over the centuries with the bloody Christian Crusades against all non-Christian races and beliefs. Rather than preaching a non-assimilating, non-white gospel of love, peace, and harmony in the Abrahamic God of Jesus (who Christians believe to be God Incarnate on Earth) the church's missional God has been politicized to reflect non-Christian injustice and inequality currently held by its majority maga-congregants.

Under Maga's political influence we are witnessing once again another form of White Western "Christianized" Crusading that is Constitutionally illegal, unjust, oppressive, harming, and persecuting.

Maga has brought a new kind of religious violence into American society and is justifying it under its errant theologies of church dominionism which I have described in the past as New Covenant-based Reconstructionism. That is, under Jesus' atoning redemption today's maga-church wishes to overthrow American Constitutionalism for it's own beliefs in the rightness of Church-led, Kingdom-based, rule via institutionalized monarchy.

Thus and thus the plethora of lies and propaganda which we witness daily from the mouths of Trumpian maga'ites who no longer can lawfully abide under the American Constitution but wish to overthrow it's legal document and imports so that white anarchal rule might reign supreme.

This then is how I have used and understood the word "anarchy" in my white church setting over the years when reflecting politically on my church's most recent misguided teachings and doctrines begun under Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority." Once centered in Jesus and not politics my Christian faith has now been displaced by political revisionism and oppression:

Thus I decry the maga-church's misappropriation of its religious beliefs in overthrowing America's Constitution for its own incongruous rule of Christian injustice upon race, color, and difference.

Maga has determined not to learn how to apply Christian love and harmony into our Constitutional spaces but to act illegally and treasonously against America's 300 year-old experiment of imperfect democracy.

Hence my departure from the maga-Church and my own personal advocacy for a process-based understanding of the Christian religion and its faith practices beginning with the firm belief that God is love and that all faith - and faith practices - including the ethical / moral political rule of society - must be grounded in loving response to God and to our fellow man in ethical / moral policies, behaviours, and endeavors.

R.E. Slater

March 22, 2025

Thinking Pacifism

Reflections on peace and faith

Is there such a thing as a

Christian political philosophy?

[Questioning faith #22]

by Ted Grimsrud

April 22, 2023

[reformatting and edits are mine. - re slater]

As long as I have cared about Christianity and politics, which is about as long as I have been a pacifist, I have thought that we need a political philosophy that captures key elements of the biblical vision of human social life. None of the main options one encounters in a political theory class (such as liberal democracy, communism, or monarchy) seem to come close to doing that. That leaves pacifist Christians with a kind of disembodied political philosophy—which is surely part the reason that pacifism seems too unrealistic. To try to fit pacifism into a philosophy of liberal democracy where a core principle is that the meaning of the state rests on its monopoly on legitimate violence is like trying to fit the proverbial round peg into a square hole.

Not long after I embraced pacifism, I learned to know a couple of anarchists. They helped open my eyes to a possible option. Then, when I took a class on the history of political theory in graduate school, I was pleased that the professor treated anarchism as a legitimate theory within the cacophony of theories that have been articulated in the western tradition. He didn’t spend much time on anarchism in the class, but that recognition of anarchism as a serious political philosophy planted a seed for me. I am still trying to make sense of Christian pacifism as a realistic and important set of convictions for people of good will. In this post, I want to reflect on the possibility that something like anarchism (or, more precisely what I will call an “anarchistic sensibility”) actually may help us imagine better the political relevance of pacifism.

What is anarchism?

The term “anarchism,” similarly to “nonviolence,” is a negative term that in its most profound sense speaks of a positive approach to human social life. Though the term “anarchism” literally means against “authority” (arché), it is at its heart—as I understand it—not mainly against something. It is for freedom and for decentralized ways of organizing social life that enhance human well-being. Anarchism has an unfair, though not totally unfounded, reputation for being violent, even terrorist. There indeed have been numerous acts of violence in the name of anarchism, perhaps most notably in the US the 1901 assassination of President McKinley at the hand of a self-proclaimed anarchist (though one who had few links with other anarchists).

The great thinkers in the anarchist tradition, however, generally were not people of violence nor advocates of terrorist tactics. Late 19th and early 20th century writers and visionaries such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Michael Bakunin (perhaps the most pro-violence of the lot), Peter Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman had ambivalent feelings about violence, but for all of them, the main concern was imagining how human life might be organized in ways that enhance human freedom and self-determination. Still, what probably united classical anarchists as much as anything was a strong antipathy toward the state. There is a sense that the spirit of anarchism is not unfairly described as a spirit of rebellion versus centralized nation states as much as any one commitment. To achieve [a] political life that is genuinely free and self-determined, the state must go—root and branch.

However, it could be that the anarchism represented by these thinkers is too state-centered. Maybe we would do better with a political philosophy that has anarchistic sensibilites if we did not equate politics with state-politics. This may be the key to developing a Christian political philosophy as well—to imagine it as having not simply to do with how we might run the state. In several articles and a PhD dissertation, political thinker Ted Troxell has helpfully brought together Christian theology, anarchist thought, and what he calls “postanarchism.”

Postanarchism

“Postanarchism” is a term that has arisen in the 21st century to refer to attempts to apply postmodern or poststructuralist thought to anarchism. This is not a way to be finished with anarchism but rather to apply these new styles of thought to anarchist theory in order to make it more relevant to our contemporary context. Troxell mentions one important postanarchist thinker, Todd May, who differentiates between what he calls “strategic” and “tactical” thinking. Strategic-thinking-oriented anarchism focuses on one particular theme, the state, while a more tactical-thinking-oriented approach questions that unitary focus and seek to broaden the scope of applying anarchist thought.

One especially important theme, according to Troxell, where this increased flexibility becomes key is our response to macroeconomic issues related to the dominant neoliberal regime we live in that is not strictly state-centered. In general, a more tactical approach creates possibilities of heightened creativity in navigating the particular issues facing people seeking a more humane politics in the contemporary world. Postanarchism, as presented by Troxell, also makes a closer link between Christianity and anarchism seem more possible. 

Christian anarchism

As a rule, not without reason, anarchists have seen Christianity as part of the problem. However, ever since the rise of Christendom in the early Middle Ages, a few Christians have joined the resistance to the domination system:

Note, the early Franciscans’ voluntary poverty; the Anabaptists’ radical anti-Christendom witness; the pro-labor and antiwar activism and unconditional hospitality of the Catholic Workers, and the overtly Christian influences on the Civil Rights Movement.

Troxell suggests it is even possible to talk about “Christian anarchism.” However, this is an anarchism that agrees with postanarchism in not focusing on overthrowing the state. Christian Anarchism instead will seek to find ways to live out an alternative witness [for] a peaceable world as a way to anticipate the hoped-for kingdom of God. 

Contemporary theologian, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, has written a book, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, that articulates a vision that has in mind not the overthrow of present structures so much [as] the subversion of them. This subversion emphasizes creating alternative communities that embody the way of life that is to come. The hoped-for revolution will lead to social transformation, but through love, forgiveness, and patience not violence and terror. For Christian anarchism, radical living in the present is made possible by trust in God’s guidance of history that will lead to an authentically [peaceable] anarchist social reality. 

The Anabaptist contribution

The Anabaptist tradition has been occasionally recognized as a kind of prefiguring of anarchism, though rarely have there ever been overt connections between anarchists and Anabaptists. In recent years, especially in light of a decentering of the idea of overthrowing the state, it has become more common for Christian anarchism to see Anabaptist emphases as relevant.

An Anabaptist critique of the state would not include a call to abolish the state, though the state indeed is all too often characterized by Jesus’s charge of tyranny. However, even so, it plays a necessary restraining role in protecting people from the resultant destructive chaos likely to ensue were the state abolished before people were truly ready for the self-determination anarchism hopes for. Recognizing that abolishing the state is not an immediately desirable outcome is thus a common stance that Anabaptistic and a postanarchistic sensibilities share. 

As part of the decentering of the state and state power, we could see a point of contact in thinking about power more generally. An Anabaptist reading of the New Testament notes the use of power in the plural—the “powers and principalities”—with the sense that it is appropriate to reject the notion of power in the modern world that sees it as centralized and univocal and rather recognize that power should be seen as multifaceted [sic, "empowering" others vs. "powering-over" others]. Postanarchists also understand power to arise “from many different sites” in ways that interact to form our social world. 

To recognize power’s decentralized manifestation in the world supports seeing social action as oriented toward efforts to construct humane spaces for creativity and peaceable living more than to directly overthrow the existing order. The efforts of the Anabaptists over the centuries have been focused on creating alternative faith communities and in the context of those communities to develop strategies for meeting human needs and express human creativity and, in a sense, letting the state take care of itself. 

Troxell calls this positive focus on creating space to be human [and humane] outside the domination of the state “a structural indifference to the state.” With this, the state is not necessarily rejected as unimportant on a practical level so much as it is not the central emphasis for the community’s political involvements. In a parallel manner, postanarchism is uninterested in typical anarchist strategies of creating a “vanguard movement” to take down the state. Instead, since there is no centralized source of power that must be taken control of, the focus may be turned toward the decentralized politics of direct involvement in the day-to-day work of humane engagement. The goal is to construct a politics that embodies decentralized power all the way down.

When the focus is to construct decentralized spaces to be humane more than concentrated efforts to overthrow the state, the emphasis will be on the practices to sustain that humaneness—another point of close connection between Anabaptist thought and postanarchism. Anabaptist peaceable practices are similar to what some postanarchists call “micropolitics.” A central practice is that of patient listening to various points of view. This listening is a key element in processing conflicts. Inspired by the Anabaptist emphasis on the importance of the Bible, we may seek a reading of scripture that highlights ways that the Bible actually might support an anarchistic sensibility. The points of congruence between Anabaptism and postanarchism may be linked with such a reading.

The Bible’s “anarchistic” politics: Old Testament

The Bible provides much material for idealistic hopes, and we should take that material seriously. One of the main functions of the Bible is to hold before us a vision of genuine healing and shalom. At the same time, the Bible does give us pictures of human fallenness, of imperfect communities, of power politics. The tension between the imperfect and the ideal remains very much in place.

From the start, the story expresses a deep suspicion of centralized political power. At first this is a bit subtle. Only if we notice what is missing in the creation story will we recognize its subversive tenor. The creative force and center of power in the universe is not anything hinting of human kingship or empires. It is a free, humane, relational God whose creative energies stem from love not domination. The human politics in the rest of Genesis are familial, decentralized, local, and often surprising. Younger sons at times take priority. Injustices at times are forgiven. The God at times sides with the weaker and more vulnerable members of the community.

In Exodus, the Bible’s anti-imperial sensibility becomes explicit. The paragon of power politics, the god-emperor Pharaoh of Egypt is shown to be corrupt and overtly opposed to the God of the Hebrews (that is, according to the story, the God who is the Creator of the Universe—so this is a cosmological statement). God intervenes to liberate the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt and gifts them with a blueprint for a just and humane society—the law codes (Torah). Though Torah certainly contains many ambiguities and reflects its own time and place of origin, as a whole, it may fruitfully be read as an exercise in anti-imperial politics. The vision of communal life in Torah is a counter-vision to the notion of life expressed in Egypt’s ways of domination. So, the exodus story includes both a critique of centralized, unjust power and a vision for an alternative community of freed slaves, an alternative vision for human life.

The community is meant to operate in a way that prevents a return to slavery. The anti-slavery dynamics of Torah include both a rejection of centralized power (initially, no human king and no permanent military; when allowance for the possibility of human kingship is made, precautions are still provided to prevent aggrandizement of power and wealth) and an affirmation of the center of power being the community and not some kind of small elite.

Along with Egypt, later empires are also critiqued throughout the Bible. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Rome are often presented as God’s enemies, as oppressors of the Hebrew people (and so many others), and as the sources of most of the world’s violence and injustice. The entire project of the exodus, Torah, and the sustenance of the community of God’s people is framed from the beginning in terms of God’s work of blessing all the families of the earth. Resistance to power politics is one of the main aspects of this work, along with constructing communities that model genuine justice and empower the vulnerable.

One of the most politically significant parts of the Bible is the account of the post-exodus community. Though gifted with Torah as guidance to just living, it struggles from the beginning to actually embody such just living. They end up with a homeland, gained by morally ambiguous means, including a great deal of violence. What’s not ambiguous is that in time, this territorial kingdom departs from Torah’s guidance for just living:

As the kings and power elite imitate the ways of the nations and exploit the vulnerable, prophets arise who reemphasize the perennial relevance of Torah and the politics of decentralized power and empowered self-determination. In the end, the territorial kingdom is destroyed, and with it that model as a channel for God’s promise is ended.

 So, the relevance of Torah is multifaceted, in many ways hinting at an anarchistic sensibility—especially in its critique of centralized power, attention to the needs of the vulnerable, providing guidance for shared power in the community, and empowerment of the prophets as a source of insight and direction from leaders outside the elite establishment.

The Bible’s “anarchistic” politics: New Testament

It is possible to read New Testament politics as being in continuity with the Old Testament when we recognize how central to the story is the failure of the territorial kingdom as the locus for God’s work among human beings:

The Hebrews were given the Land as a place to embody Torah and fulfill their vocation to bless all the families of the earth. For various reasons, they failed to do so. The leadership class became corrupt, and Torah was disregarded. Ultimately, the territorial kingdoms were destroyed by a couple of the great empires, Assyria and Babylon. The key message of this tragic story, though, was that the destruction of the territorial kingdoms was not actually a defeat for Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews. This destruction was actually a vindication of Torah and of the warning God gave the people back when they entered the Land in the time of Joshua: Disregard Torah and your kingdom will fall.

When the territorial kingdom had been established the people gradually turned from Torah. At the last minute of this kingdom’s existence, the law books were rediscovered. With Torah back in hand, the community managed to find sustenance for their peoplehood. They didn’t need a king nor a territorial kingdom to witness to the truth of Torah and to bless all the families of the earth. The political message of the Old Testament thus ends up being an affirmation of peoplehood and politics apart from existing as a territorial kingdom.

With that anti-territorial kingdom message in mind, the political dynamics of the New Testament make more sense—and it’s easier to see continuity between the two testaments:

Jesus framed his ministry as an expression of the kingdom of God. But politics of the kingdom of God as presented by Jesus has to do not with a territorial kingdom but with embodying Torah in decentralized, shalom-focused “assemblies.” The common life and witness of these assemblies was about politics in the same ways that the original Torah-centered community following the exodus was—practice generosity, justice for the vulnerable, non-acquisitive economics, no centralized power elite, reconciliation rather than retaliation when there is conflict.

Both testaments show optimism that the dictates of Torah that especially empower vulnerable people are followable. Certainly, we read of many failures to embody the way of Torah consistently, but the main responsibility for such failures generally lies with the powers-that-be in the community and with the impact of the great empires on the people (from Egypt to Rome). Human nature is not the problem so much as the imposition of power politics from the top down. The Bible, as a whole, undermines the domination of hierarchies in human communities. Do not be like the tyrants of the nations, Jesus insisted.

Transforming politics

An Anabaptist reading of biblical politics has much to gain from a conversation with postanarchists. The potential of useful connections with postanarchists may also be present with other anarchist thinkers as well. Anabaptists suggest a line of continuity from the formation of the people of God around the liberating work of Yahweh (with the prophetic word and not human power politics at the center) through the failure of the geographically bounded kingdom option through the continuation of peoplehood based on Torah and not the sword culminating in Jesus as king, reinforcing a politics of servanthood. Many of the classic anarchist thinkers and practitioners (maybe most especially Peter Kropotkin) have sought a similar kind of politics.

My concern is not so much with converting anarchists to Christianity or to convert Christians to anarchists. I don’t even know yet if I want to call myself a full-fledged anarchist. More so, I want to work at a way of reading the Bible that would challenge Christians to embody a radical political philosophy. And with that, I suspect more awareness of the anarchist tradition, including the recent thought of postanarchists, would be very helpful for that task. And if doing so would make biblical and theological resources more available to anarchists and other activists, so much the better.

Constitutional Democratic Governance Using Whitehead's Process Approach, Part 5 (Conclusion)

Constitutional Democratic Governance

Using Whitehead's Process Approach

Part 5 (Conclusion)

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Observation 13

Looking through all of the above how can Whitehead's process approach be applied?

ChatGPT

Applying Whitehead’s Process Philosophy to Democratic Renewal

Whitehead’s process philosophy provides a dynamic, relational, and evolving framework that aligns with the idea that democracy, like the universe itself, is in constant becoming. Unlike static political theories that seek fixed solutions, a process-based democracy would embrace adaptation, interconnectivity, and participatory evolution.

By integrating Whiteheadian thought, we can reimagine democracy as an evolving, decentralized, and participatory system—one that resists MAGA authoritarianism not just by opposing it, but by actively creating new structures of democratic becoming.

---

1. The Processual Nature of Democracy: Democracy as Becoming, Not a Fixed System

Whitehead’s metaphysics of becoming sees everything in the universe as processual, interrelated, and in flux. In this framework:

• Democracy is not a static system but a continuous process of negotiation, adaptation, and relational engagement.
• Democracy is never fully “achieved” but always in motion, needing creative advance to sustain its relevance.
• MAGA authoritarianism imposes rigidity (fixed hierarchies, centralized power), whereas a process-based democracy embraces novelty, diversity, and relationality.

Application:

• Instead of trying to "restore" democracy to a past form, a process-based democracy would focus on radical experimentation and participatory governance models that evolve with society’s needs.
• Democracy must remain open to becoming, rather than closing itself into rigid structures that can be captured by authoritarian forces.

---

2. The Interconnectedness of Society: Relational Power over Hierarchical Power

Whitehead emphasizes relationality—everything is interconnected and mutually influencing. No entity is isolated; all processes are shaped by what came before and what is emerging.

• MAGA authoritarianism is hierarchical → power flows top-down, concentrating authority in a few individuals.
• Process-based democracy is relational → power flows horizontally, through participatory governance, local councils, and cooperative economies.

Application:

• Whitehead’s relational ontology supports co-governance models where communities actively shape policy rather than being passive recipients of top-down decrees.
• Localism and decentralized networks become the lifeblood of democratic structures.
• Example: Worker cooperatives, direct democracy, and participatory budgeting reflect process-oriented governance, where citizens are not just voters but ongoing co-creators of political and economic realities.

---

3. Constructive Disruption: Process Thought and the Evolution of Institutions

Whitehead saw disruption not as destruction, but as part of the creative advance of reality. Just as the universe is in constant process, moving toward novelty, democratic institutions must also be open to transformation rather than stagnation.

• MAGA uses destruction nihilistically → tearing down institutions without constructing alternatives.
• Process democracy disrupts constructively → breaking dysfunctional structures while building better ones in their place.

Application:

• Instead of defending broken systems, process democracy seeks to evolve them.
• Example: The U.S. electoral system is flawed—rather than just "protecting" it, process-based disruption might introduce ranked-choice voting, direct digital democracy, or local governance councils that create new democratic possibilities.
• Process democracy is always in movement, adjusting to historical shifts rather than being locked into an idealized past.

---

4. Economic Democracy and the Process of Co-Creation

Whitehead rejected static, mechanistic views of reality—instead, he saw existence as a co-creative process. This directly challenges the neoliberal economic framework of MAGA politics, which sees wealth and power as fixed hierarchies rather than shared, relational goods.

• MAGA capitalism is exploitative → wealth is centralized, economic suffering is framed as “individual failure.”
• Process economics is participatory → value is co-created, and economic structures should reflect dynamic interconnectivity rather than extractive accumulation.

Application:

• A process-based economy would prioritize:

  • Worker-owned cooperatives (where labor and value creation are relational, not hierarchical).
  • Publicly owned digital and financial infrastructure (breaking corporate monopolies and returning power to communities).
  • Universal basic services that guarantee social stability as the foundation for democratic participation.

• Example: Whitehead’s process thought would support replacing corporate-driven capitalism with an adaptive, decentralized economic system where communities control economic resources democratically.

---

5. The Role of Storytelling & Myth in Process Democracy

Whitehead recognized the importance of narratives, myths, and cultural meaning in shaping reality. MAGA thrives on nostalgia-driven mythology—its vision of an imagined past fuels its reactionary politics.

• MAGA’s authoritarian myth → America was once “great” and must be “restored” through force.
• Process democracy’s counter-narrative → Democracy is not a return to the past but a continuous unfolding toward new possibilities.

Application:

• To counter MAGA’s mythology, democracy must construct a compelling alternative vision—one rooted in creative advance, not reactionary nostalgia.
• New democratic myths should emphasize:
  • Interconnected flourishing (the idea that democracy enriches rather than threatens identity).
  • A future worth fighting for (democracy as an evolving, participatory cosmos rather than a bureaucratic machine).
  • Shared creativity and responsibility (the idea that we are all co-authors of the democratic experiment).

Example: Art, music, festivals, and digital storytelling should be used to cultivate an aesthetic of participatory democracy—one that feels as emotionally compelling as MAGA’s myths of lost greatness.

---

6. Whiteheadian Cosmopolitanism: A Process-Oriented Global Democracy

Whitehead’s philosophy rejects nationalism as an artificial limitation on relational becoming.

• MAGA is isolationist → it fears globalization as a threat to American identity.
• Process democracy is transnational → it recognizes that all democracies are interconnected and must evolve cooperatively.

Application:

• Democratic alliances beyond the nation-state (global networks of local democratic movements).
• Technology used for transnational participatory governance (digital global citizenship initiatives).
• A process-based international economy that replaces extractive neoliberalism with relational, cooperative trade structures.

---

Final Synthesis: The Whiteheadian Blueprint for Democratic Renewal

A process-based democracy rejects authoritarianism, nationalism, and neoliberalism by rethinking politics, economy, and culture as open, evolving systems of participatory co-creation.

MAGA/Trumpism	Process-Based Democracy
Authoritarian hierarchy	Relational governance
Rigid nationalism	Cosmopolitan democracy
Corporate neoliberalism	Participatory economic democracy
Weaponized nostalgia	Future-oriented storytelling
Static, binary identities	Pluralistic, evolving identities

Would you like to refine any of these ideas into a more concrete strategy—for example, mapping out specific policies, community projects, or communication strategies that could bring this Whiteheadian democracy into reality?

Process thought gives us the philosophical tools—but how do we translate them into real-world democratic structures? That’s where the next step begins.

Observation 14

Thank you. Can anything more be said here?

ChatGPT

Yes—there’s still much more that can be explored! Let me extend and deepen some key aspects of a Whiteheadian process democracy and its real-world implications. We can also explore possible next steps for implementation.

---

1. Whitehead’s Challenge to American Political Theology: Democracy as a Living Faith

One of the most overlooked aspects of MAGA authoritarianism is its religious underpinnings—the fusion of Christian nationalism with neoliberal economic policy and authoritarian governance.

• Whitehead’s process theology offers an alternative vision of faith: one that is dynamic, open-ended, and deeply intertwined with the unfolding of democracy itself.
• Instead of a static, top-down divine order (favored by Christian nationalism), a Whiteheadian democracy envisions a participatory divine presence—one that calls for creative co-authorship in governance, economy, and social structures.

Application: Theological Resistance to MAGA

• Whiteheadian thought could help reconstruct religious discourse into a pro-democratic force, reclaiming progressive theological voices that MAGA distorts or silences.
• A process-based political theology could counteract Christian nationalism by:
  • Reframing democracy as a sacred, evolving relationship rather than a rigid “Christian empire.”
  • Emphasizing interfaith and pluralist democratic cooperation as part of divine co-creation.
  • Challenging authoritarian religious structures that enforce hierarchy rather than participation.

✅ Could churches and faith communities serve as process-based democratic incubators?
✅ How can a Whiteheadian theological perspective be used to disarm MAGA Christian nationalism?

---

2. Process Democracy and the Crisis of Time: Overcoming MAGA’s Nostalgia Trap

MAGA succeeds because it weaponizes nostalgia, creating a false narrative of a lost Golden Age that must be “restored”. Whitehead’s process philosophy rejects static notions of time and insists that history is always in creative advance—never a cycle of return.

• MAGA’s past-focus is fundamentally anti-process, designed to close off the future and erase alternative possibilities.
• A Whiteheadian democracy must offer a different relationship to time—one that is open, creative, and future-driven.

Application: Constructing a Future-Oriented Democratic Movement

• Civic education must move beyond "saving democracy" and instead frame democracy as a continuous evolution of human possibility.
• Youth engagement must be process-oriented—teaching that democracy is a living system that changes with our participation, not a static relic to be preserved.
• New democratic institutions must be flexible and iterative, not rigid bureaucracies—experimenting, adjusting, and adapting to emergent social needs.

✅ How can we use media, art, and digital culture to reframe democracy as a dynamic, unfolding process rather than a decaying institution?
✅ Could Whiteheadian process metaphysics be integrated into democratic education, making civic engagement more imaginative and participatory?

---

3. Whitehead, AI, and the Future of Digital Democracy

One area where Whitehead’s process philosophy has immense untapped potential is in the future of digital democracy and artificial intelligence.

• Current AI governance models replicate hierarchical control → corporations like Meta, Google, and OpenAI control vast digital landscapes.
• A process-based democracy must ask: How can AI and digital infrastructure serve as democratizing tools rather than centralizing forces?

Application: Decentralized Digital Democracy

• Publicly owned and open-source AI models that enhance participatory governance rather than manipulate voter behavior.
• AI-assisted deliberative democracy—where digital tools facilitate mass citizen engagement, rather than being used for disinformation.
• Blockchain governance models that are process-oriented → dynamic decision-making structures that evolve instead of rigid constitutional frameworks.

✅ Can a Whiteheadian philosophy of emergence and relationality help guide ethical AI development?
✅ What would a process-oriented, digital-first democratic system look like?

---

4. From Resistance to Reconstruction: The Process of Healing American Democracy

One underappreciated aspect of Whiteheadian thought is its emphasis on healing and reconstitution. If America’s democracy is in decline, it is not enough to simply “fight back” against authoritarianism—we must also actively build regenerative democratic structures.

• Authoritarianism thrives on division, resentment, and fragmentation—a process-based democracy must cultivate repair, renewal, and forward momentum.
• Whitehead’s philosophy calls for gentle but transformative change, where democratic renewal is not imposed by force, but co-created through collective participation.

Application: Restorative Political Engagement

• Truth & Reconciliation Commissions that address democracy’s failures (racial injustice, economic inequality, climate inaction) without retributional violence.
• Democratic experiments in healing divisions—where citizens from different ideological backgrounds engage in structured, participatory political dialogue.
• Integrating a processual ethic into law and policy-making → rather than rigid legalism, laws should be designed with built-in flexibility and adaptability.

✅ How can we design democratic structures that allow for constant healing, re-visioning, and renewal?
✅ Could a Whiteheadian model of restorative governance create a democratic framework that is more resilient to authoritarian backsliding?

---

Final Synthesis: The Process of Becoming a Democracy Worth Fighting For

Whiteheadian thought teaches that everything is always in process—always in the act of becoming. If democracy is in decline, it is not because it is failing, but because it is at an inflection point, requiring new imaginative responses.

Key Takeaways from a Process-Oriented Democracy:

Whiteheadian Process	Democratic Application
Reality is always evolving	Democracy must be adaptable and participatory, not rigid
All things are relational	Governance should be decentralized and co-created
Disruption can be constructive	Democratic movements must focus on building new structures, not just resisting authoritarianism
Creativity is central to change	Democracy should engage art, media, and technology as transformational forces
Healing is part of evolution	Democratic repair must be ongoing, not just reactive to crises

Would you like to:

• Develop concrete policy models based on Whiteheadian democracy?
• Map out a process-based “constitution” that evolves with time?
• Explore the role of AI, technology, and media in a future process-driven democratic system?

This is a radical moment of transformation—and process philosophy offers a way forward that is fluid, imaginative, and democratic at its core. What are the next steps you'd like to explore?

Observation 15

Let's do the first two: Develop concrete policy models based on Whiteheadian democracy. And, Map out a process-based “constitution” that evolves with time.

ChatGPT

1. Developing Concrete Policy Models Based on Whiteheadian Democracy

Whiteheadian democracy is not a fixed system but a dynamic, evolving process that continuously adapts to social, economic, and ecological realities. Policies in this framework should be:
✅ Relational → Prioritizing interconnectivity over hierarchy.
✅ Processual → Designed to evolve with changing conditions.
✅ Decentralized → Power distributed through networks, not concentrated in single institutions.
✅ Creative → Open to experimentation, revision, and adaptation.

A. Whiteheadian Electoral Reforms

MAGA thrives on rigid electoral structures (gerrymandering, winner-take-all systems, the Electoral College). Whiteheadian democracy would implement fluid, participatory reforms to enhance relational governance.

1. Ranked-Choice & Proportional Representation → Prevents two-party entrenchment, ensures diverse political voices.
2. Participatory Digital Democracy → Online deliberative assemblies for policy feedback and decision-making.
3. Localized Direct Governance → Cities and communities hold policy referendums on local issues, allowing bottom-up decision-making.

✅ Why it works: This ensures constant adaptation and allows democracy to evolve with the needs of its citizens.

---

B. Whiteheadian Economic Democracy

Neoliberal capitalism is static and extractive—Whiteheadian economics would be participatory, relational, and regenerative.

1. Worker-Owned Cooperatives → Employees co-own businesses, ensuring shared governance of economic power.
2. Universal Public Goods Economy → Healthcare, housing, and education are guaranteed as evolving public services.
3. Regenerative Economic Models → Local currencies, co-op banks, and time-based economies that evolve based on community needs.

✅ Why it works: This ensures that economies are structured around participatory governance rather than corporate extraction.

---

C. Whiteheadian Governance & Law

Instead of fixed constitutions and static legalism, Whiteheadian governance would integrate flexible, living law frameworks.

1. Restorative Justice Models → Focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
2. Adaptive Legislative Models → Laws automatically trigger review after a set period, ensuring constant refinement.
3. Citizen-Led Policy Experimentation → Cities and states pilot-test new governance models, allowing iterative democratic refinement.

✅ Why it works: This prevents legal rigidity and allows governance to remain fluid, evolving, and participatory.

---

2. Mapping a Process-Based “Constitution” That Evolves with Time

A Whiteheadian constitution would not be a fixed document but an iterative, relational framework that changes as society evolves.

Traditional Constitution	Process-Based Constitution
Fixed legal framework	Adaptive, evolving legal structures
Centralized state power	Decentralized, networked governance
Static rights & laws	Fluid laws that adjust based on social needs
Winner-take-all elections	Continuous participatory governance
Rigid economic systems	Democratic and cooperative economies

A. The Core Principles of a Whiteheadian Constitution

A process-based constitution should balance stability with adaptability by embedding mechanisms of continuous revision.

1. Principle of Open Evolution → The constitution must be revisited and revised regularly through participatory democratic mechanisms.
2. Principle of Distributed Power → Decentralization prevents the consolidation of MAGA-style authoritarianism.
3. Principle of Relational Justice → Laws are based on context, community needs, and long-term ecological sustainability.
4. Principle of Economic Democracy → Economic power is democratized, not concentrated in corporate or state elites.

✅ Why it works: This prevents democracy from becoming stagnant or vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.

---

B. The Process of Constitutional Evolution

Unlike static legal systems, a Whiteheadian constitutional framework would incorporate built-in mechanisms for revision and adaptation.

1. Deliberative Constitutional Assemblies → Every 5-10 years, citizen assemblies review the constitution and propose revisions.
2. Policy Labs for Democratic Experimentation → States and local governments test constitutional revisions, iterating before nationwide adoption.
3. Digital Constitutional Platforms → Citizens engage online in policy-shaping debates with AI-assisted democratic modeling.

✅ Why it works: This prevents legal stagnation, ensuring democracy remains in constant process.

---

Final Thoughts: The Future of Whiteheadian Democracy

Whitehead’s process-oriented approach offers a path out of democratic stagnation and authoritarian backsliding.

• By embedding adaptability, decentralization, and participation, we can build a democratic system that resists authoritarianism by design.
• Instead of just preserving democracy, we must continuously co-create it—as a living system, not a static relic.

Would you like to:
✅ Develop a timeline for implementing this constitutional model?
✅ Explore real-world case studies where process-based governance is already happening?
✅ Integrate AI and digital tools into participatory democracy?

Whitehead shows us that the future is never fixed—it is always becoming. Now, we must become democracy’s co-creators. Where should we go next?

Conclusion

No. Thank you for your help. Please file and save.

ChatGPT

You're very welcome! I've saved the discussion under "Whiteheadian Process Democracy" for future reference. Let me know anytime you’d like to build on these ideas. Looking forward to our next conversation! 🌿⚖️

CONCLUSION:

Parts 1 - 5 are my opening salvos against maga-Trumpism and perhaps a positive processual and re-constructive response to a political movement which is unloving, inhumane, unjust, and undemocratic in any sense of the word.

What I left out here is a discussion with AI about the processual directions each of the 5 dissenting voices might go if Whiteheadian process thinking is applied to each one.

I'll save that for another series of articles as the next several weeks will find me overseas travelling the northwestern coastlines of Europe's western shoulder before crossing the Atlantic for my first transatlantic crossing in wintry weather. I'm bringing a winter coat, scarf, watchcap, glove plus seasick pills for possible heavy weather.

While I am away go back to December 2024 and January 2025 articles and catch up as I will try to do as well. I intend to use these several process series as my newest processual baseline for this year's coming discussions.

Blessings,

R.E. Slater

January 29, 2025

Return to Part 1 (Observation 1)