The Incarnational Cosmic Christ, Part 2

The Incarnational Cosmic Christ

PART 2

Compiled by R.E. Slater

de Chardin's Relationship

with Process Theology

I am reiterating Teilhard de Chardin's (TdC)view of the Cosmic Christ here below. At times close to Whitehead's process thought in many components, de Chardin's Catholic view was more vitalist in approach positing a muscular psycho-spiritual form of teleology into evolutionary progress.

In the past, as well as the present, both Catholic and Protestant beliefs have struggled with accepting Darwinian evolution - which viewpoint the French Jesuit priest de Chardin promoted, stating that all creation was moving towards an "Omega Point" in Christ. A theological statement which a Christ-centered process theology would be sympathetic towards, however, de Chardin's metaphysic is more theological than it is philosophic making it much less broad than Whitehead's process metaphysic (I will explain what I mean by this in the next several articles). For now here are a few observations leading into "The Incarnational Cosmic Christ."

At the center of TdC's philosophy was the belief that the human species is evolving spiritually, progressing from a simple faith to higher and higher forms of consciousness, including a consciousness of God, and culminating in the ultimate understanding of humankind's place and purpose in the universe.

SIMILARITIES

Creation as Christo-Centric:

Both Teilhard de Chardin and Whitehead's process philosophy / theology emphasized a dynamic, evolving universe and a God who is immanent in creation.

Their views of Christ and the nature of the divine also differed significantly, with process theology understanding Christ as God's divine agent responding to God's call of creation, while Teilhard sees Christ as the cosmic center of evolution.

Emphasis on Evolution and a Dynamic Universe:

Both Teilhard and process thinkers see the universe as a dynamic, evolving process, not a static entity.

Immanence of God:

Both emphasize God's presence and involvement in the world, rather than a distant, transcendent God.

Cosmic Christ:

Both view Christ as having a cosmic significance, not just a historical or local one. 

Cosmological and Evolutionary Framework:

Both Teilhard de Chardin’s mysticism and process philosophy emphasize a dynamic evolving universe. For de Chardin, Christ represents the Omega Point, the ultimate goal of the evolutionary process toward greater complexity and unity. This resonates with process theology's idea of the "Divine lure," where God calls creation towards greater complexity and fulfillment.

Process philosophy, particularly through figures like Alfred North Whitehead, emphasizes the processual nature of reality, where everything is in constant flux and development, much like Teilhard’s understanding of the universe evolving towards a unifying point of divine fulfillment.

Immanence of God:

Both perspectives see God as immanent in the world, guiding and participating in the unfolding of creation. In de Chardin’s view, Christ is present in every part of the universe, drawing it toward its divine fulfillment. Similarly, process theology views God as deeply involved in the unfolding process of the world, working within the world to inspire growth, order, and harmony.

Christ as a Cosmic Principle:

In de Chardin’s mysticism, Christ is not just a personal savior but also a cosmic figure — the Christogenesis or the principle by which the universe reaches its ultimate zenith or unity. This connects with process theology's idea of God as both a personal presence and a guiding cosmic force. Christ, for de Chardin, is the focal point of the universe's evolutionary trajectory, and this aligns with process theology’s understanding of God's role as a co-creator with the world.

PSEUDO-DIFFERENCES

Christ's Role in Creation:

• Teilhard de Chardin viewed Christ as the ultimate point of convergence for all of creation’s evolutionary journey — the Omega Point. His Christology is highly metaphysical, rooted in an esoteric understanding of cosmic evolution.

• Process theology, however, does not necessarily view Christ as the sole focus of cosmic evolution but as a key participant in the unfolding divine process. In Whitehead’s framework, Christ (or the Christ Principle) is seen as an aspect of God's interaction with the world rather than the singular focus of cosmic progression.

• This then forces the question, "What does the person of Christ (not the work of Christ) mean in a philosophical v theological sense? That is, "How is Christ the objective end of the universe? In theological language it is readily apparent but in philosophical language process thought must go beyond the ontology of the Person to the metaphysic itself - which in God, is one-and-the-same, envisioning a dance of symmantics. Which is why de Chardin's Christogenic OmegaPoint can be seen as sympathetic to process thought though limiting in its metaphysic (again, I will explain in several follow up articles).

The Nature of God and Creation:

• Teilhard’s view is more panentheistic — God is both within and beyond creation, and Christ is the divine principle that encapsulates the unity of the world’s evolutionary ascent.

• In process thought, God is also panentheistic but the emphasis is often on God’s dynamic relationship with the world. God is understood to both suffer with creation and persuade it toward greater good, with Christ being an incarnation of this divine process.

Teleologic Eschatology:

• Teilhard de Chardin’s eschatology is highly optimistic, seeing the entire universe ultimately converging in the Christ at the Omega Point — a kind of final cosmic unity and perfection. This view has a very teleological (goal-oriented) aspect to it.

• Process theology, while hopeful, often rejects a strict end-point of perfection. The future in process thought is more open-ended, with the possibility for ongoing transformation and growth, and doesn’t always adhere to the idea of a final cosmic goal in the way de Chardin envisioned.

CONCLUSION

While Teilhard de Chardin’s mystic view of Christ and process theology share a very close cosmic and evolutionary framework and a deep sense of divine immanence, Teilhard’s Christology is more metaphysical, esoteric, and teleological, whereas process theology offers a more relational and open-ended view of God's involvement in the world. The integration of Christ into the evolutionary process, central to de Chardin’s thought, parallels process philosophy's idea of God’s involvement in creation but differs in its scope and finality.

---

de Chardin's Relationship

with the Catholic Church

Summary:

While the Catholic Church previously issued a monitum (warning) against Teilhard de Chardin's writings in 1962, there's a growing trend of positive recognition and engagement with his ideas, including references by multiple popes, though a formal rehabilitation remains absent. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Initial Condemnation:

In 1962, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office) issued a monitum against Teilhard de Chardin's writings, citing "dangerous ambiguities and grave errors". 

Shift in Perspective:

Despite the initial warning, there's been a noticeable shift in the Church's perspective on Teilhard, with multiple popes making positive references to his work. 

Pope Francis's Influence:

Pope Francis, in particular, has been quoted as referencing Teilhard's writings, including in "Laudato Si'," which has led to speculation about a potential rehabilitation of Teilhard's work. 

Positive Recognition:

Scholars from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture have noted Teilhard's "prophetic vision," and some supporters have called for him to be named a Doctor of the Church or for the monitum to be removed. 

Ongoing Dialogue:

The Church continues to engage with Teilhard's ideas, with the opening of the Teilhard de Chardin Center in a Paris suburb serving as a place for dialogue between science, philosophy, and spirituality. 

No Formal Rehabilitation:

While there are positive signs, the Church has not formally reversed the 1962 monitum or declared Teilhard a Doctor of the Church. 

---

THE COSMIC CHRIST

REFORMULATING THE CLASSICAL FAITH

Published in The Furrow, April 2024

by Hilda Geraghty

The article presents an overview, in thumb-nail sketches, of new perspectives in theology as it meets today’s cosmic worldview. It offers a dynamic, holistic view of creation, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all existence. It offers the notion of a universal imperfection and the concept of a very human Christ, along with cosmic dimensions of the Eucharist. The emphasis on unity, collective consciousness, and the need for a goal to energize the world lead to a hope-filled conclusion.

Theology is a vast field of study, but at the cutting edge its perspectives are beginning to embrace the newly-discovered dimensions of reality.  Interdisciplinary approaches, where science and faith embrace, are revealing a beautiful and unifying story that is hope-inspiring and energising for the human task of building the world, even as it offers us breathtaking vistas for worship.  When the ground under them moves from static to dynamic, and expands to almost infinite space-time, the core Christian mysteries of Creation, Fall, Incarnation, Redemption, Resurrection and Pleroma, become transposable like melodies into a new key, without losing anything of their integrity.

A TRANSFORMED VIEW OF CREATION

The first of these is the new perspective on creation, which, as we now know, began in deep time, around fourteen billion years ago.  The history of the universe, from elementary quantum particles generated in the ‘big bang’ to the furthest reaches of space, is one single vast process, that is, one great story.  The result is that we have moved from a human-centred view of creation, where we saw ourselves as Lords and Masters of a static world, to a cosmic awareness in which we are one part of a great unfolding story. Teilhard de Chardin writes:

“Humankind is not the centre of the universe, as we once thought in our simplicity, but something much more wonderful- the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life.  The human alone constitutes the last-born, the freshest, the most complicated, the most subtle of all the successive layers of life.” (1)

THE WHOLE GREATER THAN ITS PARTS

The beauty of this cosmic story is that it hangs together as a whole.  We now realise that nothing or no one exists on its own. Creation is a Whole, and is greater than the sum of its parts.  Moreover, this cosmic story is dynamic, in a continuous movement of development, known as evolution. Creation is on-going.

There is a basic oneness about the nature of reality itself:  matter and energy are now seen as different forms of the same thing, and energy is a form of spirit.  “Foundational to the quantum worldview is the perception that everything in creation is energy.  It is all that is- and everything that is.  Empty space is full of creative energy; the perceived emptiness is actually a fulness.“ (2)

The universe is actually a spiritual reality, and we no longer divide it into such categories as spiritual and material, sacred and secular, superior and inferior.  All of creation is holy, and all our lives can be holy when lived in deep cooperation with the Whole.

THE CREATIVE BREATH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

These advances in creation theology focus with new appreciation on the Holy Spirit, the creative Breath of God, who continually brings all things into being. We understand the Holy Spirit “as the primary manifestation of the divine in our earthly-human awareness, and as the first intuitive and mystical insight into the meaning of God.” (3) The great Holy Spirit has always breathed life into creation from the beginning of time, and the human calling is now seen as co-creating with the Spirit. “God does not so much make things as make them make themselves.” (4) The immanence of God in the world is being freshly appreciated, drawing us into deeper intimacy with the Divine Presence in all things.   Pope Francis reminds us that “If the universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely … there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face.”  (5)

THE DEEP INCARNATION OF CHRIST

In this awesome perspective theologians are coming to describe the Christ event as ‘Deep Incarnation’.  Jesus is not seen as coming to the universe ‘from outside’, as it were, but that, like every other life form, he too in his human nature emerges organically from nature’s deep time as a Homo Sapiens, made of star dust and fruit of aeons of development.  The birth of Christ is the whole reason for the world to exist, and the growth of Christ is its business.  In the words of Teilhard de Chardin: 

“God did not will individually the sun, the earth, plants, or humanity.  God willed His Christ.  And in order to have Christ, God had to create the spiritual world and humanity in particular, upon which Christ might germinate.  And to have humanity God had to launch the vast process of organic life which is an essential organ of the world.  And the birth of that organic life called for the entire cosmic turbulence…” (6) A little later he continues “…Christ is so engrained in the visible world that Christ could henceforth be torn away from it only by rocking the foundations of the universe.” (7)

UNIVERSAL IMPERFECTION

In the new perspectives the understanding of ‘original sin’ morphs from being a once-off choice by an initial pair of humans that somehow blighted everyone, to the defective state of a species, a whole world still in formation, still unfinished.  It can be seen as universal imperfection, or a slowness to make the effort to evolve further.  In that view, the story of Adam and Eve illustrates our on-going reality: it is a portrait of human nature, of people still on their way to God, who do not want to listen to their conscience (‘voice of God’).  Paradise lies up ahead at the term of our collective evolution, rather than lost behind us in an actual past history. “Evolution is a laborious process… of trying things out, so that disaster, pain, suffering and death necessarily go with it.  In a world of this sort evil is no accident… It is an essential aspect of an evolutionary process which has to pick its way through a maze of errors and misplaced efforts. Since God willed to create a world that must grow to its completion via an evolution, imperfection and evil were bound to occur in this creation.  It could not be otherwise.” (8)

IN WHAT SENSE A SAVIOUR?

Because evil is so endemic, the world stands in radical need of salvation.  Salvation by Christ therefore also has cosmic dimensions.  In this context ‘salvation’ means that humanity, individually and collectively, is brought on-course in the evolutionary journey, as opposed to getting derailed and failing to reach our fulfilment in God (Omega). Through incarnating in this world Jesus, the Divine Human, inevitably meets this shadow side of creation and, as we would expect him to, tackles it head on.  However he does so in a totally counter-intuitive way.  In him evil meets love and is defeated by it, the only energy capable of doing so.  

John the Baptist had defined Jesus as the Lamb of God, -not the Lion, or the Bull, or the Eagle,  but the Lamb, gentle and vulnerable.  In his passion and death Jesus stands before us as God’s sign, the One sent by God, as he self-identified at his trial before the Sanhedrin and before the world.  By accepting and suffering the cross we imposed on him, Jesus places Godself in the position to forgive sin, since to forgive something you must have suffered it.  He thus restores the relationship between God and our repentant selves. As the Lamb who forgives the sins of the world Jesus makes evolution his cause and becomes its very soul, leading the human race forward through love towards a mysterious destiny. This will be when humanity finally unifies in love, focused on Omega-God.  This process too is on-going.  Repenting-forgiving love is what repairs the ever-breaking, ever-wounding, ever-falling Whole on its journey, and Jesus calls his followers in turn to channel this healing energy into life at all levels.  

Relationality is key.  In the new perspectives ‘sin’ is seen as letting down the Whole, in my/our patch of reality by damaging or breaking relationships in a multitude of ways. ‘Hell’ is the fact that there is nowhere good to go if a person breaks away from the Whole through serious unrepented wrongdoing.  ‘Holiness’ is personal evolution into love, as individuals grow towards Omega.  ‘Heaven’ begins now as we live love, sharing the mission of the Lamb. 

THE RESSURECTION OF CHRIST

The resurrection is God’s great sign, vindicating Jesus’ claim to be indeed the One sent by God, and the victory of love over evil.  It shows that to love, repent and forgive are wisdom, not foolishness.   In the risen flesh of Christ matter has become spiritualised, pointing to a future resurrection of all in Christ, when heaven and earth are drawn into union, the mysterious pleroma [fulness, completion].  “And I will raise them up on the last day.”  (Jn 6, 52) This, then, will complete the unfinished story. So, with proper balance, the Christ event is seen not only as repairing broken relationships, but as leading this world towards its final fulfilment in a love that converges in Omega.  “The essence of Christianity is nothing more or less than a belief in the world’s coming to be one in God, through the taking of human nature by Christ.” (9)

THE VERY HUMAN CHRIST

The Incarnation of Christ enacts the supreme meaning of the universe, and yet Jesus, the Divine Human, is not lost as an individual in this vast perspective.  By living normally for ninety per cent of his short life, working for eighteen of his thirty-three years at his carpenter’s bench, Jesus is seen as endorsing our human vocation to build the earth through work.  The new theology reclaims the complete life of Jesus, and not only his public life, because his whole life builds the Kingdom of God.  Long in coming, we are now allowed to love the world, the Whole, as God’s creation, and to engage with it passionately in all walks of life as we seek to progress God’s Kingdom here on earth.  The whole Church now fully recognises the dignity and holiness of the lay vocation to build this world according to Christ’s values, doing a good job.  However, we do not forget that “If undertaken in pliant surrender, the pursuit of Christ in the world culminates logically in an impassioned enfolding, heavy with sorrow, in the arms of the Cross.”  (10)

Dutch theologian N.M Wildiers writes, “It is precisely because we live in a world which is under construction that our labour takes on a new value and a capital importance. The human task coincides exactly with the duty to carry out the great work of evolution and guide it to completion…  Teilhard urges us to go beyond every form of secularism by including the values of the earth in a Christocentric vision of the world.” (11)

The new theology also underpins the new worldwide ecological movement, a love-energy arising almost too late.  In this way Christianity moves beyond spiritual individualism to collectively empower us to build a better world, as it is called to do.  (In so doing, of course, we will find that ‘our souls have been saved’.)  In the words of Teilhard:

“Eating, drinking, working, seeking; creating beauty, or truth, or happiness- all these things could have seemed to us just like varied activities… Now, directed towards the Super-Christ, the variety draws itself together.  Like the countless shades that combine in nature to produce a single white light, so the infinite modes of action are fused, without being confused, into one single colour under the mighty power of the universal Christ. And it is love that heads this movement: love…the higher, universal and synthesised form of spiritual energy in which all the other energies of the soul are transformed and redirected, once they fall within the field of Omega.  In that centre every activity is amorised.  A super-humankind calls for a Super-Christ.  A Super-Christ calls for a Super-Charity.” (12)

THE COSMIC EUCHARIST

Within the new perspectives our understanding of the Eucharist, centre of our faith, also grows naturally to cosmic dimensions.  As Pope St John Paul writes,

” I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts… This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak, cosmic character. Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world. It unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation. The Son of God became man in order to restore all creation, in one supreme act of praise, to the One who made it from nothing.” (13)

Pope St John Paul might almost have been quoting from Teilhard’s Mass on the World, a text treasured by many, that par excellence celebrates its cosmic outreach into the whole of creation:

[After the consecration] “Once again the [divine] Fire has entered the Earth.

Without earthquake or thunderclap the Flame has lit up the whole world

from within.  All things are individually and collectively penetrated and flooded by it, from the inmost core of the tiniest atom……to the mighty sweep of the most universal laws of being…

In the new humanity which is begotten today the Word prolongs the unending act of his own birth.  And through his immersion in the world’s womb……the great waters of the kingdom of matter have, without even a ripple, been endowed with life.

No visible tremor marks this transformation beyond words, and yet mysteriously and in all truth, at the touch of the super-substantial Word…the immense host that is the universe is made flesh through your own incarnation, my God. …We are all of us together carried in the one world-womb, …yet each of us is our own little microcosm in which the Incarnation is wrought independently, with degrees of intensity.” (14)

How inspiring and meaningful liturgical texts will be when they incorporate something of this new cosmic language!  The universe itself will be made into an instrument resounding with the praise of Christ! 

TOWARDS THE FUTURE

The new perspectives intuit, tentatively, the course of evolution as we hurtle towards the future faster than many of us would like.  Despite living through two world wars (the first experienced at length as a stretcher-bearer on the front lines of battle), Teilhard continued to believe in the power of life to keep moving forward, a movement that would ultimately lead towards a unity of humankind.  An ever-increasing convergence was the feature he highlighted, as, through technology, our minds grow ever closer together into a living, collective consciousness,  both for better and also, as yet, for worse.   “We are gathered here as one big tribe and earth is the tent we all live in,” said Morgan Freeman as he opened the Men’s Football World Cup in 2023.   We must all learn to live together constructively or we will perish together. 

A goal is needed to energise us with hope. “The greatest event in the history of the earth, now taking place, may indeed be the gradual discovery, by those with eyes to see, not merely of Some Thing but of Some One at the peak of the evolving universe as it converges upon itself.” (15)

In other words, the Christian view sees the whole of history as an ascent of the world toward its fulfilment in Christ.  This cosmic vision is classic St Paul:

“His purpose He set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth.”  (Eph1:9-10)

NEWLY RELEVANT   

As the Christian faith learns to accommodate these new cosmic perspectives, it finds itself regaining the relevance it has been gradually losing over the past three centuries.  It sounds real!  Most importantly, it invests the life of the laity with new dignity, holiness and purpose. They are building the values of Christ into the workings of this world,  doing God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.”  The strength of this approach comes from its unified vision: God’s work is one, a single reality, and it generates a deeply holistic and refreshing spirituality.  For Christians there is no longer any conflict between science as it reveals material reality, and faith in Christ, Alpha and Omega of everything.  “A road is opening up: to make our way to heaven through earth…It [Christianity] is the very religion of evolution.” (16) This new story offers a horizon of hope for our troubled times.  

This renewed faith needs to make its way into every place where ‘traditional’ (static, dualistic, individualistic, oblivious to the universe) Christian faith is celebrated, prayed, sung, preached, taught, explored and transmitted to others.  There is a huge task of theological education to be done, a new ‘language’ to be learned, an evolutionary path to be trodden.  At the same time, of course, a broad education in cosmology is needed to underpin it.

The strength gained from drawing these two visions of science and the Christian faith into a single worldview will be phenomenal for the Christian life!  This faith can enable the Church to once more lead people of today and tomorrow into living as befits their responsibilities to the Divine Mystery, to each other and to the universe.  To conclude with the words of Ilia Delio, of the Christogenesis Center for developing Teilhardian thinking: “If we can imagine a new wholeness emerging through science and religion and developing renewed institutional systems for human flourishing, then can we realise a new type of planetary community.  The only way to predict the future is to create it, and the power to do so will come from those who are unbounded in love.” (17)

For more articles on Teilhard see: @teilharddechardinforall.com

REFERENCES

(1) Teilhard de Chardin: The Phenomenon of Man, p 224, translated by Bernard wall.  New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008.

(2) Diarmuid O’Murchú,  MSC, Doing Theology in an Evolutionary Way, p 12. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY. 2021.

(3) Ibid. p 95.

(4) T. de C., Towards the Future, p 125. Translated by René Hague, New York, Harcourt, 2002.

(5) Laudate Deum, 65.

(6) T.de C., Science and Christ, p 61, translated by René Hague, New York, Harper & Row, 1968.

(7) Ibid.., p 61.

(8) An Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, N. M. Wildiers. P.143.  Collins. Fontana Books, London and harper & Row, New York 1968.

(9) T.de C. L’Énergie Humaine, p 113 Oeuvres VI.

(10) T.de C. Writings in Time of War, p 61, Tr, René Hague, New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

(11) N. M. Wildiers in the Foreword to Christianity and Evolution, by Teilhard de Chardin,  Orlando, new York, London, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc. First Harvest Edition 1974. P. 11, 13.

(12) T. de C., Science and Christ, p 170, translated by René Hague, New York, Harper & Row, 1968.

(13) Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.

(14) T. de C., The Mass on the World, published in The Heart of Matter, p 123 translated by René Hague, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc.  San Diego, New York, London.

(15) T. de C., The Future of Man, p 293 Translated by Norman Denny. Collins. Fontana Books, London and Harper and Row, New York, 1964.

(16) T. de C., Christianity and Evolution, p 93. Tr. R. Hague. A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Inc. Orlando, New York, London. 1974.

(17) Ilia Delio, 23 Dec 2023, on a promotional email for the Christogenesis centre in America.

The Incarnational Cosmic Christ, Part 1

The Incarnational Cosmic Christ

PART 1

by R.E. Slater

I am going to begin a concentrated discourse of process philosophy which must necessarily take us into a great many fields of study. After fifteen years of forging 1) a new path for Christianity and 2) for faithful Christians to explore-and-consider (see The Calf Path of an Open, Discerning Faith which I wrote in November of 2012) I believe it's time to double down and give even greater root to this new directional assignment encumbering my heart. Roots which are both philosophical and theological.

Incarnational

I titled this post here "The Incarnational Christ" which means to me that the God who became man, and lived as a man, within the world of his creation, has transformed God's Self from "what-ness" to "being-ness." Now perhaps my ontology is wrong and God has always been a Cosmic Being of some sort but where it concerns humanity, I can easily make the case that God has furthered God's Being-ness by God's transforming human incarnation into this world we inhabit. (As an aside, God's Being-ness has ever been... God's Incarnation is making this fact evident to humans here.) 

Cosmic

By "Cosmic" I mean to assert that God as Christ was always existent and will always be existent. That as Creator, Christ must be as cosmic as Christ is Incarnational. That neither diminishes the other but significantly expands and expounds the other. If Christ is not Creator-God than Christ is less a cosmic Being than is understood.

Christ

Lastly, by "Christ" I mean "the Son of God" who is at the right hand of the Father and in fellowship with the Father and the Spirit. Though I prefer for simplicity's sake to think of God as One the bible and tradition seem to imply their is a tri-partness to God's Being... that of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In essence, this speaks to me of relationship, experience, and presence.

Process

Not inconsequentially then does process philosophy and theology insist on the same qualities of panrelationalism, panexperientialisim and panpsychism all bound up in one cosmic ontological presence. Thus my attraction to process thought as it correlates quite nicely with traditional Christianity - and, might I add, other interrelated religious touchstones (sic, interfaith commonalities)

Conclusion

And so, I believe I am going to settle in and think through how a post-structural, metamodern, radically processual Christian faith might live and breath underneath it's verbiage. When I look at a healthy field of grasses and wildflowers swaying together under a small breeze, seeing, smelling, feeling within it its greenery and colours, I assume there resides healthy, complex ecosystem of roots. But should I dig those roots up I could further explore what makes the field of grasses and wildflowers so beautiful in its expanse and vibrancy.

Here, I intend to look at my process faith root-and-all, small-and-large, heartbeat-and-body, soul-and-spirit, as an expression of the God I love in correlation with process philosophy and theology. Now for those readers who want an expositional bible study they will need to go elsewhere... perhaps in my earlier discussions over the years; but here, I intend to use philosophical dialogue in conjunction with theological ideas so that your and my Christian faith not wilt under the intemperate suns of human ideologies conflicting this same faith. Why?

Because my theological faith built on loving ethics and community needs a bit more depth in order to breathe. I need to test it out a bit more... or help it extend and expand a bit more... into societal thinking. This project then is my missional project to the world of inter-religious and Christian faith. My request is to pray for the Spirit's continued enlightenment to dissect, discern, direct, discover, and help determine a healthy expression of God's announcement in Christ:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life". - John 3.16

Peace,

R.E. Slater

March 28, 2025

"For God so loved the world...": This phrase highlights the profound and extensive love God has for humanity.

"...that he gave his only Son...": This emphasizes God's ultimate sacrifice, offering his Son, Jesus, as a means of salvation. 

"...that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life": This outlines the consequence of faith in Jesus: eternal life, not death.

Part 6 - Final Thoughts: Jay McDaniel - Learning from Process Theology and Open Theism

[Part 6]

Let the Blurring Begin

​article link

Learning from

Process Theology and Open Theism

by Jay McDaniel​

God the Companion

"I rejoice that in many ways my childhood faith, while transformed, is not denied or watered down. I reaffirm the trajectory on which it sent my life. I believed then that God is Love. I believe that now. I found God then the great companion who understands. That is how I find God now. I looked to God then to direct my life. I look to God now to direct my life. I thought then that the supreme calling is to love God with all that I am. I think now that this is the supreme calling."

-- John Cobb, Theological Reminiscences


​God in Jesus

"What makes Jesus decisive for me is not just that he fulfilled his calling but that his calling was of decisive importance for human history. God called him to liberate the prophetic message from its remaining ethnocentrism, to deepen and enrich it, and to make it available to all. What a calling! And to what a remarkable extent Jesus' remarkable responsiveness led to the realization of God's purpose. Jesus created the possibility of a new kind of community. Paul brought such communities into being. Much of their distinctiveness faded with the passage of time, but some elements survive in many churches and occasionally such community is realized quite wonderfully even today. What Jesus called the Holy Spirit is real there."

-- John Cobb, Theological Reminiscences

Let the Blurring Begin

John Cobb is one of the most conservative Christians I know. I’m not talking about in politics or economics or social philosophy. He is critical of capitalism and American foreign policy, and he is all about helping build local communities in which people take care of themselves and the earth. Most describe him as a social radical. But in his attitudes toward God and Jesus he creatively conserves for himself and for many other Christians a confidence in biblical theism and in the decisiveness of Jesus for human history.

Whereas some might think of God as a force or energy, John thinks of God as a Subject in whose heart the universe lives and moves and has its being. Whereas some might think of Jesus as merely a teacher among teachers, John thinks of him as one who was called by God to help save the whole world. In John, being conservative and being radical are two sides of one coin. His conservatism comes from the future not just the past.

I am grateful to him for helping me want to become more conservative. I am still a conservative-in-the-making, but I'm working on it. I, too, would like to love God with the whole of my life. That seems a lot better than loving money, my country, or my ego.

*

I was sitting next to him recently at a meeting at the American Academy of Religion hearing talks about another form of conservatism for which I have great appreciation: the open theism movement. If you are unfamiliar with it, or just curious about its core teachings, I encourage you to visit the Open Theism Information website.

As you know, John Cobb is a process theologian influenced, not only by biblical traditions but also by Whitehead's philosophy. Indeed, Whitehead's philosophy has helped him be as conservative as he is.

Generally speaking many open theists draw sharp lines between open theism and process theology. The differences between open theists and process theists are important and real -- at least to theologians and philosophers. Still, they may have more to gain from becoming allies than arguing with each other. And there is a place where they really do share a common spirit: namely in their belief that God is affected by what happens in the world and responsive to its sufferings.

Is it not enough that, when so many people imagine God as a dictator in the sky, process theists and open theists emphasize God's love, God's openness? Would it not be good for the world if, at times, those of us shaped by one or the other of these traditions sing together?

*

Imagine a gospel choir. You do not need to have the same voice as someone next to you in order to harmonize, but in the very act of singing together something good emerges which is absent otherwise. When you sing with someone else your own voice is enriched by their voice, and the other way around. Process theologians call it relational power. Open theists might call it openness power.

Process theists and open theists think that God operates through openness power: through persuasion not coercion, hospitality not hatred, receptivity not divisiveness. Open theists emphasize that God chooses to operate this way, when God could have chosen otherwise; process theists emphasize that God acts in this way because God is Love.

Let them have these debates. But when it comes to the needs of the world and the human soul, and when it comes to the damage done to individual psyches and the larger world by dictator-minded theologies, such debates quickly become irrelevant except to the debaters. If God can work in the world through openness power, why can't process theologians and open theists do the same?

I am not alone in this interest. Thomas Oord proposed that, in the future, the boundaries between process theism and open theism need to be blurred, if open theism is to have a good future. If this happens, it will be good for process theology. We process theologians need open theism.

*

One of the strengths of process theology today is that it is now so multireligious. Today Whitehead’s philosophy offers a conceptual vocabulary by which Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, Confucians, and Naturalists are articulating their points of view in ways that foster respect for differences, mutual understanding, creative transformation, and, so important today, shared efforts at helping heal a broken world. A forthcoming conference in Claremont, California -- Seizing an Alternative: Toward an Ecological Civilization -- will provide a vivid illustration of this diversity and its possibilities for mutual endeavors aimed at the common good of the world.

One of the weaknesses of process theology is that, in its offering of a common vocabulary, it simultaneously fails to speak in the more particularized languages of existing, historical traditions, including conservative evangelical Christian traditions. These particularized languages contain wisdom that is more than, and often not found in, more abstract philosophical prose.

*

If there has been a problem in relations between process theism and open theism, part of the problem lies with the process side of things. Too often, articulations of process theology are overly abstract, disengaged from lived experience, unrelated to pastoral life, overly bold, and tone-deaf to metaphor and story. You can see my own critiques of Christian process theology in What is Missing in Process Theology? I think it has not been orthodox enough. Perhaps not Trinitarian enough, too. See The Space within the Trinity: All Beings Included.

*

One of my aims in developing this website has been to offer a platform for many process-oriented writers and artists who can articulate anew what is important to process thinkers in engaging ways.

And yet, as I have done this, I have truly missed having a strong voice for open theism, because I admire and am moved by so much of what it says. John Sanders explains that open theists want to affirm at least two kinds of openness in God: openness to the world and openness to the future.

We process theologians want to affirm the same, not for the sake of process theology, but for the sake of the world. We truly believe that the world can be more compassionate, more just, more creative, and more respectful of the more-than-human world, if people are open to a God who is open to the world, and join God in the work of Tikkun Olam. And we very much believe in God's dynamic omniscience,

Happily, open theists have been successful in promoting these two kinds of openness in conservative evangelical circles. Moreover, there are people in other religious traditions who, slowly but surely, are discovering and building upon the openness tradition. And open theists are exploring the implications of open theism for how we live in the world and interact other human beings: being open to our differences and honest about our uncertainties. This is only the beginning. Open Theism, whether understood as a distinct movement in its own right or as extension of the historical free-will tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is in process.

*

So let us imagine the blurring. Maybe even pray for it. In God's dynamic omniscience, we know that God knows our needs even before we pray them. But we also know that, in the very act of prayer, something touches God that had not touched God before.
​

CAN PROCESS THEOLOGY AFFIRM CREATION OUT OF NOTHING AND

DIVINE SELF-LIMITATION? A NOTE FROM JOHN COBB

God the Open One

"Recently Christians in the United States and other parts of the world have begun to think about God in new ways. One of the most promising of these new ways is called Open Theism. Its critics believe that Open Theism runs contrary to biblical teachings, but its advocates believe that it is more consistent with biblical teachings than many alternatives. The issues revolve around the idea of “openness” itself.

Open theism affirms that the God of love works with creatures in order for them to share the love inherent in the trinity and to love one another. In this view God is “open” in two important senses. First, God is open to and affected by what creatures do; and second, God is open to the future in that, even for God, there is more than one possible future. God’s plan is not a blueprint but a broad intention that allows for a variety of options regarding precisely how these goals may be reached. God has “dynamic omniscience” meaning that God knows all the past and present as definite and God knows the future as possibilities. Because God has chosen to rely upon creatures for many aspects of life and humans do not always do what God wishes they would do, it follows that God takes some risks. Consequently, God adjusts divine plans and implements flexible strategies in order to try to achieve the divine purposes."

-- John Sanders

What would it look like if Christians influenced by process theology and open theism developed a common statement of belief? It might look something like this:


​God as Omnipotent Love

​When we consider that our own Milky Way is but one of a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, we gain a sense of the inexplicable grandeur of the One in whose heart we live and move and have our being. Who cannot experience awe? Let our faith have cosmic leanings and not just terrestrial prejudices. Let us walk in wonder, knowing that God is always more than our concept of God. Let the stars be our witness.

But we trust that somehow the grandeur of God has a tenderness to it, too. Sometimes people can think of God in terms that are too big, and, for that matter, too authoritarian. Inspired by Jesus, we believe that God is big enough to be small -- big enough to pay attention to each living being, anywhere and everywhere, and say "You matter, I love you." Yes, we believe that the One by whose love the universe unfolds is infinitely tender and infinitely patient. We believe in an omnipotence of love.

We encourage fellow Christians to believe in omnipotent love, too. There's something deeply relational -- dare we say deeply Trinitarian -- about it. It's almost as if in God, long before the advent of our cosmic epoch, there was a great compassion, an infinite empathy, that made God "God." God did not choose to be loving, God was born loving, albeit in a beginningless way. God is always being born loving, again and again, out of empathy for and responsiveness to the world. Call it essential kenosis.

How to dwell in this world? We need metaphors. Some people imagine the world on the analogy of billiard balls: that is, entities that are separated from one another and collide. As Trinitarians we believe the world itself is made in the image of the Trinity: that is, profoundly relational from the get-go. No, we do not really think there are three distinct agents in the godhead, each with a will of his or her own. We can't go there. But we do think the idea of a divine trinity is a metaphor for relationality. So we find ourselves imagining that the world is relational, too: not so much a collection of objects as a communion of subjects. Collisions are real, but interconnectedness is still more real.

*

Back to the question. How to live? Perhaps metaphors from the world of music can help further the idea. We can imagine the world on the analogy of aimprovisational jazz concert not yet complete. We ourselves are among the concert's creators, and God is One who calls us to create music that is conducive to the well-being of life. Our lives are our instruments, and the decisions we make are the music we make. God's hope is that we will make music that helps us become fully alive in this life and in any life to come.

So often we fall short of the music we are beckoned to make, and this falling short is painful to God and painful to us. If we want to speak of divine wrath, then let this wrath be the flip side of divine pain. Even wrath is rooted in love.

But we also play music that is delightful to God, giving God pleasure. After all, we are made in God's image and can bring about goodness and beauty in the world, too. The good news is that, whatever decisions we make, God never gives up on us. God is faithful to us, even when we are not faithful to God. This is part of what was revealed in the healing ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The healing ministry showed God's love for the marginalized and forsaken, the abandoned and despised. The death showed that there is a vulnerable side of God: a side that shares in and absorbs the suffering of all living beings, animals included. And the resurrection showed the creatively transforming side of God: the side that never gives up, always offering possibilities for new life, no matter what crosses befall the world. Jesus is our window to God.

This resurrection continues even today. It takes the form of a healing spirit at work in the world, comforting the afflicted and, of course, afflicting the comfortable, all for love's sake. It also takes the form of Jesus himself, who was resurrected from the dead, who dwells with God, and with whom we can have a personal relationship. We believe that there is a continuing journey after death for all human souls and this well includes our companion in faith, Jesus of Nazareth. Our aim is to be faithful to Jesus, not by placing him on a pedestal so high that nobody can relate to him, but by sharing in his faith. To repeat: Jesus is our window to God.

He is also our window to the world. We cannot separate our love of Jesus from our love of the world. When he taught us to pray that the will of God be done on earth as it is in heaven, he was sharing with us God's deepest hope for the melody we might play. It is that we grow as individuals in community with others and that we build communities of love, of shalom, in which all can share. Practically speaking, this means to help build communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, multicultural, humane to animals, and ecologically wise -- with no one left behind. It also means having the courage to lovingly critique ourselves, our communities, and principalities and powers that obstruct the building of these communities, doing great harm along the way. As we walk with Jesus, sharing in his journey, we must speak truth to power, including capitalist power.

We do not ask that these communities come into being all at once or even once and for all. And we know that a walk with God is more than community building. We know that a walk with God includes interior movements of the heart and soul that are solitary, isolated, private, painful, and beautiful. We know that there is a mystical dimension to life that is never fully understood by overly-extroverted Christians, including evangelicals. We know that there is a liturgical dimension as well that cannot be reduced to muscular impulses aimed at 'saving the world' or 'saving the planet.' There is a quiet side to the Christian life: a side that sits at the feet of Jesus and anoints him with oil, even if the dishes need washing.

Still, we do seek to try to approximate these communities, and we trust that, in working in these ways, we are doing God's will. We have no idea whether, in some cosmic scheme of things, we are 'right' or 'wrong.' We are pretty sure we are wrong about a lot of things; the only thing certain is that we are uncertain. But we do step forward in hope, guided by our faith that in the end, the very God of the universe -- the very Soul in whose heart we and all things live and move and have our being -- will bring us to that peace for which our hearts, and all hearts, yearn.

-- Jay McDaniel

 

Part 5 - Jay McDaniel - Open Theism and Process Theology

[Part 5]

Open Theism and Process Theology

A Reflection

article link

by Jay McDaniel

​click here for further erudition:

LET THE BLURRING BEGIN: LEARNING FROM OPEN THEISM AND PROCESS THEOLOGY

​Confessions of a Disappointed Supplicant

Maybe it's because a friend of mine, Farhan Shah in Norway, asked me why I chose process theology over open theism. My reasons are unique and most of them have more to do with style than content. Farhan wanted to know if process theologians can affirm creatio-ex-nihilo and divine self-limitation, as open theists do. I asked John Cobb to offer a response to his question: Can Process Theology affirm creatio-ex-nihilo and divine self-limitation? John's answer is "yes" and "yes." But it got me thinking about my own relation to open theism, and a kind of ambivalence I have about it. Here goes:

*
​
I remember when, as a process theologian, I first discovered open theism. I loved the name itself and I loved the ideas. I, too, believed in a God of love, revealed but not exhausted in Jesus, whose spirit pervades the world in healing and empowering ways, and for whom the future is not-yet-decided. What impressed me all the more is that they (the open theists) arrived at their views with help from scripture. Open Theism seemed to me like process theology in biblical form. Process Theology seemed like Open Theism in philosophical form.

I recognized that open theists could find other philosophies useful; and that process theologians were interested in many ways of thinking, not just Open Theism and not just Christian. Still, I was excited and looked forward to collaboration with open theists.

What did I hope for in terms of collaboration? I knew of a book or two that promoted dialogue between the two "camps" -- most specifically, Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Beween Process and Free Will Theists and Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue. I knew some of the authors. But the authors of the essays in the books spent a bit too much time clarifying differences and arguing for their "positions."

I had grown weary of that style of theology - the kind of theology that always wants to distinguish itself from others and say But. Here I had been influenced by feminist theologies and their critiques of the male voice and also by religious literature (the writings of Thomas Merton, for example, or of Mary Oliver) that was exploratory and poetic not dogmatic -- capable of resting in insecurities because inwardly drawn by love. I now think of this kind of literature as theopoetics.

In learning about open theism, then, I was looking for something different: something less argumentative and more flexible, I hoped to co-author some things with open theists in a more contemplative and theopoetic vein that would be available to the religiously interested reader, even if not a scholar; to explore areas of commonality and difference in a friendly and playful way, understanding the power of metaphor, and perhaps using music and film as means of communication; and, most importantly, to work together to help create communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, multi-cultural, humane to animals, good for the earth, and spiritually satisfying, with no one left behind - otherwise called beloved communities with ecology added. I thought process thinkers like me and open theists were, or could be, close cousins, working together and appreciating the kinship.

I found one open theist who was indeed sensitive to metaphor and with whom I could work, although we never co-authored anything, namely John Sanders. His ongoing work in conceptual metaphor theory is something I much admire. I knew friendship was possible!

But gradually, John aside, I came to realize that many open theists were fighting battles within evangelical circles that were much more important to them than collaboration with process theologians, and that they had to distance themselves from process theology in order to have credibility in the circles that mattered to them. And I came to understand that they were not much interested in philosophical theology in the first place, particularly if it took the form of metaphysics, thereby lacking special appeals to scripture. I sensed that every time process theology was mentioned, the guards of my open theist friends went up.

"So I gave up on open theism, or, more specifically, on the possibility of collaborative work. Gradually the open theist community became, in my mind, a fairly self-enclosed vanguard of evangelical Christians engaged in internal battles against "classical theists," especially Calvinists, and primarily interested in "arguments" and "positions." I am sure that we process theologians seemed to them to be fairly self-enclosed vanguard of liberal Christians primarily interested in converting the world to Whitehead's philosophy under the rubric "Christianity.""

Of course, things have changed on the process side. And maybe on the Open Theism side, too. Today, there are many theopoetic forms of process theology, and for that matter, process theology is not simply Christian process theology. It has become a multi-faith tradition. To my mind, the most articulate and influential process theologian of our time is Rabbi Bradley Artson, author of many books including The God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology. His is a Jewish process theology. And another is the Muslim philosopher, Farhah Shah, who is developing a Muslim Process Theology. See: Islam in Process Perspective. And then there is the work of Zhhe Wang and Meijun Fan who are developing Chinese forms of process spirituality that link with an East Asian past, And the work of Jeffrey Long developing a Hindu process theology.

Still, I am Christian, and it troubled me that sometimes open theists caricatured Christian process theology as "merely" a philosophical form of theology lacking a pastoral dimension, as if it were but a system derived from the philosopher Whitehead. I cringed and still cringe when I hear the word derive, as if process theology is primarily axiomatic. This was not the process theology I knew and loved. I loved process theology because process theologians say much the same as open theists about God, take lived human experience as a source of wisdom in its own right, and speak very strongly about other matters of importance in religious life: spirituality, beauty, our connectedness with the web of life, the need for ecological civilizations, interfaith cooperation, the listening side of love, music and the arts, the aliveness of nature. I see process theology, not as a system, but rather as an attitude, an orientation toward life, that is influenced, but by no means enslaved, to the philosophy of Whitehead. As I see things, the process way has twenty key ideas, only two of which explicitly concern God. If you take, say 15 of them seriously, you are, in my mind, a process thinker, if you want to be. (See Twenty Key Ideas in Process Theology.)

Make no mistake. I appreciate the process view of God. It seemed and [continues to] seem to me to offer a slightly clearer way than open theism of imagining how God is truly present as a guiding force and comfort in the human and more than human world, even to the point of "feeling the feeling' of all living beings with tender care. I wasn't hearing this intimacy as strongly in the open theists My intuitions were that the God of process theology was actually more personal than the God of open theism: more like the Abba of Jesus.

​I believed that I had the leading process theologian of our time, John Cobb, on my side, who likewise sees the God of process theology as Abba-like. Not that he or I want to engage open theism in battle; we recognize the good that it offers. But we want process theology as it has evolved to be adequately represented. Hence this page. And truth be told I still yearn for what Thomas Oord calls a blurring of the lines between open theism and process theology, because I think open theism has gifts process thinkers lack. But I try to keep quiet on this, except when I momentarily slip and reach out anew in small and quiet ways, as in this page and a few others on this website.

​To date, I have had no takers, but the future is open.

​-- Jay McDaniel

Meet John Cobb

John Cobb on God the Companion

"I rejoice that in many ways my childhood faith, while transformed, is not denied or watered down. I reaffirm the trajectory on which it sent my life. I believed then that God is Love. I believe that now. I found God then the great companion who understands. That is how I find God now. I looked to God then to direct my life. I look to God now to direct my life. I thought then that the supreme calling is to love God with all that I am. I think now that this is the supreme calling."

-- John Cobb, Theological Reminiscences

​​John Cobb on the Decisiveness of Jesus

"What makes Jesus decisive for me is not just that he fulfilled his calling but that his calling was of decisive importance for human history. God called him to liberate the prophetic message from its remaining ethnocentrism, to deepen and enrich it, and to make it available to all. What a calling! And to what a remarkable extent Jesus' remarkable responsiveness led to the realization of God's purpose. Jesus created the possibility of a new kind of community. Paul brought such communities into being. Much of their distinctiveness faded with the passage of time, but some elements survive in many churches and occasionally such community is realized quite wonderfully even today. What Jesus called the Holy Spirit is real there."

-- John Cobb, Theological Reminiscences

Meet Greg Boyd

from Greg Boyd's website ReKnew
Among the Frequently Asked Questions​

REKNEW: GREG BOYD'S WEBSITE

​Are you a “process” theologian?

​"I think process philosophy has some good things to teach us, but I’m not a process theologian. Among other things, process philosophy typically denies creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing), denies God’s omnipotence, denies God can respond to prayer and intervene in miraculous ways in history and denies God will once and for all overcome evil in the future. I disagree with all of these points. 

On the other hand, process philosophy holds that the future is partly comprised of possibilities, and I agree with this. But this doesn’t make me a process theologian. This is like calling Calvinists "Muslim" simply because they happen to share the Koran’s belief that God determines everything.

​Do you consider yourself an “Evangelical Christian”?

I hold to a high view of biblical inspiration and most of my theological views are in line with what would be considered “evangelical.” So in this sense, I consider myself an “evangelical.” But the word “evangelical,” as well as the word “Christian,” has become associated with many things that are radically inconsistent with the example of Jesus’ life, which we are to emulate. So I’m very hesitant to identify myself with either term until I know what my audience means by them.

Do you deny that God knows the future?

This is the most common misconception regarding Open Theism. I believe God knows everything, including the past, present and future. But I also believe the future is different from the past in that the future contains possibilities while the past is irrevocably settled. So I hold that, precisely because God’s knowledge is perfect, God knows the future exactly as it is – that is, as containing possibilities. Some things about the future are “maybes,” and God knows them as such.

​Wait a Minute, Greg

by Jay McDaniel

​​Open Theists and Process Theologians point to a God who is creative, social, loving, and embodied in our actual universe.  Both propose that the future is open, even for God, because it is not-yet-decided.  In another page on Open Horizons I have encouraged a combining, indeed a blurring, of the two types of theology.  I still think that would be good.  But if I had to choose between the two, I would choose Process Theology.

*

So what are the differences?  Some open theists say that a primary difference is that process theologians arrive at their conclusions via a metaphysical system, namely that of the philosophy of Whitehead or Hartshorne, whereas open theists arrive at their conclusions from a careful reading of Christian scripture. (Sanders and Haskers)  

​As a process theologian myself, this does not ring true.  Ideas in process theology began to make sense to me, not by derivation from a system, but because they spoke to my experience: experiences of beauty, suffering, knowing people of other faiths, the experience of growth and change, and the value of the natural world.  Process theology was, and still is, an outlook on life and a way of living, not a system, and the philosophy of Whitehead was an invitation to recognize and appreciate what I know from experience.
​
Still, I recognize that open theists had the impression that process theologians were system-preoccupied.  Perhaps it was this impression that led some open theists -- Greg Boyd, for example -- to sharply emphasize the differences, indeed the incompatibilities, between process theology and open theism. Here is what Greg Boyd in his website, ReKnew:

​"I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Process thought (Trinity and Process) where I critiqued the metaphysics of Charles Hartshorne and tried to demonstrate that one can adopt a system that has all the explanatory power of Process Thought (PT) without its unorthodox implications. The unorthodox implications are these.

1. 1. In PT, God exists eternally in relation to a non-divine world. So PT denies “creation ex nihilo”
2. 2. In PT, God is bound to metaphysical principles that govern both God and the world. So God isn’t able to really interact with the world as a personal being. God must always, of necessity, respond in ways that the metaphysics of the system stipulate. This means…
3. 3. In PT God can’t intervene in unique ways, like personally answering prayer
4. 4. In PT God can’t intervene and perform miracles
5. 5. In PT God can’t become uniquely embodied, as he is in Christ.

These are pretty serious shortcomings. I hope it’s clear that PT has got little in common with Open Theism other than that we both believe the future is partly comprised of possibilities. But even here there is a major difference. In Open Theism, God chooses to create a world with an open future, while in PT God has created of necessity."

Boyd’s remarks may be true to Charles Hartshorne, but they are not true to John Cobb, so I’d like to put in a word for Cobb-influenced process theology.  I think Cobb would disagree point by point:
​

1. Cobb explicitly says that Process Theologians can affirm creatio-ex-nihilo if they wish, and notes that some have.  See Can Process Theology Affirm Creatio-ex-nihilo and Divine Self-Limitation?
2. Cobb thinks of God in deeply personal terms.  God is, for Cobb, the Abba of Jesus.  Understood in this way, God feels the feelings of all living beings, humans much included, with tenderness and care and responds by offering fresh possibilities for responding to the situations at hand, otherwise called initial aims. See God as Abba: John Cobb's Proposal.
3. Cobb thinks that when people pray, Someone is truly listening (feeling their feelings) and responding through initial aims. Cobb has written an entire book on intercessory prayer: Praying for Jennifer
4. Cobb affirms God’s miraculous work in the world.  See What is a Miracle?
5. Cobb has written an entire book – Christ in a Pluralistic Age – arguing for the unique way in which God was embodied in Christ.  See Christ in a Pluralistic Age

Boyd may not appreciate Cobb’s approach to these matters, but I am sure that he can understand why a process thinker like me would find his articulation of the differences overly sharp if not misleading.  Boyd is not describing the process theology I know.

So why would anyone choose Process Theology over Open Theism?  It is certainly not that Process Theology is “right” and Open Theism “wrong.”  Both are valuable. For me it is that process theology speaks to aspects of life that I don’t hear as clearly in the Open Theism I know, which are important to me and, I believe, important to God. Process theology offers me a vocabulary and set of concepts to appreciate:
​

1. The value all living beings have in and for themselves, in their subjectivity.
2. The value of the web of life on earth itself, within which we are small but include.
3. The value of emotions (subjective forms) as part of what makes us human.
4. The need in our time to develop ecological civilizations, consisting of communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, multi-religious, and multi-cultural, with no one left behind.
5. The value of the many world religions as containing wisdom worthy of respecting and learning from.
6. The power of music and the arts to provide “lures for feeling” for human well-being.
7. The importance of listening: feelings the feelings of others, and sharing in their subjective states.
8. The possibility of multiple dimensions of existence in which life-after-death might unfold.
9. The importance of forms of religious experience which are not theistic, and which partake of the horizontal sacred.
10. The mutual immanence and interconnectedness of all things.
11. A full-fledged appreciation of the power of decision in human (and non-human) life
12. An appreciation of the subconscious realms of human and non-human life.
13. Openness to the possibility of multiple dimensions of existence.
14. The value of metaphor and embodied experience.
15. ​The importance of beauty as a guiding ideal in human life, of which love is one form.

 
I realize as I list these that some (perhaps many) open theists speak of these matters.  But my impression is that they have been so preoccupied with matters concerning God that they have underemphasized other matters such as these.  

Thus, for me, their theology is limited, lacking a cosmological and phenomenological dimension.  This is why I prefer process theology to open theism, even as I think their similarities may ultimately be more important than their differences, and even as, I am sure, they can enrich one another.

Like I said, I would choose process theology over open theism, but I don't think it's necessary.  I think they can be combined.  But I'm sure anybody's really interested.  May it all be reconciled in the wider arms of God's loving embrace.

-- Jay McDaniel