Process Teleology vs. Traditional Eschatology

Carl Jung

“Your Universe is in consciousness. And it’s a teleological process of unfolding patterns...The totality of your digital reality is what your conscious mind implicitly or explicitly chooses to experience out of the infinite.” ― Alex M. Vikoulov, Theology of Digital Physics: Phenomenal Consciousness, The Cosmic Self & The Pantheistic Interpretation of Our Holographic Reality

Poet and Author Tennessee Williams

"Life is the perpetual destruction of innocence. If we are witness to this, and if we step forward and heal the wounds of this destruction, we become human; we might even become saintly. If we share what we've seen and learned, we may create art. To do nothing is to be utterly evil."-Tennessee Williams/Interview with James Grissom

"The teleology of the Universe is directed to the production of Beauty... The type of Truth required for the final stretch of Beauty is a discovery and not a recapitulation... Apart from Beauty, Truth is neither good, nor bad... Truth matters because of beauty." - Alfred North Whitehead, Process Metaphysician

Process Teleology vs. Traditional Eschatology

by R.E. Slater

I was asked this weekend at our annual college Christmas party by fellow Christians to support their version of a "biblical" eschatology and how that "biblical truth" might be the more meaningful for living out our Christian faith as [liberal progressivism] overtakes the traditional church in an Age of Conservative Evangelicalism.

Mentally, my silent response was, "Yeah for American liberal progressivism seeking legal and civil equalities and recognitions to 'the unwanted other's' civil rights!" As versus the main church's active denial of those same rights by my Christian friends whose persuasion was the same one I've listened to all my life in their evangelical church traditions justifying their beliefs based upon their obsequious literal readings of the bible. (I will speak more to how to read the bible a bit later in this post.)

And secondly, my enjoining muted response in which I offered no further answers except continued silent response to their statements and thus preventing a predictably imminent and virtual crucifixion by my Christian friends. To speak would simply excite them to dig in and not listen. There was no purpose in attempting any truth speaking to religiously attuned ears seeking justifying responses to their own. I simply made a wise crack to relieve the tension in the room and left.

However, what I wanted to say would have been more along the lines of what I will observe immediately below. I would've stated that the only human Armageddon to come in my Christian friend's expected eschatological schemes (sic, from select passages in Daniel, the OT Prophets, and the NT such as the book of Revelation) would be by their own hands. Not God's. Nor the devil's. That end time judgments have usually come by the hands of the church itself historically. But of course, they would've decried my assessment against their own beliefs based upon a lifetime of personal and congregations readings, discussions, educational classes, and the pulpit. There was no winning this debate.

I Was but Now Am

Years ago I had entertained the very thoughts my friend's held that night based on old-timey fundamentalist teleologies and later, new-line evangelical teleologies (sic, the eschatological doctrine of design and purpose by God for creation). I too would've denounced my present self and shown by chapter-and-verse from Genesis to Revelation how to construct a biblical eschatology based upon a Reformed Covenantal reading of the bible. In fact, my graduate capstone paper for M.Div. certification centered on biblical exegetical studies proposing eleven major themes of the bible... several of which dealt expressly with teleology though I could easily make the case that all those same bible themes did so in themselves. Now realize that I was centering on major themes of the bible back in the 1980s; today, I could easily add a few more based upon current church discussions.

In that capstone project I merged those eleven themes with one another and discussed in brief what was meant by such subject matter as salvific discontinuity and continuity between the Testaments; God's Promises through the covenantal eras; the maturation of the major OT/NT Covenants across time; the various typologies of the Christ to come (sic, Messianic Christology); the movement of Salvific History through time, and etc. All this effort was done in order to complete a fuller picture of the coming future of God's inbreak into end-time human history describing God's divine sovereignty as God moved with humanity from the Fall of Adam to the Resurrection of Christ to the Salvation of both World & Cosmos. This then was the picture of redemptive eschatology I was taught would come to fruition via the "I-Thou cooperative" between God and man.

Now I still believe in these elements but am now expanding them beyond their traditional Christian basis when I speak to the more centralizing ideas of God's love and immanence (intimate nearness) with creation while lessening, or removing all together, the traditional church's theologoumenas as they are reflected by it's doctrines and creeds. When doing this, I am purposely placing my former education and theologies into a "progressive form" of evangelicalism and/or church traditions.

But when taking this step, I am also attempting to remove from my vocabulary and cultural mindset my own Western Philosophical thoughts when replacing them (as I can) with Whitehead's Processual thought structures. Which means all the Greek Platonic (sic, Hellenaic) philosophic structures describing God and man in the NT bible - or the more organic Semitic philosophies of the OT, are lifted out and replaced by Processual philosophy. Which in itself is it's own organic philosophy attuned to more similar mindsets from the ancient past. That is, Whitehead was echoed by Hegel who was echoed by earlier Semitic and Greek philosophers against Westernization's philosopher's such as Plato, Aristotle, and the rest who won out.

Thus, Whiteheadian process thought is the latest encapsulation of the past which is winning-over my own yearning to re-express my Christian beliefs in fuller, more congruent tones, to today's arising ecological civilizations and perhaps be recapture in other indigenous cultures and religions. Over the years I have gone into some depth to express all this... here, is my shorthand for observed momentous change which I see occurring across all of life's many disciplines and socio-political and economic landscapes as they each become more attuned to God's creative processual design in nature and the stars.

As an example of difference think in terms of the Greek pantheon's many Gods led by Zeus in their uncaring, unloving, greatness and power. Their distance from the world and their easy judgment upon mankind. This I have abandoned and refuse to conjoin Israel's and Christianity's God with such worthless Greek gods. When I read the bible now I am re-expressing the Christian God in terms of love, care, grace, mercy, and nearness, while also recognizing that the bible's authors in the ancient past did not separate their thoughts of God from their socio-cultural contexts as we have learned to do since the Enlightenment eras of the more recent past. And though their worship was tweaked to behave more in line with love than judgment and cruelty, still it was not fully enough when viewing Israel's doctrinal embodiments by the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus' day. Thus Jesus ministry of indiscriminant love to the unwanted, unsightly, invisible, and oppressed. As well as Jesus' harshest words and actions against who were designated as priests of Israel's God. Even so today the church struggles with separating it's ideas of God from who God really is even as the bible narrators did in the past. Our pride and legalisms, wont for separateness, exclusion and holy "apartness," has brought a profound reading of the bible into today's civilizations. But again, I have discussed this at length over the years.

Hence, to contextually read the bible, one must read it in its cultural conjectures and teachings just as you would earlier ancient literature and beliefs. Some is fraught with goodness. Some not. Some is muddled in complexities by their own presumptions. And some more easier to grasp. And there's the rub. The ideas of the ancient past no longer translate "biblically" to the today's postmodern (er, metamodern?) world. Yes, the age-old metaphysical questions are the same of "sin and evil, God and man, purpose and reason for living." But the ways we approach such subjects must not be constricted by out-of-date Platonic, Scholastic, Enlightened, Victorian, nor Newtonian thinking any longer. With the age of (processual) quantum physics and (processual) evolution has come Whitehead and his predecessor, Hegel's, ideas of processual movement in a world which is never static, nor mechanical, nor without its own kind of processual (rather than reductionistic) teleology. In fact, we live in a processual creation/cosmos and don't even recognize it. We might call them "circles or cycles of life" (aka Disney's Lion King) but in Whiteheadian thought we may go far deeper than such simplistic statements.

What is a Process Teleology?

To Whitehead as a cosmological metaphysician who also happened to be a Victorian Christian, he observed a cosmology (or universe, or creation, or world) which was organic in its construction. He thought of it much like we do our own bodies and self-reflections moving through a world of experiences. We were not automatons any more than the world of quantum physics was, though scientists ascribed Newtonian philosophies to it. Yet, they did not work.

Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism spoke to a deeply complex, organically relational world of every changing causes and effects, where a positive evolution could evolve against all negative mutating circumstances. In these, like the biblical prophets and writers of old we would agree. When a God of love has essentially and purposely created creation from God's Self we would expect a struggle between good and evil - especially when it was created with agency, or INDETERMINANT free will, buried deep within the DNA of divine LOVE. Not by fiat did agency spawn. No, but by Love.

In time, Whitehead's ideas took shape and the generations after him recast his Philosophy of Organism as a Philosophy of Process, or, Process Philosophy properly stated. And as a progressive evangelical leaving evangelical teachings will keeping the bible ideas of "Covenant" and "Teleology" in my brain, heart, and faith, it became necessary to abandon not God but the old-line teachings of my faith. It held - and still does to some extent when not participating in White Christian Nationalism and Supremacy - a lot of good in it from many different directions. But of late, it's gotten tangled up with itself and has forgotten there is only one God and not the gods of politics appearing to my mind as the Evil Ones in Revelation.

None the less, these were things I thought but really couldn't speak to my present audience of Christian friends. They simply would not understand. As evidence of this I spoke to one of those friends who showed an interest for a time but then began to mentally wander off even as those close to our discussion moved away and spoke amongst themselves on other things they were more interested in. It is what it is, as they say in the state of New York. And you can't unmake that which is already decided and made. The best I can do is write down my thoughts and share with those who, like myself, must find another way.

From Faith to Faith, said the Apostle Paul

Which brings me to this observation: As a process Christian all the old line systematic theologies I was taught to believe - by both (i) exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures in the original languages plus (ii) eisigetical expositions from those studies - can no longer comport with the church's 2000 year hoary tradition of Westernized Christianity.

In its place, I am updating my faith through a more rigorous process of processual expansionism removing core Analytic Philosophical Westernized elements by replacing them with newer, more relationally organic elements pertaining both to my faith and civic life as a citizen of a liberal democracy eschewing any-and-all forms of authoritarian doctrinnaires and racisms as shown by the conservative church with its willful involvements in white neo-facist supremacy politics.

(Which is curious, as at one time I wrote here on an Age of Authoritarianism as versus an Age of Cooperative Participation of global communities with one another. To build ecological societies the latter must win out in displays of liberally adapted geographic global democracies against tyrannical and despotic governments of one or many. However, my shorthand at present is just to state Metamodernistic which implies these socio-economic elements and more.)

And so, when I now exegetically study the collected interpretations of God-and-life-and-faith in their orally derived and ancient/past commentaries, narratives, and interpretaive storylines of God in Scripture, I now read of them as plain admissions to theistic faiths in transition just like our own faiths are in transition today. Each historical era - whether in bible times or after - are attempts to describe a divinely loving God in their era-specific ageisms of culturally folkloric ideations of God-and-life-and-faith. Especially of a God who in many ways is "wholly-unlike us" but also a God who is "wholly alike us" in many, many other ways.

So when I speak of God I lean into the process version of God's nearness, participation, and fellowship with us, the world, and nature as versus the Platonic-Greek Hellenaic traditions of transcendency, wrathful holiness, and divine powers which Western theology has chosen to follow with its evidentiary histories of oppression, racism, and crusading inquisitions.

A God of Love is not a God of Wrath. The wrath we think we see is the consequences of our choosing not to love one another or the world about us. When ascribing to God Wrath, and Judgment, and Hell we are but describing ourselves and placing these qualities upon God. Which is why, I feel, the biblical authors had a hard time telling who the real God was and versus who they thought God was. 

These same discussions go on today in faith commentaries, books, and postings. And since divine revelation is open and not closed (sic, only found in the bible) I feel its a valid position to take that when a misapprehension of God is taken then I may call it out even when collected into the Scriptures. The biblical narratives are simply yesterday's newspapers of faithful believers gone wrong in their faith beliefs.

Reading the Bible As It Was and Can Become

Firstly, I don't read from a revelationally closed Bible but from an inspirationally open Bible by which I mean God is always in communication with us today as God was back then in "biblical" times. Whether by God's Spirit or however we wish to ascribe it along Western theological formulas and syllogistic equations.

Next, I would prefer to think of God's communication in terms of communing with us much as a parent would with a child... or a friend to a friend. To speak to one another in imagined divine fiats is one thing, but to commune with one another in divine love is another. A communion which vouchsafes God's lifelong fellowship and deeply earthy relational communion with us, and the universe, in continually intimate terms. Not in terms of a God ensconced upon a heavenly throne coming-and-going according to God's good whim much like the Greek gods had in the ancient Greek imagination.

Too, I've been leaning deeply into the process theological paradigms which teach God's nearness to us at all times in our lives. God does not - nay, will not - leave us as my earlier faith taught when teaching of a loving God beheld in idolatrous admixtures of a judging-and-condemning God. Without necessarily denying the ancient Greek idea of God's far-ness from us vis-a-vis the church's Hellenistic teachings of transcendence, a pan-en-theistic (not pan-theistic nor classical theistic) process faith better describes a God who created creation as One with God's Self. Think of this as a four-point "trinity" but in this case "creation" is the salient fourth point on the fellowship circle of Father-Son-and-Spirit. This then would describe a God who has no intentions of abandoning us because God is the kind of God who has been, and always will be, deeply, intimately, in processual relationship with us and God's beloved creation.

And to the outmoded eschatological idea of leaving this earth for a better, non-earthly life in heaven while the world burns itself up by its own hands in Armageddon-like ecology gone bad. This Christian theology as found in the NT book of Revelation seems quite un-God-like to a process Christian metaphysician. To such churchly beliefs of a distant God's impugning judgments upon a wicked, wasted earth, I would say this....

"If the events in Revelation's narratives do come about they will be wrought by our own hands - not by God's loving hands whose love forewarned us of sin and evil when we do not love one another. Nor does God pile-on when sin and evil measures our "endtime" existence.

Rather, one might say such calamities come from a polluted earth which we have corrupted to the point of its cosmic devastation. A devastation which bears consequences to our neglecting care of the earth.

So rather than ascribing to the Christian faith a judging Nether-God raging down His wrath and Hell upon us, I simply read in Revelation of unloving man's complete failures across societies, nature, and even the heavens itself. Which of course is a very processual theology which describes consequences to sin and evil and to which classic church doctrines would say anathema to in their closed, interpretive readings of God and Scripture and churchly dominionism."

A Heavenly Communion Which Doesn't Stay in Heaven

Further, when thinking of a "biblical" eschatology of predicted things to come first know God cannot control outcomes in a world God designed as generatively good in value and structure. Divine love does not control... it but persuades listening, obedient hearts against the misuse of its own agency.

And secondly, life is a procession of processual events both good and bad. "What we sow we will reap." A Loving God can never sow evil nor respond to evil in unloving, non-restorative ways of redeeming reunion.

And thirdly, we must learn to expand our minds and hearts away from the church's traditionalized teachings. It's biblical eschatology is divinely unbiblical as I have shown. But it also creates a closed cosmos whose future state becomes trapped within its own static statism.

However, if we substitute the word teleology for eschatology we then have a fully, more correct picture of a processually "uncontrolled" divine future working to rebalance its inherently redemptive structure away from deathly structures to divinely implanted transformative and generatively good structures. Structures I would better describe as organically inbuilt evidencing a teleology of atoning relationships between creation itself and its panenthiestically immanent Godhead. We might call such survivability as evolution, but a processually-based and divinely enable evolution speaks to continuing creative and generatively good evolving relationships seeking merger within its many cosmological forms.

Conclusion - We Are Whom We Are Becoming

Our conclusion? A process-based Christianity is more than progressive in its assessment of the world. It is a wholly-other construction away from perverse and unhelpful teachings of the traditional church (think gay re-education; or refugees being shipped to unready communities).

In essence, we are trading in a Fire-and-Brimstone God for a God of Love. And to the sins and evils in this life we do not blame God for them but ourselves for not humbling ourselves before one another and seeking goodness and kindness, listening and learning. God is a God of grace, mercy and forgiveness. Creation's very own teleology is one of generative goodness and valuative operation. Albeit, on its own terms, much like we ourselves likewise blessed with agency, but inherent in nature, in us, even the universe, is the Imago Dei of God.

And lastly, it is in creation's very nature - even us, ourselves - to redeem and recreate all things towards redemption. Christ did this very same in God's atoning emancipation. It is how creation's designed to work by active insemination from one redemptive effect to another. Process describes this creation process as "A process of Being which is Becoming." That is, we are, and we may move forwards towards what we may fully become as we can in this life and its circumstances. Like God Who once said to Israel "I AM who I AM"... so too we may also say, "We Are whom We are Becoming to Be."

Blessings,

R.E. Slater

December 12, 2022

partially updated January 23, 2023

Adjusting the Church's Gospel to Jesus' Gospel

Adjusting the Church's Gospel

to Jesus' Gospel

by R.E. Slater

The idea of a weak theology carries itself forward across two themes. 1) God is not in "control" as God has created a freely evolving universe, earth, and cosmos imbued with volitional freewill because of God's great love. Love does not control but guides, encourages, provides choices and options where possible in an indeterminant creation. A world which can be loving but often is not, is conflicted, is nonresponsive to God's urgings to love. But is also pregnant with the possibilities for radical redemption in an open universe of possibilities.

2) As creatures of God's creation we are living examples to God's handiwork. The more so if we have partaken in Jesus' death and resurrection through the Spirit of God. But, since God is Spirit and not flesh (except for God's incarnation in Jesus) God is unable to physically minister love, kindness, helps, peace, goodwill, generosity, etc. Nor can God stop evil, speak against it, stand up to it, stand up for the oppressed, the persecuted, the harmed, or suffering. God, through creation, can be described as dependent upon God's ever-evolving freewill creation to act in his place.

Thus and thus, when speaking of an open, independent, freewilled creation God's Self is constrained by God's love in its exertions and ministrations. In other words, God paints with the colors and brushes God has. Whatever theology ignores this vital theme of the "weakness" of God will more likely lead off with unGodlike theologies of an idolatrous, militant God of vengeance, justice, determining control, coercion, force using "divine" power.

Such teaching are commonly illustrated through the Old and New Testaments. And by those theologies Israel, and later, the church came in its reasoning to misappropriated Law over Grace via rites, practices, worship, teachings, policies and policies. Christ came to throw over Law with Grace. Jesus spoke God in place of an imagined God. He spoke against "Power Gospels" to living, loving "weak Gospels" of redemptive release from both i) sin and to ii) religious bondages of misleading dogmas.

Theistic Dogmas whuch naturally exclude others from God's ministrations of helos and mercy. Which divide one's self from the world of beauty and pain. Which preach nationalism and war.

Such dogmatic theologies have forgotten, or twisted, Paul's observation that when he allows God's Spirit to fill him with love then his brassy life-noise once bound in "moral or religious dictim" now is daily challenged to become enabled to dance with God's own heart of love as God reaches across its cosmic spaces to heal, bind, make whole, release, and prevent.

Love's dynamic is ceaseless in destroying unloving states of being-and-living with re-creational states of renewal, redemption, reclamation, transformation, and resurrection. Love is the God dynamic all beliefs and theologies must center. Even as God through Jesus spoke against unloving Gospels in his day, even now do we do the same in our day.

R.E. Slater

August 15, 2022

* * * * * * *

Audio Podcast with Tripp Fuller & Tom Oord

discussing Process Theology. 

What it is, How it is, and Why it is.

Click here for audio podcast

* * * * * * *

Partial Imperfect Transcript

of Podcast

Yeah, what is up theology nerds. This is Tripp, and you're listening to homebrewed Christianity, where since the year of 2008, we've been bringing you interviews with scholars across the disciplines. They'll be wrestle reflect and think through your faith. Today, returning to the podcast is the one and only Thomas J Ord. That is right Tom ord is back open and relational theologian extraordinaire. And this is a special episode. Why? Why? Because we actually recorded in person. Yeah, in the flesh, same space, same time. Boom. Shakalaka. Me and Tom Ward. Now, before we hop in, I just want to remind everyone, this very next week, we have the kickoff of what is it? What is it? Oh, Christianity in process that's right, the new homebrewed group introducing process theology with John Cobb, just go to Christianity and process.com You can join up it's donation based including zero, and not only will you get six sessions with John Carbonite, but you'll get a visit from six different process theologians. That's right. Six different process theologians Andrew Swartz, Catherine Keller, Jacob Erickson, Donna Bowman, John Dill father Joseph brackin. Paul visiting. So getting ready, get pumped and enjoy the room now. Here comes my buddy Tom hanging out in my hotel room.

Hello, everyone, this is Tripp and today on the podcast being recorded in person.

Yes. In Norway Yeah. At ESET.

He sat and said European Society for the Study of science and theology.

Yeah. Is Tom born. I lured him back here to my hotel room.

That doesn't sound right.

I said do you want to you want to talk on a microphone?

It's actually good to see you face to face like it's weird. I'm not seeing you in your dungeon.

I know. I know when when you die here in Texas. I'm like was walking with people. Okay, we got to walk back now. Tom's here. Who's Tom? Like, we're good friends, but we've just hung out on the internet. For three years since

you've had your dungeon be in my garage.

We're significantly overdue for in person hugs. And yeah, for everyone that wants to know that. You're still good at giving hugs, Tom.

I do like there's something about that.

Yeah. Well, so the next big homebrew class is with John Cobb. 97 years old. And it's an intro to process the allergy nice now as someone who is helped bring together all the different parts of the churches that are open and relational, both in the academy and in your public work. I thought it'd be fun to talk to you about your relationship as a Nazarene coming out of a more evangelical tradition. What is it like to learn dialogue and how people that may have those backgrounds can experience and listen to John? Yeah, yeah. Because he is a, you know, liberal, mainline Protestant, philosophical theologian. And everything that comes along with that is there. He's also a Methodist missionary kid, who is who's deeply devout in his experience of God is centered in Jesus, which, that was a side of that for me as the Baptist preacher's kid the first connect to web. So, yeah, maybe the place to begin is for people that may not know who John comm is, but have some interested in process or open relational things like what? Like, how would you introduce him? Because there's so many different parts of him. But why is he been an important figure for the larger open relational group? Well, he

there's so many ways I could talk about John Cobb, but I think the first word that comes to my mind is his. He's a humble gentleman. So it's his character that I think attracts me primarily and other people as well. But then when you start to look at his production, his interests, his multifaceted writings and speaking he's someone who I think, wants to address the biggest questions of reality, and is not afraid, afraid to go outside the discipline across boundaries across religions. So I think of John Cobb as someone who is multifaceted in the best sort of a sense with a deep piety, deep humility, and, and, and a kind spirit. I remember one of the first times I hung out with John was at AAR, and that was getting ready to go into a session and I got a migraine and he had such empathy for me. Just never forget that. But in terms of his steel theology, as you rightly mentioned, he was always thought of as that liberal guy out there, you know, from those of us who are in F angelical. Circles, we are always suspicious of the liberals. And I grew dissatisfied with some of the theological thinking in the Evan Jellicle tradition and eventually found myself attracted to him. But in doing and kind of working through the process of that I had to come to terms with what I thought it meant to be an Evan Jellicle at all right and what kind of differences and similarities process thinking might have with that?

So when when you kind of begin your theological journey, and if this is your first time listening to Tom and I talk, there's hours and hours of conversation about it through you. There were a few questions that that you kind of demanded answers for in a sense, right, that led you into doing philosophy of religion and taking all that kind of seriously, we're then the larger process community became beneficial, they will How did you ask and understand those questions? And then how did they change when process theologians became a dialogue partner for you as a Nazarene theologian? Yeah,

I grew up in the Church of Nazarene and I'm still in that I'm an ordained elder. And I think from just like me, for many people, it's the problem of evil that makes him first attracted to process because here's a vision of a God who's not in control, and that helps so much with those big questions. And then I kind of shifted into other questions like science religion, what it means to be postmodern overcoming questions of certainty, questions about authority and biblical interpretation. So it was after you kind of get in the door, you start to make all kinds of connections and links. So those were really big issues for me. I think, though, that it's hard for me to share my story without talking about a period of time in my life in which I was an atheist for a moment. For a moment I sounds like one instant for a time.

There was this moment, actually 13 seconds.

I had come from a background in which evangelism was really important and I had grown dissatisfied with that. And it was a bunch of intellectual questions that brought me to the place where, well, I just didn't have good grounds to believe in the God that I had once believed in. And from that kind of place where I turned from belief in God and then eventually came back I was building from you might say, scratch. No one builds from absolute nothing that's not even God. But I had some scratch that I was building from again, and it was the questions of love and meaning that brought me back and then I started writing on natural theology, and you know, the process tradition is known for that. And those were the kinds of things that brought me to begin to embrace process thinking.

So the in underneath that, I think is the way the way questions function is is one of the ways that that process I think, becomes attractive for lots of people. For those who grew up in a much in a more evangelical context, often questions or boundary markers, and so you are allowed to ask them as long as that's, you know, the beginning of a rather set journey to certain answers. In It For people that exist in an in a part of the church where those boundaries are patrolled. Then it ultimately a few good questions in a row, and you just don't feel like you belong. And I think one of the things about the larger process community and one of the things John's done really well and by engaging theologians from more evangelical side but also with orthodox theologians and Catholic theologians and such is for for him, the questions have not been boundary markers. They've, they've been taking the question seriously as evidence of faith. And one of the things I've noticed just in you know, if I'm talking to John Cobham, like I want to hear what you think I'm not that interested in what I'm saying right now, you know, and he will ask follow up questions and was interested in what what animates the question, Where does it come from? And I experienced the kind of questions you bring into a conversation for him. Or treated pastorelli by a super nerd. Yeah. And that was what made him very compelling to me as a, you know, undergrad when I went and did summer process Institute and was thinking about Claremont and all that kind of stuff, was the questions were treated with the same kind of sensitivity for the person faith as if I was telling you about a struggle with a family member being sick or a personal failure, although we know how to listen and show up to those difficulties. Yeah, right. Then, and he was taking my questions of faith that like seriously that way and I think that is possible. When the big picture you have is one where you really aren't having to cross your fingers and dodge things when you talk about God. Yeah, like you ended that comment with like, then I got around to thinking about what is natural theology and how do you like give a best account of a world that includes beauty, truth, goodness, value, how do you explain then all these kinds of things, then the process vision has deep reservoir, right, right, that affirms those intuitions engages in science and wrestles the questions then the questions are not threatening in a different way. Yeah, because I my evangelical past, it was the boundaries that you are protecting right for John it says d is deep reservoir where we have a really the god world relationship, that then the questions aren't threatening, right. Yeah.

That's a great way to put it. Yeah, I think I came to process that in part because I had intuitions that I saw were matched there. But I wanted something was reasonable. You know, something that was logical had rational coherence. made sense. And I didn't, I was oftentimes, given the Mystery Card when I asked questions in my eventual setting, and I just got really tired of that. And then eventually, I kind of got around to saying, This matches my intuitions. It is intellectually sophisticated and coherent. And then I realized, and what it's really doing is just trying to take at face value. At least initially, widespread experience. Yeah, and given my background, my Evan Jellicle background which is quasi Methodist, Nazarene is have a Wesleyan theology. Our experience mattered, you know, my, my Pentecostal friends, their experience mattered. And so it wasn't that far away from these kind of this this history that I had that was not taken as seriously I think, by our theologians in the history, but was really taken seriously and the piety of the local church. But the way you talk about questions, I think, is another issue and you've kind of hinted at this. Many people in evangelical tradition are implicitly or explicitly taught that it's the answers that matter most and you ought to be certain about the answers you have. So you know, one thing about one way of thinking about pedagogy is that you go and you get filled up in your head with all the right answers to all the questions someone might ask you, you don't ask good questions yourself. So part of my journey and I think the part of the journey of many people today are ex urban joke or post Evan jungle is getting past that. You know, I've got to be certain about things I've got to be certain there's a god I've got to be certain about my view of atonement, salvation, Jesus, all those things. The certainty question was a tough one for me for quite a while and overcoming that, I think, opened me up to ask deep questions and not be satisfied with the inadequate answers I had been given in Evan Jellicle circles. Yeah, I

think that yeah, I think that makes sense. And I think a lot of people are experiencing that more and more you know, one of the was fascinating, I think is my generation and older. It was often theological questions that led to the questioning of that kind of certainty and boundary policing. Yeah. And I think those that are younger than you know, if you're, if you're millennials and younger, tend to it's been the public failures of the evangelical church. Yeah. And the way in which kind of white evangelicalism in America was wedded to certain kinds of political power that were problematic. The fascinating thing to me is above the public witness it acting in coercive, powerful ways in public, and the questions around like the Odyssey or atonement that are ultimately connected to divine power and revelation. All of them have a power angle. Yeah. Good, you know. And I wonder if it's something I've been thinking about and preparation for the class. I wonder if one of the shifts that needs to take place within at least American life is much more clarity that our our image of divine power, both in thinking theologically and then practicing our faith in public has been wedded to something that sub Christian and it's led to a lot of people who've had those experiences like you and I had growing up in evangelical context, we were like, Oh, my encounter with Jesus, and God is like animates and inspires me to become a more loving person. I want to figure out how to love my neighbor. And if, you know, instance, you're going for perfection, maybe your enemy. That's a, that's a Wesleyan, the, but then, when you realize there's so many of the doctrines or so many of the things we're going to die on publicly, are connected to visions of power that don't cohere with the actual relational experience of loving relation with God or, you know, then I think there's a tension definitely, and I know you spent a lot of time talking about God camp. And you've done a lot on on on love. Do you think that how do you see that thread around power functioning for especially those that are starting to question it? in new ways?

Yeah, I see. A kind of a typical progression amongst evangelicals. Again, this is typical as a generalization. The first step is away from a God who's all controlling, and usually they didn't the step isn't away from God who's controlling in all respects, so it'll be you know, welcome. Maybe God doesn't control humans on matters that aren't salvific. But on salvation, God ultimately is in control. And then the next step is they give up the question of God's ultimate control and salvation. They'll say, Well, God gives us free will. And God could sometimes take it away to make sure some miracle happens. But most of the time, you know, God's going to offer us freedom, and we need to use that rightly to find salvation. And then the next step is usually well, maybe God doesn't take it. Maybe there's something about the natural world that God doesn't control. Maybe like John Polkinghorne there's natural processes that regulate but doesn't control and is sort of, you see this shift away from power as God being all powerful to being giving of power to being self limited. And then sort of the the move that I want to make is to say yeah, God just simply can't control not only humans, but anything in creation because it comes from God's very nature as being in control. And I see more and more people attracted to that view, not only because it helps answer the tough questions about the problem of evil about questions of politics, about atonement theories, etc. But for me, especially, it's the questions of love that are most central, because, well, what I want most is to live a life of love. And it would be really strange to have a God who is less loving than I am. So as you can see, well, due to drange, but way too popular.

to soak in to conceive of God in such a way that God is perfectly loving, at least for me, means that God not only is never controlling but simply can't control and then of course fits nicely with process thinking

is how would you describe the the how you see the process, the process theologians such fitting within the larger open and relational framework? So I'm in essence because I think a lot of people listen to the podcast that will end up in John calm class, will someone be much more naturally at home and other parts of the open relational framework? Yeah. But when, when it's when you understand the larger open relational vision and you realize what it's like to hang out with a liberal Protestant theologian. Yeah. You find out that whether you believe it or not, John is probably one of the most Christian liberal Protestant theologians there is right? Yeah. And because the kind of questions you ask, what's your methodology switches are different. It's not often picked up on but in the open relational group, you see people because you have the shared commitments around openness, love relationality and things. You see how different kinds of methodologies from different parts of the church interact when you have these different kinds of shared commitments? Anyway, yeah, how do you see the

--- Break ---

...Typical as a generalization, the first step is a way to form a God who's all controlling. And usually they didn't. The step isn't away from God who's controlling in all respects. So it'll be you know, welcome. Maybe God doesn't control humans on matters that aren't salvific. But on salvation, God ultimately is in control. And then the next step is they give up the question of God's ultimate control and salvation. They'll say, Well, God gives us free will. And God could sometimes take it away to make sure some miracle happens. But most of the time you know, God's gonna offer us freedom, and we need to use that rightly to find salvation. And then the next step is usually well, maybe God doesn't take a walk. Maybe there's something about the natural world that God doesn't control, maybe, like John Polkinghorne there's natural processes that yas regulates but doesn't control and it's sort of you see this shift away from power as God being all powerful to being giving of power to being self limited. And then sort of the the move that I want to make is to say, Yeah, God just simply can't control not only humans, but anything in creation because it comes from God's very nature as being uncontrolled. And I see more and more people attracted that view, not only because it helps answer the tough questions about the problem of evil about questions of politics about atonement theories, etc. But for me, especially, it's the questions of love that are most central, because, well, what I want most is to live a life of love. And it would be really strange to have a God who is less loving than I am. So to conceive that well, since drange, but way too popular.

to soak in to conceive of God in such a way that God is perfectly loving, at least for me means that God not only is never controlling but simply can't control and then of course, fits nicely with process thinking is how would you describe the the how you see the process, the process theologians, such fitting within the larger open and relational framework? So I'm asking this because I think a lot of people listen to the podcast that will end up in the John calm class, will someone be much more naturally at home and other parts of the open relational framework? Yeah. But when, when it's when you understand the larger open relational vision, and you realize what it's like to hang out with liberal Protestant theologian Yeah. Then you find out that whether you believe it or not, John is probably one of the most Christian liberal Protestant theologians there is right? Yeah. And because the kind of questions you ask once your methodology switches are different, is not often picked up. On but in open relational group, you see people because you have the shared commitments around openness, love relationality and things. You see how different kinds of methodologies from different parts of the church interact when you have these different kinds of shared commitments? Anyway, yeah, how do you see the

yeah, let me start by answering your question with the sociological claim or at least statement. I think a lot of what prevents evangelicals, from even asking questions beyond their community is the communities as you put it, earlier, I think policing of borders, you know, are you really with us? If you are then you must confess these certain ideas. And you have to stay away from those liberals or those whoever the outsiders. And so part of I think for many people today in me especially, it's actually having relationships with people who think differently, not only differently within Christianity, but within other religious traditions. So it's even it's a sociological, communal kind of shift that opens us up to the even the possibilities of thinking differently. So in light of that, your first kind of question was where the relationship between open and relational process. I get this question a lot these days because people say Well, are you a process theologian or an open and relational theologian and they say, well, in my way of thinking, open relational is the big umbrella under which there's a multiplicity of different process theologies, different openness, feminist, all kinds of variety. What we share in common is the idea that God is relational and the future is open, but we argue like crazy, it's under that umbrella on our differences. And I think that's healthy. We don't have a rigid set of, you know, you got to really believe these 12 things that otherwise you're not in the club. We've just got a few things we share in common and then we explore the diversity underneath it.

In what how did how did your time in Claremont and then after that, obviously, ended up becoming friends with so many of the previous generations process theologian what, what, what were the assumptions and ideas you brought into it that didn't hold up once you got to? Once you got to meet them? Yeah.

Well, I thought as an Evangelical, you're told that liberals are just relative on all social issues. That is they don't really believe in truth, they don't have any certain sort of strings. They're just gonna go with whatever's popular or whatever, you know, they happen to believe as individuals, and it turns out, you know, they have some real convictions least most liberals that I hang out with. They may alter or be a little different than the of angelical community I had, but did generally had convictions. They had some really strong reasons for those convictions. So it wasn't just a personal relativism kind of thing. So that was different. One of the things I discovered in the process community that's different from many other liberal Christian communities, I'm part of it the process community actually wanted to say a lot of things about God. In wider liberal Christian communities, sometimes claims or statements about what God does and is up to in his like, take a really far back seat and it's Yeah, more about, you know, how we're going to be act in social justice, which I'm all for, but there's not close connections to claims about who God is. And that's still important to me that maybe that's one part of my heritage that I'm not going to give up on. But the process community said, No, don't give up on it. We need you to think deeply and really examine the things you've been given. And there might actually be better ways to think about God from a process open relationship perspective. Yeah.

In I think connect to the god part is also the the process theologians connections to their local religious communities. Yeah, typically, yeah. Like I joked to students at Claremont when, you know, when I was PhD do ta and stuff that you they'll complain, you the students at common realize they're at this very liberal seminary like, I don't know if my Bible teacher really believes the Bible, you know, these kinds of things, and then they and then they associate, everything crosses people think with any initially with any parts that are uncomfortable with and I'm, like, none of the process theologians. They're the ones you actually know went to church on Sunday. Like, like the if you think of Claremont, like like John still goes to the same Methodist Church. Marjorie taught the archery suit like he was teaching confirmation. When I was there before she moved to Texas that I'm Phil is part of the Quaker community and our meeting and said, Monica is deeply involved in two different religious traditions. Yeah, and was working on, on on bringing process framework to help account for black religious experience and in LA and working with multi religious families which a big deal in Los Angeles, that helping them understand the divine and honoring both traditions that they're inherited, like, the kinds of things that you know, if I was in growing up, Ryan was the all I joke like religious diversity was that kind of badness. You were so then rural North Carolina, but they the not just the process, people still talk about God and the liberal theologians that take content seriously tend not to write. But also, I've always had a deep attachment to the church. Yeah, I think that's Johnny, how many probably pleasure to publish 11 books that are, you know, 100 Page short ones for congregations to use the process and faith group for a long time when Marjorie's in charge has invested. Monica Coleman's work on helping wrote a book out of starting group for dealing with domestic violence and congregations but then help launch communities through the Dinah project at congregations all over and if you sit in a room of the 30 theologians that teach future mainline ministers, the process ones are the ones that are much more likely to have worshipped regularly and invested part of their time in the life of the church and I I found that compelling as a preacher's kid that was like doing a PhD or church plan.

That's important to me too. You know, it goes back to that importance or that role of experience theology. I think also, and this is something maybe you and I share in common because people like John Cobb have been important in our lives. And because at least in my case, John was a liberal and I was an Evangelical and he was kind of his the friendship we had helped me to shift my ideas about theology and about what Christianity might look like. And what the church might look like. I regularly spend time with people who were much further right than I am on theology and political issues. In part because. With the actual relational experience of loving relation with God or then I think there's a tension definitely. And I know you spent a lot of time talking about God camp. And you've done a lot on on on love. Do you think that how do you see that thread around power functioning for especially those who are starting to question it? in new ways?

Yeah, I see a kind of a typical progression amongst evangelicals. Again, this is typical as a generalization. The first step is a way to go from a God who's all controlling and usually they didn't the step isn't away from God who's controlling in all, how do you see the how do you see the associate when I was growing? up where I was all I joke...

--- Break ---

...I regularly spend time with people who are much further right than I am on the ology and political issues, in part because I want them to see that a person can have my beliefs and not be a jerk and still pray and you know, that sort of thing. I mean, I I recently spoke at a pretty I won't say the name of the place, but it's hardcore, fundamentalist kind of institution. And of course, they were really worried about me, so they set things up so that other people had lots of time to talk before I did, and after that sort of thing, but so many students came up to me afterwards and said, Oh, yeah, what you're saying makes sense. I think that I wouldn't be allowed to say that at this institution. But I think to myself, well, I want to put myself in those positions, because John has done that for me and so many others who come from conservative backgrounds.

Yeah, no, that's, I think that's true. And one of the other things I would I would say, especially for people in in a more evangelical context, they it John doesn't care if you like half of what he says and thinks the other half is eye rolling. That would be my general encouragement if if you if you join the class and in like, the first session, I don't know he's gonna exactly gonna say once talking about the inspiration of Scripture first nice and give a process account then he's when talking about the Incarnation, which I can which which for John is funny, because he, he thinks is the non negotiable doctrine for Christianity and complains that his peers isn't he's a fee on the Trinity. Yeah. If you need one, there's some real creative ways of getting to one. Yeah, but the the other thing I was gonna say as part of the way that we're structuring the class, and, and people are gonna be sending in questions, and hopefully, towards the end of it, we get to the ones that are like, from people that are like, Oh, this is new. We will get to hang out and talk about them. But each week I'm having different a different person from the broad process community, good as like a second session. So they hear all the different great examples. So like Katherine Keller is doing it. Jacob Erickson, Donna Bowman, John Gill, Joseph Bracken, and then Andrew shorts Nice. So in you know all them so they, you know many ways you get from, um, you know, like from queer eco theology process post structuralist you know, so then I grew up religious I'm not sure if I am but I'm processing religious to like, you know, but we'll danger was one of your one of your formers is the, the process the process theological vision because it's so tied to wrestling. metaphysically then gets picked up and used by philosophical theologians in different confessional community, and just like Platonism has been in every different religion. I think process metaphysics is something that can be utilized to talk around philosophical questions, engage the sciences, and help you then think about particular questions and doctrines in your tradition. Yeah,

I think that's one of the issues actually that process folks are most criticized for. I was just speaking at institution here in Scandinavia, and which one of the scholars said Well, the thing I hate about process theology is that they're really committed to the metaphysics and the Christianity just kind of comes along a little later. And so I kind of tease that out too, to hear what he really meant. And it sounded like he had the usual criticism that in process that creativity is the ultimate and God sister, little creature along the way, and I've heard that so many times. So you know, I tried to say, Well, look, there's another way if you start with the doctrine of God from the Christian tradition, and if you ask the questions of evil and science religion, etc, you can come to a process vision through your study of the doctrine of God, that will have metaphysical implications, no doubt, right? And you'll have, you know, you'll be inclined towards certain things that might sound more Whitehead in or not so much, but you don't have to start with the metaphysical system and then add Christianity to vote or your doctrine of God. You can start with the doctrine of God and then see how it's fruitful in metaphysics like whiteheads in

and actually like, no person starts with Whitehead, because you have to have multiple graduate degrees and know what the hell he was talking to. In the only reason you take the time to figure it out. Is and this at least has been true when I've talked to a lot of theologians on this podcast, none of them more like so when I was 14 and reading processing reality. I then said now what religious tradition do I want to shove this in? Right? The I think this is if you are the kind of person that asks what is it big, thick, rich, unified account of the universe and not everyone has these questions? I find it dumbfounding that people don't. But I have a good authority from my favorite human being that I'm married to that some people do not lose sleep about that. And I only want about two hours of it a week. But if you ask those questions, then and you've encountered God in Christ, which is I'm not saying this is exclusivist. I'm just saying, right is for trip in the sense that that's where I met the divine and the community introduced me all these kinds of things. Then, if you ask big questions, and then you go to your philosophy class, and you meet Thomas and he realized that they borrowed Aristotle and thought they updated it. That's questionable discipline for you, like read Augustine. melanosome goes to Augustine, you know, I just don't know if Augustine and Aquinas are really Christians because they just are borrowing the metaphysics from these pagans.

Are you and I asked that but everybody ...is it's because they borrow the wrong parts. They modify it to include doctrines that are not that important. But for Whitehead, I think the reason so many people found him is in the 20th century. We have a lot of questions that if you are wrestling with them philosophically, a lot of old, older philosophical systems, if you want to give a big, thick, unified metaphysical account, they weren't shaped by contemporary science, with positive generative relations. across religious diversity. They weren't facing a world like at this conference right now thinking about the impending ecological crisis and all that kind of stuff. Yeah. Well, if you're Christian, and then you were asking this question...

END

* * * * * * *

August 15, 2022

Good morning. A new and noteworthy book is out this week entitled Longpath: Becoming the Great Ancestors Our Future Needs, by Ari Wallach. Wallach argues that we are in what he calls an “intertidal” moment—when different worlds collide, like the sea and the shore. From the book: “Global challenges like climate change, pandemic disease, financial crisis, and tech disruptions are exploding and are on a collision course with fragmented geopolitical structures and citizens… Whereas once we took for granted that the next generation would be better off than we are, people increasingly feel that they and their families will be worse off in five years. The way we work has changed, with one-third of the American workforce now participating in the gig economy and automation infiltrating almost every sector. We even have the capacity to edit our genetic code now in a way that gets passed down to our kids and their kids and so on.” How to respond? Wallach says the moment demands a change in mindset, that reframes decisions to focus not on what they mean for the next day, month, or year—but on what they mean for future generations. I spoke to Wallach last week and asked him why he wrote the book now. His answer: “I wrote the book because after being a strategic consultant and leader of a company that is helping people think about tomorrow, I found that tomorrow for most people is just six to nine months out. But the issues we are dealing with are 60- to 90-year issues. We need to change how we think about these things…break them down, understand them…so we aren’t just putting the sandbags out.” While the book isn’t explicitly about business, the “longpath” framing helps clarify the current debate between a “shareholder” and “stakeholder” focus. In the “longpath,” the two merge. We are all equal stakeholders in the future. Other news below. And take a look at our summary of how the ten biggest companies in the U.S. are handling the return to the office. Alan Murray @alansmurray alan.murray@fortune.com

Gandalf and the Open & Relational God

Gandalf and the Open & Relational God

https://calebposton.com/gandalf-and-the-open-relational-god-fa8a388906f0

by Caleb Poston

May 8, 2022

Gandalf + Open & Relational Theology = An Unexpected Analogy!

Part of what makes open and relational theology so attractive are its nuances, uncertainties, and variations. Ask any two open and relational thinkers for their view on God, and you will likely receive two answers. That makes sense, for these questions are so complex as to essentially demand different solutions.

Sometimes, we need to get creative to answer them; we might even need to travel to another world.

That’s what I’m going to do here. I’m going to take a little trip to Middle-earth and use Middle-earth’s favorite wizard, Gandalf, to attempt to explain how the open and relational God works.

DISCLAIMER: Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and he had no allegorical intent with his writings. Therefore, I’m not suggesting an allegorical interpretation of Gandalf; I’m suggesting literary application—an approach that Tolkien approved for his readers.

An Emissary

The first comparison to make between Gandalf and God, especially God from an open and relational perspective, is the manner in which both came to Middle-earth/Earth to interact with people. Gandalf isn’t just a regular person in Middle-earth who happened to learn magic; he is an emissary sent to Middle-earth by the deities and spiritual hierarchy in Arda (the entire world in which Middle-earth is located).

Wizardry in Middle-earth isn’t like other stories: People can’t go to Hogwarts and learn how to be a wizard. No, wizards in Middle-earth are part of an exclusive class of spiritual beings known as the Maiar, primordial spirits that work directly with the Valar and their king, Manwë. They are able to take physical form in Middle-earth and have done so in a variety of ways, both good and evil. Some examples of evil Maia in Middle-earth include the balrogs of Morgoth and Sauron himself.

In the Third Age of Middle-earth, five of these Maia were sent by the Valar (basically the “angels” of Arda) to Middle-earth to take the form of wizards. This group of wizards was called the Istari (or in Quenya, “ones who know”). The Istari included Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown, the blue wizards Alatar and Pallando, and, last in this list but certainly not least in the Istari pecking order, Gandalf the Grey. According to Tolkien‘s writings and letters, Gandalf was the only one who fulfilled his purpose, which was to rally the free peoples of Middle-earth to contest the will of Sauron.

Gandalf was sent by Manwë to take the form of a wizard and contest the will of Sauron. Gandalf was a spiritual being, and he emptied himself of the glory in Valinor so that he could participate in the world he helped create. And he participated in various ways: as a counselor, a teacher, a warrior, a friend, and a leader — different roles for different people. He took physical form and experienced pain, hunger, emotions, love, anger, fear, etc. — I think you know where I’m going with this (but not yet).

God has also interacted in the world in various ways. He created the world (as Gandalf took part in the world’s creation), he revealed himself as a cloud and burning bush, and, ultimately, he emptied himself of his glory and took physical form (like Gandalf) as Jesus of Nazareth. As Jesus, he experienced pain, hunger, emotions, love, anger, fear, etc. And he wasn’t coercive—he inspired people to live for the kingdom through his words and actions. He, like Gandalf, played various roles: counselor, teacher, son, friend, and leader.

Relational

Gandalf was known throughout Middle-earth. The elves knew him and called him Mithrandir; men called him Gandalf; people in the south called him Incánus, and dwarves knew him as Tharkûn. They knew him because he went out of his way to know them. He formed relationships with them—all people from all races in Middle-earth.

Gandalf spent time in the holes of the Shire, and smoked their pipeweed; Gandalf spent time in the halls of the dwarves. He studied in the library of Gondor and rested in the forests and valleys of Rivendell and Mirkwood. And Gandalf likely drank in the great mead hall of Edoras. He went out of his way and traveled far and wide to form relationships with the people he came to counsel, guide, and, in some way, save.

God, like Gandalf, goes out of his way to know us. He meets us where we are and forms personal relationships with us. And people know him by many names: Jesus, Lord, God, Father, Ancient of Days, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Some open and relational thinkers propose that God reveals himself to all people, and all the world’s gods, in some way, point to God. They all know him as different names: God, Allah, Krishna, etc. Regardless, God is not bound by geography, cultural background, or race—God, like Gandalf, seeks to know all people and form lasting relationships with them.

Behind the Scenes

As a member of the Istari, Gandalf was not sent to overpower evil in Middle-earth and bend it to his will; he was sent to counsel the freepeople of Middle-earth and guide them toward decisions that weaken the enemy and defend the freepeople. He was not allowed to display his full power as a Maia during his time with the people of Middle-earth. Consider this passage from “The Istari” in Unfinished Tales …

“Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good” (emphasis mine).

See that? Gandalf (and all the Istari) were in Middle-earth to counsel, not coerce. They were forbidden to display their full power; they did not come to rule while in physical form. They were there to advise and persuade people to make their own decisions that would make the world a better place.

When God revealed himself as Jesus Christ, he didn’t display his full power. He suffered, was bound by time, got tired, and went through every human emotion. Sure, he walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead, but Gandalf talked to animals, made magic fireworks, and … also rose from the dead. Gandalf, like Jesus, bent the rules and displayed power, but only in certain circumstances. Jesus was similar: Remember, he could have summoned angels to save him from his death (Matthew 26:53), but he didn’t. He did not display his full power.

In open and relational theology, God (like Gandalf) doesn’t coerce his people. Through his indwelling presence, he guides, counsels, and leads his people to make decisions that will bring glory to God. He, like Gandalf, has a purpose, he has plans he would like to see come to fruition, but his people must see those plans through, and God’s presence (as counselor, guide, motivator) helps to advise and persuade people to make their own decisions that make the world a better place.

Not a Helicopter Leader

Gandalf was more qualified to handle the conflicts and problems of Middle-earth than anyone else—maybe even elves like Galadriel and Glorfindel. But Gandalf, like the open and relational God, also gave his followers room to grow on their own. He stepped back and let them figure it out through their own strength and will. When Gandalf left Bilbo, Thorin, and the dwarves at the edge of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, he was leaving them in a difficult situation. Gandalf undoubtedly would have made that situation much easier, but by leaving, he forced Bilbo to grow and step up as the leader.

I feel that God, especially from the open and relational perspective, steps back and lets us get through difficult situations on our own. We go through sickness; we go through death and grief. We experience hardship financially, emotionally, spiritually, physically—almost every possible way. An all-powerful God could theoretically step in and solve all of our problems. But perhaps something restrains him?

The deities that sent the Maia, Olórin (Gandalf), sent him with a specific rule that he could not display his full power. Perhaps God has his own rule preventing him from displaying his full power, instead letting human free will run its course and guiding and counseling rather than forcing and coercing. It is better for God to guide us to make good decisions on our own than for God to coerce humanity into the outcomes he desires. Perhaps God’s central attribute, love, prevents him from this level of coercion—an idea Thomas Jay Oord thoroughly explores in his books God Can’t and Pluriform Love. Gandalf is in the same boat: Gandalf could act in his full power, but he can’t.

Fights the Battles We Can’t Face

Gandalf participated in and led some talented and powerful groups: Thorin and Company, the Fellowship of the Ring, and the White Council. The latter was a group of equals and superiors to Gandalf, but the first two consisted of regular men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits—to them, Gandalf was a god among men. Along the way, Gandalf defeated enemies that were beyond the abilities of the company he was with. For example, when Gandalf abandoned the company at the edge of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, he wasn’t scared of the flies and spiders; he was fighting a battle that needed to be fought but was beyond the abilities and power of his company. He, along with the White Council, was driving the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur to protect the North from the growing shadow.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, the first volume of The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf and the Fellowship face an ancient balrog in the Mines of Moria. As the group is trying to escape the mines, they hear the roar and see the flames of this demonic enemy. Those who have seen the film will remember Gandalf saying,

“This foe is beyond any of you. Run!”

The balrog was beyond Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and all of them combined. But he wasn’t beyond Gandalf—and Gandalf knew that. He knew that he needed to use his power to defeat this ancient foe, which was the same spiritual entity (Maiar) as Gandalf. Gandalf defeated this foe, and he died in the process—though he was resurrected as Gandalf the White.

Likewise, the open and relational God doesn’t coerce, instead guiding and counseling through a personal relationship with his people, but he does and has fought the battles we, as mere humans, are fundamentally unable to face. The first example that comes to mind is Jesus defeating the greatest foe: death. Death now has no sting; death now has no power. But death’s defeat had nothing to do with us; it had all to do with the God, Jesus, who knew that it was beyond us. He defeated the foe, but he died in the process. However, like Gandalf, he rose again in robes of white, and he, just as Gandalf the White did for his friends and followers, gave us access to an even more powerful ally.

Conclusion

In my opinion, Gandalf is a powerful example of the open and relational God. He emptied and humbled himself of his glory to experience life like us so that he could truly relate with us. He guides us and counsels us to good decisions and good works. He doesn’t coerce us, and, consequently, the future is open to the future we create. It could go well; it could be delayed by struggles, trials, and tribulations, but God is always there, within us, guiding us and empowering us to make the world a better place. God, like Gandalf, has fought the most important battles—the battles we could not face. And his victory and resurrection has given us access to the power we need to act on his behalf and partner with him as we renew the Earth.

Someone once said, “We all need a little Gandalf on our shoulder.”

Fortunately, as Christians, we do have a little Gandalf on our shoulder.