A Process Theology View of Universalism: What About Injustice? Part 2

A PROCESS THEOLOGY VIEW

OF UNIVERSALISM:

What About Injustice?

PART 2

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Introduction:

Christian universalism raises deep questions about love, justice, judgment, and redemption. For many, it offers the hope that all will eventually be saved. But in Process Theology, that hope is rooted not in divine force or inevitability, but in divine persuasion, freedom, and the ongoing possibility of transformation. This document explores the nature of heaven, hell, and divine justice through the lens of process thought, offering a vision of universalism grounded in love without coercion.

---

Statement

If the unjust are never punished, and if the same perpetrators are ultimately redeemed, where is the justice for victims? Doesn’t this make evil meaningless or excusable?

Response

Heaven, Hell, and Annihilation in Process Theology

• Heaven is not a place of reward, but a state of full relational harmony with God. It is becoming aligned with divine lure and participating in co-creation with God.

• Hell is not a realm of torment, but the self-chosen experience of resisting love, narrowing one’s becoming, and isolating oneself from relational wholeness.

• Annihilation in the process view is not literal erasure but the unrealized potential of a soul. All experiences are retained in God’s consequent nature, even those marked by distortion or failure.

In Process Theology, time is real and ongoing—even beyond death. Eternity is not a static realm, but an everlasting openness to God's lure. Postmortem transformation remains possible because divine love never ceases its invitation, and creaturely freedom continues to respond.

---

Justice and the Suffering of the Innocent

Evangelical theology often frames justice as retribution, asking: “Where is justice for the victim if the unjust are not punished?”

Process theology redefines justice as relational healing rather than divine punishment. It insists:

• The suffering of victims is never forgotten or erased. God holds and redeems it in the divine memory (sic, God's consequent nature).

• God is the great companion who suffers with the victim and works persistently to redeem that suffering in the unfolding of history.

• The pain is not erased. It is transformed through time, memory, relationship, and divine responsiveness.

• The unjust experience real consequence - not imposed punishment, but alienation, dis-integration, and eventual invitation to transformation.

• True justice includes the restoration of victims, the transformation of perpetrators, and the renewal of community.

God’s justice is not about punishment but about healing the whole.

---

The Unjust Face Consequence

Even if coercive punishment is not part of the process vision, consequence still is:

• The unjust are not “let off the hook.”

• Their estrangement, distortion, and fragmentation from divine lure are themselves a kind of suffering - not imposed by God, but embedded in the nature of reality.

• God may still call the unjust into accountability, not for vengeance, but for transformation and restitution.

If hell exists, it is the felt experience of resisting love. But God never stops offering the way out via redemption.

---

Redemption Includes the Wounded

If the unjust are ever truly transformed (freely, never forced), process theology insists that:

• It must include reparative action - the healing of relationships, including divine justice toward those harmed.

• The victim’s dignity is not overwritten by cheap grace but honored through divine memory and relational repair.

---

The Role of Memory and Forgiveness

Process Theology emphasizes God’s consequent nature as the living memory of all creation. No experience - however joyful or tragic - is lost. God eternally values all moments and weaves them into the divine life.

Forgiveness, in this framework, is not dependent on the offender’s repentance but arises from God’s enduring will to reconcile and redeem. Divine forgiveness is offered without coercion, and its reception remains open-ended.

---

The Christological Vision

Jesus Christ in Process Theology is not the enforcer of divine wrath but the archetype of persuasive love. In Christ, we see the embodiment of divine vulnerability, sacrificial compassion, and healing presence. The cross is not about satisfying divine justice through violence, but about revealing the depth of God's solidarity with the suffering and God's ultimate lure toward resurrection life.

---

Cosmic Universalism

Process universalism extends beyond humanity. All creation - animals, ecosystems, and possibly conscious artificial intelligences - are part of God’s ongoing process. God’s lure is not limited to human souls but includes the flourishing of all relational life. Redemption is not only personal; it is ecological and cosmic.

---

Pastoral Implications

A vision of hope without coercion transforms how we live, preach, grieve, and minister:

• To the grieving parent: your child is eternally held by God.

• To the victim: your pain is remembered and honored.

• To the doubter: salvation is not a test to pass but a relationship to grow.

Pastorally, this theology nurtures courage, compassion, and faithful imagination—trusting that love will have the final word.

---

Summary Table: Evangelical vs. Process Views of Justice

Evangelical Justice	Process Theology Justice
Retribution for wrongdoers	Restoration of all relationships
Fixed judgment at death	Ongoing divine lure beyond death
Divine wrath against evil	Divine compassion with real consequence
Exclusion or torment	Transformation or enduring distance (by choice)
Vindication through violence	Vindication through healing and wholeness

---

Conclusion:

Process Theology affirms a universal hope - but never by force. It envisions a world in which all are lovingly called, persistently invited, and eternally held by God’s persuasive presence. Salvation is not imposed; it is co-created. Justice is not retribution; it is transformation. Love does not end. And though the future is open, hope endures—because God never stops calling creation forward.

In a universe shaped by process, hope without coercion is not weak. It is divine.

A Process Theology View of Universalism: Hope Without Coercion, Part 1

A PROCESS THEOLOGY VIEW

OF UNIVERSALISM:

Hope Without Coercion

PART 1

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

Introduction

From time-to-time I wander in-and-out of past subjects I've written about. Today's subject on Christian Universalism is such an event. I have heard of painters who would paint the same subject over-and-over, and I feel that this sometimes describes my own passion to turn a Christian doctrine or theme around-and-around until I can see it clearly.

It would seem that the subject of Universalism is one of those dogmatic watersheds on which Christians deem a significant turning point which can dramatically reshape understanding, belief, or practice within a religious tradition. If accepted, it becomes a moment of profound change, altering the course of theological thought and leading to new perspectives or interpretations on the Christ-event and biblical teaching.

Universalism teaches that all humans will ultimately be saved through Christ. It seems reasonable to many Christians and unreasonable to many others. It might also be described a a theological theologoumenon which means that it is a concept which derives its force more from outside the bible than inside it. A theologoumenon is defined as "a theological statement or concept more in the area of individual opinion than of authoritative doctrine."

For myself, I might be generally persuaded towards accepting universalism though my greatest doctrinal obstacle has always been the resolvement of injustice and evil. If universalism is true than where is the justice for those who have suffered at the hands of evil men and women?

Thus, I have always felt there should be some form of penalty incurred on those who refused God's love - and in sharing that love in this life - with others. Additionally, though I no longer consider heaven or hell a spiritual destination I still am tempted to wonder about the theologoumenon teaching annihilation of body and soul of those who continued in refusing Christ.

But these were yesteryear's struggles as I've written about in the early years of this website. With process theology I find I may look at Christian Universalism, heaven, hell, annihilation, good and evil from yet another perspective.

I

Christian Universalism: Pros and Cons

Pros of Christian Universalism

Emphasis on God's love and mercy: Universalists highlight God's character as fundamentally loving and merciful, suggesting that a benevolent God would not consign anyone to eternal suffering.

Hope and comfort: This doctrine offers hope that all loved ones, regardless of their earthly faith, will ultimately be saved and reunited with God, providing emotional comfort for many believers.

Motivation for evangelism based on love, not fear: Universalism can motivate evangelism by emphasizing God's universal love and grace, rather than focusing on the fear of an eternal hell.

Provides answers to the problem of evil and hell: Universalism can offer theological answers to the questions of how a loving God can allow for evil and suffering, by suggesting a path for everyone to eventually be restored to God.

Biblical support: Proponents point to certain biblical passages like Romans 5:18, 11:32, Colossians 1:20, and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 as supporting the idea of universal salvation.

Historical precedent: Christian universalism was held by some in the early church, notably Origen.

Cons of Christian Universalism

Contradiction of traditional biblical interpretation: Many critics argue that universalism contradicts passages emphasizing eternal punishment and the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, citing verses like Matthew 25:46, John 3:36, and Revelation 20:15.

Undermines the seriousness of sin and God's justice: Critics suggest that universalism may minimize the gravity of sin and the need for repentance, undermining the concept of divine judgment.

May diminish the urgency of evangelism: If all are eventually saved, some argue it lessens the urgency of sharing the Gospel and the importance of individual conversion in this life.

Potential for moral complacency: Some critics worry that the belief in universal salvation could lead to a less urgent pursuit of holiness and righteous living.

Impact on core Christian doctrines: Embracing universalism can lead to a re-evaluation of other key Christian beliefs, such as the nature of hell, the role of free will, and even the atonement of Christ.

Reinterpretation of scripture: Critics contend that universalists often selectively interpret or reinterpret biblical passages to fit their theological framework, rather than accepting the clear meaning of the texts. [I find this a moving argument fitting the background of the arguer]

NOTE

It is important to note that discussions surrounding Christian universalism involve diverse interpretations of scripture and varying theological viewpoints within Christianity

II.

What is the Process version of Universalism?

• Universalism is the belief that all beings will ultimately be saved. It has long been debated in theological circles.

• Some affirm it as a guaranteed outcome, citing God’s sovereignty and love as ensuring universal reconciliation.

• Process theology offers another perspective.

• Rather than asserting inevitability, it grounds its vision in divine relationality, persuasive love, and the open-ended freedom of all creatures.

• What follows is a very short expression of process-based universalism and a brief engagement with classical interpretations that insist on guaranteed outcomes.

1

Process-based universalism (short version)

All things are in process, and God's loving presence works within all processes to guide creation toward healing, wholeness, and harmony. Ultimately, no one is ever finally cut off from God's lure toward love.

BUT... it is a hope - not a guarantee - that all beings will eventually respond to the divine call, because love never forces but always invites.

2

How does Process Theology Differ from Guaranteed Universalism?

Process theology differs from guaranteed universalism in this key way:

Process universalism is hopeful - but not certain - because it honors freedom. Love cannot guarantee every being will respond - that is, Love can only lure, call, beckon the wayward to come.

A guaranteed outcome would violate the very relational, open-ended nature of process.

In short:

• Classical universalism: All will be saved — inevitably.

• Process universalism: All can be saved — hopefully.

3

What does this imply re living vs death?

In life, every moment is an invitation to grow in love, truth, and beauty.

In death, the process continues - God still lures the soul toward healing and wholeness.

But:

Freedom never ends, not even in death. Love may still be refused. And yet, the divine invitation never ceases.

Thus, hope endures, but not through force—only through unrelenting, patient love.

4

Question: Could one say the following...

"A guaranteed outcome gives everyone freedom while also recognizing that everyone will freely be transformed into the revelation that God is their origin and home because that’s why they were created. It is the telos of the universe and every created being. I believe scripture that every knee will eventually bow and every tongue acclaim Christ’s Lordship."

Answer

No.

This view affirms a beautiful telos - but process theology would gently challenge the logic. If transformation is guaranteed, freedom becomes illusion. True love honors the possibility of refusal, even if we hope none will choose it.

“Every knee will bow” can be read as poetic hope, not mechanistic certainty. In process thought, God’s love is persuasive, not coercive - and persuasion allows for real risk, real freedom, and real hope.

Conclusion

• Process-based universalism affirms that God’s love is endlessly active, luring all beings toward their fullest becoming.

• It shares the hope of universal reconciliation - but refuses to make it a certainty that overrides freedom.

• This open-ended vision of process theology preserves the integrity of love along with the corporeal (freewill) agency of all creation.

• In such a universe, salvation is not an imposition but a co-created journey of grace between God and creation.

Appendix

 By the way, the painter mentioned at the outset was Claude Monet:

Claude Monet is well-known for painting the same subjects multiple times, particularly in series. He focused on capturing the changing effects of light and atmosphere on his chosen subjects, such as haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, and water lilies.

Monet's series of paintings on the same subject, like the Haystacks series, Rouen Cathedral series, or Water Lilies series, demonstrate his dedication to capturing subtle variations in light and mood across different times of day and seasons. He would set up multiple canvases and work on them simultaneously, switching between them as the light changed.

Other artists, like Rembrandt and Van Gogh, also created multiple versions of the same subject, but Monet's series are particularly notable for their systematic exploration of a single subject under varying conditions.

Short Shorts... Christian Sloganeering, Inspiration, Revelation, & Universalism

Short Shorts... Christian Sloganeering,

Inspiration, Revelation, & Universalism

kitcshe - examples of sloganeering

What is Kitsch?

Well, it's NOT the Canadian actor Taylor Kitsch... he's cool.

Art as Kitsch

It seems religious kitsch is everywhere on social media regardless the religion or faith. Here, I ask the question whether it is useful or not? Offensive? Helpful?

I suspect the answer lies in the eyes of the beholder as it would with any display of art...

...and also what the artist wishes to communicate to us about their faith or beliefs.

Some artistic kitsch I like... It may make me laugh, cry, be cynical, or be uplifted by it.

The ones displayed below I generally don't like though I realize they are telling us to be thoughtful of how Christian behavior to be loving, just and wise, and to emissaries of Jesus wherever we go.

On Parenting

In the case of raising and teaching little kids I'd like to see less abject brainwashing and more liberty for them to be directed to ask better questions when trained up in the household of their parents.

Children are innocent souls and if they are allowed, a bit of childhood respite from the wickedness of the world would be nice to be encouraged at all times.

And when approaching the subject of God as they grow older I think sets them up for good or for ill to be worked out the rest of their lives. Hence, a bit of caution to religious parents on the energy of their beliefs. Allow children to breathe a bit. Become themselves a bit. Simply watching you will be instruction enough when the time comes to verbalize wisdom and beliefs.

I love children and always wish to error towards love, patience, broad-mindedness, and good will. We each need wisdom when it comes to children... and with that wisdom we might learn ourselves and share it with those around us.

R.E. Slater

January 18, 20224

Defined

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages

kitsch /kiCH/ 

as a noun

art, objects, or design considered to be in poor taste because of excessive garishness or sentimentality, but sometimes appreciated in an ironic or knowing way.

• "the lava lamp is an example of sixties kitsch"

as an adjective

considered to be in poor taste but appreciated in an ironic or knowing way.

• "the front room is stuffed with kitsch knickknacks, little glass and gilt ornaments"

• a tacky or lowbrow quality or condition.

KITSCH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• This article is about the art term. For other uses, see Kitsch (disambiguation).

• "Tacky" redirects here. For other uses, see Adhesive and Tacky (song).

Kitsch (/kɪtʃ/ KITCH; loanword from German) is a term applied to art and design that is perceived as naïve imitation, overly eccentric, gratuitous or of banal taste.

The modern avant garde traditionally opposed kitsch for its melodramatic tendencies, its superficial relationship with the human condition and its naturalistic standards of beauty. In the first half of the 20th century, kitsch was used in reference to mass-produced, pop-cultural products that lacked the conceptual depth of fine art. However, since the emergence of Pop Art in the 1950s, kitsch has taken on newfound highbrow appeal, often wielded in knowingly ironic, humorous or earnest manners.

To brand visual art as "kitsch" is often still pejorative, though not exclusively. Art deemed kitsch may be enjoyed in an entirely positive and sincere manner. For example, it carries the ability to be quaint or "quirky" without being offensive on the surface, as in the Dogs Playing Poker paintings.

Along with visual art, the quality of kitsch can be used to describe works of music, literature or any other creative medium. Kitsch relates to camp, as they both incorporate irony and extravagance.

* * * * * *

Christian Beliefs

 

I had two reactions to the pictures above and below...

First the con... however I read this bit of nonsense it's still crap. If religion isn't true and gets exposed by science than let's put faith to death immediately. But if religion can survive the true truths of the universe than just maybe its metaphysic might be true too. Never be afraid to autopsy your faith. We want a living faith... not one that is dead and fighting for its zombie-self to manipulate and control our agency! - re slater

Now the pro... as people of science-and-faith we are to live in the present, not flee from difficulties... especially as presented by religious zealots defending an idolatrized faith. If prophecy is in any sense alive today as I think it is, we stand up and tell (forthtell, NOT foretell) our generations it's goods and bads, pros and cons, about itself. We don't stand mum and hope to leave disruption. Esp against sin and evil whether birthed by a church gone bad or leaders turned rotten. - re slater

* * * * * *

Bench Pressing with Rance

Subject: Universalism

Ok, warning. A good many of my friends may not want to read this. And I admit I sound pretty self-righteous, but here goes....

Today, I met and talked with a pastor who serves a non-denominational church in Alabama who only a few months ago became a persuaded Christian universalist.

He, like me in a previous life, came from the ‘free grace’ movement (names like Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, etc) and in fact his church was part of that movement. We both agreed that, despite its name, it is one of the most narrow and doctrinally legalistic theological groups around. In reality, ‘grace’ is reduced to an abstraction and salvation is reduced to something like a commercial transaction. Unless you get all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted in the ‘faith vs works b.s.,’ you’re probably not saved, according to them.

There are approximately 8.1 billion people living on earth right now. So your chances of ‘going to heaven’ (as they put it) are extremely thin. Billions of people will roast forever according to these wacko beliefs.

From my research there are somewhere between 3.9 and 7.7 million Evangelical Christians in the world. That’s a mere 4-7% of the world’s billions of people who ever end up in heaven. By the time the ‘grace movement’ people get through with their nitpicking, only a fraction of those who identify as Evangelicals will be saved. How crazy is this? Plenty, if you ask me.

Evangelicals believe they are the only religious people on earth who will be saved. In general, Catholics aren’t ’really saved.’ Liberal and progressive mainline Christians arent saved. And certainly those Orthodox and Coptic Christians aren’t either. Muslims, ditto. Hindus, ditto. Buddhists, ditto.

And it gets even more depressing still since most Evangelicals believe in a literal hell. This was one of the main reasons I departed from Evangelicalism. I could no longer tolerate this narrow view of the world informed by a legalistic narrow view of the gospel.

There’s no good news at all in this kind of Christianity. It’s 99% bad news. Who could begin to love a god who is willing to create children made in his own image only to condemn billions of them forever? Not me, thank you very much.

I was schooled in this stuff, brought up in a Southern Baptist context and then trained in fundamentalist colleges as a young man. But relatively speaking, it didn’t take me long to feel increasingly uncomfortable with such nonsense.

My deconstruction began nearly 40 years ago. I haven’t de-converted from Christian faith by any means, but after all these decades my faith looks very different now than it did back then.

As my new pastor friend told me today, ‘everything looks different now. I view people differently. I see God differently. And once I understood universal salvation, I saw it everywhere in the Bible.’

I had to agree.

- Rance, 1.17.2024

Comment 1

I think you hit this spot on Rance. Might I publish it on my site? As always, I'll add a few thoughts too. You're my hero! BTW, I left one church after 27 years as I had become tired of my fellowship's incessant judgmentalism of others-not-like-themselves.

I couldn't evangelize for God, or bring converts into the church, if the church wasn't going to provide them with a nourishing, enriching fellowship as vs some imagined legalistic interpretation as to what they thought was holy or not holy.

To this day connecting divine sovereignty to power and determinism curdles my stomach. Divine sovereignty is always about divine love working with creation towards blessed, redemptive ends. Not power. Not wrath. Not hell. Not Christian inquisitions.

Thx again. - re slater

Reply: Rance - "Of course, brother."

Comment 2

by RRW

Hi Rance. I don't think you sound so much self-righteous as misinformed. I read a lot of people saying things about "Evangelicals" that aren't necessarily and definitely not universally true. I tend to distinguish Evangelical from Fundamentalist, though I recognize considerable overlap in many areas of thought.

My theological education started around Fuller Seminary (progressive? non-denominational Evangelical) and was consolidated at Regent College (also non-denominational, and very ecumenically diverse) as an Anabaptist. I suppose I'm something like a free-will baptist now, but I've always been rather iconoclastic, rejecting every post-biblical human tradition and line of thinking I could identify. I am not dogmatic about much except insofar as I am committed to biblical revelation as exemplified by apostolic teaching as represented by the canonical texts of the Old and New Covenants.

Abandon biblical revelation and you are on your own. If we are all on our own as to what truth is we are no longer thinking and acting as followers of Christ. He is our Lord; what he said as remembered and recorded by those who knew him best must be what we believe or we have departed from faith in him. If we recreate God in our own image however we see fit we are no longer fit for eternal life with him.

Universalism is one of those ways people impose their own thinking on the gospel as received. The words of Jesus are a plain refutation of that belief; eg., separating the sheep from the goats simply can’t be ignored as irrelevant here. And there is a lot more you have to excise from scripture to make the case for God’s eventual inclusion of everyone as members of His family. Someone in the comments mentioned that universalism results in monism, or in other words a deterministic world view. God would have to coercively override the will of those he created with free will by forcing them to accept him as God.

At some point our doctrines, if they are derived from scripture, have to all be correlated and coherent, otherwise they are not reasonable. I think it is not only possible but necessary for Christian teaching to be reasonable and coherent. That doesn’t mean the same as “logical” because a logical system requires more than humans are capable of (too much to explain that here, but ask if you want clarification). I think the Bible provides a coherent structure of beliefs if we mere humans don’t force it into our own distorted ways of thinking, which are then inherently incoherent and contradictory whether we realize it or not. I think that eternal conscious torment (torture!) is not a biblical doctrine. The only reasonable alternative is something like conditional immortality, with the expectation that some form of conscious and appropriate (just!) punishment is what scripture teaches, and then comes the “second death” of annihilation (the cessation of conscious existence) for the unfaithful and unbelieving.

Scripture does not teach that humans are immortal because we are created in the image of God. In fact Genesis teaches that because we have rejected the will and commandments of God we have lost the potential for immortality. The Old Covenant says we lost immortality and the New Covenant says we can regain it through faith in and obedience to Christ. People do not have God’s Spirit dwelling in them by nature; believers in Christ receive new life through the gift of Holy Spirit. Believe the Good News and you will be saved.

Reply by Rance

Richard, I have been very careful to build my faith in ultimate reconciliation for all on the Bible. A good case can be made for it, I assure you. I don’t even know where to start but simply to say it is how one reads scripture. The number of texts that explicitly state it are amazing.

Reply by RWW

Is there not an inherent conflict in proposing that the Covenant can be regained "through faith in and obedience to Christ" and "Believe the Good News and you will be saved?"

Reply by re slater

I no longer can read the bible as a "one-time" revelation. I believe the only kind of communication God provides is one that is daily and constant.

When I read the bible I read how past cultures thought about God... especially the Jewish culture. Jesus did too and had to correct Second Temple Judaism's covenantal legalisms of the day.

I feel much the same way....

God is a God of love... NOT a God of wrath and hate. That's what we do to one another when failing to love one another and creation-around-us again.

Further, Jesus revealed this loving God he called Father not with a sword but with targeted teaching on divine love and Spirit enablement.

Today, Christianity may simply expand the doctrine of inspiration to discover God never stopped talking to our hearts, minds, and souls by study, fellowship, experience, and history. 

If you wish, we might describe these events as General Inspiration as versus Special Inspiration... but when reading the bible it seems to me that all is generally inspiration and never one-on-one audible discussion except in the Christ-event when God became man.

As corollary, this would mean that the Christian commentaries, stories, and bios we read are from people moved perhaps a bit, perhaps a lot, or not at all, by the Spirit of God. To discern whether their words are from God I ask myself if God's love is at the center of the conversation and in their works. If not, they may have some things to say but I then read such beliefs in a different light as more human than divine. Some of which may be really helpful and some of which is complete rubbish.

How people think of God and act out their faith tells us a lot about the God they believe in.

For myself, divine love displays itself in acts which are healthy, healing, and redemptive.

When I read of God by those who push protestations, defensive apologies claiming biblical authority, or are generally off-putting to those around them, I read of people trying to push their idea of God on others. An idea which may be either good or bad. But love must always be the outcome as it must be the beginning and middle of any conversation.

As to the doctrine of hell it is what we do to one another rather than a place a wrathful God puts you in. Always remember, God is not hell nor is fellowship with God through Christ anything but redemption working itself out through us. And for the unbeliever, pagan, or non-Christian (my preferred term) God will always be a God to them as well despite religion or belief.

So why teach hell?

Well, that's the question isn't it... if there is no hell as the bible says there is... or as its Jewish culture in the first century may have believed; ...and certainly in what the early, middle, and late Middle Age church taught after (Catholic?) Dante's description of hell in his Divine Comedy of Hell's Inferno (published c.1321)... then what do we do with hell?

For myself, it is how we act towards one another and to nature around us. It is a description of our relationship with one another individually, familiarly, societally, and globally. Relationships are not places there are esoteric. And the pain and torture of a soul rueing life and troubles aptly describes a soul burning under the sin and evil caused.

The only place I find resolvement is in Jesus Christ's and the hell he took upon himself for us as God's sacrificial Lamb. Who served as our Atonement and Redeemer by the force of his life and death and resurrection. For without the resurrection, says the Apostle Paul, Jesus' death would not be legitimate. But with Jesus' ascension and transfiguration as the first fruits of salvation, we may find in Jesus One who will take our past, forgive it, and begin healing those of us seeking forgiveness and transformation.

Next topic...

As a former fundamentalist and later conservative evangelical I have to call my faith out. I've leaned into my original Baptist roots into Arminianism (free will) and thrown out Calvinism (divine determinacy).

Then expanded the former to incorporate and Open and Relational Theology.

And finally, I've removed the church's Westernized (Greek Hellenism) bias towards doctrine and replaced it with Whitehead's process philosophy and Cobb's process theology.

Why?

• Because I can remove the limitations of Western philosophical theology upon church doctrines and traditions. It also allows me to freely use redactive tools upon the ancient biblical text to expand its godly content and to apply a loving divinity which is never absent of us.

• Which is also why divine inspiration and revelation are important. If kept as a one-time reveal than God has bound us as God has bound God's Self. But I don't think God works this way... an imminent, intimately-near-to-us-never-to-leave-us God is always speaking, revealing, and inspiring. Some get it, many don't. Some get a bit of it while others make a "mash" of it.

• When I read inspiring novels or fiction; see illuminating art pieces, paintings, and sculptures; hear the joy filling within a good rock opera or punk rock piece; or witness architects and landscapers weaving buildings and gardens around light and sound; I behold lively works of divine inspiration such as in the American Constitution with it's Bill of Rights. Public documents which give people liberty, personal rights, freedom, justice, and equality.

• God is present and is presently doing what he can when his creation yearns to speak, be, and breathe atoning redemption and transfiguring healing to all.

Hence, at the center of love is:

• humane and humanitarian forms of social justice;

• intersectional faiths (certainly non-Christian faiths don't have Christ but in Process thought we can emphasize a redemptive center); and generally,

• behave in progressively liberating norms of behavior with one another while abiding to love and covenantal integrity with one another.

Such thoughts never rests easily upon a Westernized conservative evangelicalism as its newer, postmodernal form of progressive evangelicalism can attest. But when uplifting Reformed and Evangelical doctrinnaire into Processual Theology's realms we may liberate bad ideas of God and judgment and recover the good news which is in Jesus anew. This, to me, is invaluable.

Lastly, if God is what evangelicalism says God is - whether Calvinistic or Arminian - than such a God is not worth following. And just like ancient man's ideas are always reforming the primal questions of purpose and destiny, so too those divinely driven burdens ask of God today to reveal a better Christ and more humane faith than in times past or present. Amen

Comment 3

By CM

I think people assume all forms of universal salvation are the same. The ultimate redemption that Brad Jersak, Chris Green and others put forward is one that has been in the historical church family all along. It includes judgement and "hell" but just sees these as penultimate not the final word. Can God's Love really fail? Will Jesus be all in all of will he not?

Reply by Rance - Exactly.

Let's Talk About Process Theology vs Universalism

R.E. Slater Shorts

Let's Talk About

Process Theology vs Universalism

by R.E. Slater

My "Shorts" are given as one-offs on any given topic of the day which I may have come across in my daily readings. Hopefully they spark another way of thinking about a subject whether that subject is light-hearted or heavy and disturbing. - re slater

Concerning the process view on universalism I would describe it as quite a bit different though getting to the same conclusion as universalism arrives at re God's reconciliation of the world to God's Self.

But I'd rather approach the story of God's love from a processual gospel standpoint than from a westernized version of systematic theology.

In the process approach, God is love and will lovingly interact with all of creation in every way possible without circumventing creational agency or freewill.

As creation bears the "Imago Dei" of God it bears:

• all the ability to bless;
• to recreate thriving communities; and,
• to enrich generative acts of love across everything around itself.

But when not enacting with our divine/human creational-nature - which is not a sin nature but a processually loving nature then:

• mankind's consequential actions will not bless,
• nor create generative thriving,
• nor provide enrichment to those around it.

In Whiteheadian-based process theology, a loving God's embeddedness of God's divine Being into creation allows for pancessual evolutionary growth of love against the self - or self will - which inhabits nature's soul.

• This divinely-based soul is molded out of LOVE, not sin.

• It is described as a processual pan-en-theism (NOT the Eastern idea of pan-theism).

Quite obviously, this approach has removed the classic approach of traditional theism which leans into God's transcendence much harder than it does God's relational immanence to God's creation.

This is inconsistent with process theology which does not deny God's transcendent "Otherness" but must speak to God's incessant, necessary immanence across all westernized doctrines of abondoness, judgment, separation, and errant beliefs of Divine Holiness.

That is, process theology leans hard into the immanence of God without denying God's "Otherness." God is not more God because God is transcendent but verifies God AS God when constantly abiding with us in God's immanence. Which is why process theology must redescribed traditional theism in terms of God-with-us pan-en-theism.

Love than is the coin with two halves... It is why we all have agency and also the reason we yearn to enact beauty.... But it is also the curse which pains our souls when we cannot, or do not, enact love thus enflaming our souls by the sin and evil we do reflected in the broken mirror of Love's passionate side. (FYI. Of note, in process theology God cannot do evil. God is without sin and evil. God is love.) 

Dante's Divine Comedy in B&W Woodcuts

Similarly, the western doctrine of universalism describes hell as a present condition and not a present expectation of the Christian gospel.

Hell is popularly depicted in the Dantian description of the Catholic purgatory in the title, The Divine Comedy, which is an Italian narrative poem by author Dante Alighieri, begun c. 1308 and completed around 1321, shortly before the author's death. In it, the Divine Comedy revels to readers the horrors their souls would go through if they did not obey God's laws nor live righteously thus promoting Christian legalism and prideful holiness by its material. And it is here that Christianity has backfilled it's idea of a Protestant Christian hell.

And because of Calvinism - though other non-Reformed approaches are likewise as guilty (Wesleyanism, Lutheran, Methodism, Catholicism, Eastern and Russian Orthodoxy) - we blame the world condition upon a controlling God determined to enact His will upon all the earth.

Calvinism thus tells us that we receive for our sin and evil divine imprecations as  spoken throughout the biblical narrative of living up to God's contractual / covenantal obligations or else suffer the consequences of our unfaithful sin and evil.

• Of course, this would be a gross misreading of the biblical covenants as the Abrahamic Covenant beautiful shows salvation as unconditionally laid upon God and not mankind. A God who willing bears the surety of God's Atoning -Forgiving-Redeeming-and Resurrecting Self acts when walking through the sacrificial halves laid out by Abram.

• Or the Landed-Form of the Old Covenant as promised by God to Israel when coming into the land of Canaan to inhabit its enculturated regions and live out the love of God in their own way with their neighbors.

• Or the Davidic Covenant God made with the children of Israel assuring the nation a blessed reign and peace when the godly lead their flocks lovingly towards truth and beauty.

• Or even dramatically, in the New Covenant's displayed on Calvary's Cross when God Incarnate (Jesus) became the Lamb of God in Jesus' ministry, slaughter/death, and resurrection, underlining God's "sacrificial selfless service" to all the world as depicted in Jesus' atoning resurrection and dramatic revelation of God's everlasting love contra the legalism and unloving laws placed by Jewish religion upon God's people (sic, a parallel religious bondage to that of Rome's civil bonage).

Hence, Westernised Christian  "universalism" seeks to theologically delimit and re-circumscribe the borders of the Jewish faith which fell into Greek hands with its prophetic fears of the afterlife. Universalism argues that the Love of God wins (or Jesus wins for those who wish to be more sancrosanct or principled than us Christian commoners).

That in God's Love all will be reconciled in this life or the next.

Which prophetic testament is also true of process-based Christian theology. But unlike process theology, progressive Christian Universalism is trying to heal its systematic doctrines founded upon Platonic philosophies which are neither processual, pancessual, nor centered in theologies of love.

Process Christian theology is progressive but it's basis wells up from upon a non-Westernized, non-Platonic foundation. It's philosophic foundation is grounded in Whitehead's process philosophy which rejects all non-processual philosophies including the church's past two Millennias of dogmatic teachings.

For a process theologian, remaking a pig by putting lipstick on it won't be enough. The entire affair of Western dogma has to be uprooted and replaced upon Whitehead's process philosophy of organism in order to be able to live up to the God of Love whom we are worshipping as opposed to the church's creaky traditional platforms weeping with theological holes throughout its substructures because of their defiences.

In conclusion, universalism and process theology share the same end result but not the same philosophic foundation. One is inadequate and unsupportable. The other is superior and can get the Church to it's intended ideation of worship a God of Love without recoursing to the bible's older ideas of secular and religious hell.

R.E. Slater

September 12, 2023

Addenda

1 - I forgot to mention that process-based panentheism is inherently combinatory , or re-connective as a processual teleology embedded in God's love. Hence, process theology really doesn't have an eschatology but a teleology which assumes that Jesus in the processual reconnector to a "broken" creation burdened with an agency inclined towards blessing but plagued with unloving responses against it's very ontological structure. You may read more on my website.

2 - For the process few out there I would welcome further written observation beyond my mere attempts to describe the why's and wherefore's of a westernized religious system that is flawed and unable to work in a postmodern, post-Christian cultural context. Moreover, I find process theology to be more adept at morphing with the times ahead of us much as the church is trying to apply outdated Hellenised-Platonic thought to do the same from its the past 2000 years of institutionalised traditionalism.Thx.

3 - My typical (Calvinistic) Reformed soteriological chart in my non-process days focused on the Work & Sufficiency of Christ. Below may be more of a Wesleyan approach emphasizing the importance of a faith verified by it's works lest it simply exists as a useless, or meaningless, faith that "indwells" with "expelling" God's love in action.