Jung & Whitehead: Correlating Synchronicity with Divine Coherence, Part 3

Why the World is Unfinished:

Whitehead in 20 Minutes

by Footnotes2Plato

Finished Transcript here

Jung & Whitehead: Correlating Synchronicity

with Divine Coherence in Process Thought

PART 3

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

Today's exploration bridges the ideas of psychoanalyticist Carl Jung and process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead around the topic of synchronicity, acausality, and relational becoming. Some years ago after reading Thornton Wilder's "The Bridge of San Luis Rey," and Mitch Albom's, "The Five People You Meet in Heaven," I came across the concept of synchronicity. I wrote an article about it at that time which may be found here: Divine Synchronicity: What Does It Mean for Christianity? In each I'd like to contrast the deterministic and quasi-deterministic views of these popular authors with a more proper Whiteheadian process perspective. One which emphasizes the generative, relational unfolding of divine presence in the cosmos.

As background, some time ago I had undergone a deeply personal reconfiguration which lasted nearly a whole year. It was a dark space where everything shattered and broke. I suspect in hindsight that this event more-or-less began even further back nearly 20 years earlier. Yet from it I emerged with a stunningly brilliant vision for the Christian faith that had become in my estimate unloving and unlovingly dogmatic.

Though I was at a loss as to how to reconfigure Christianity's substance I began to write from where I was to where I thought I should be going and as I did that vision has ever guided and sharpened in focus. It eventually led to a reconfiguration of the evangelical theology I grew up with - and had been rigorously taught and educated in - so that my evangelical faith eventually became more progressively focused.

However, I began to realize that my newer form of progressive evangelical theology was absent a sufficient, constructive philosophical structure. I then began applying myself to discovering a more formal foundation by exploring the many options out there. I wandered away from Americanised philosophies to European/Continental philosophies and thought I had found what I was looking for there. But after a few years I came across process philosophy which completed the circle I was looking for.

In Whitehead's process philosophy, along with it's derivative, process theology, came all that I felt my Reformed evangelical theology required for a total structural uplift and not merely a facial rearrangement of moving the deck chairs around on a sinking ship. Over the years I've written about my engagement with process thought and it's great helpfulness to the Christian faith... as well as to any global religion or scientific endeavor.

Why? Because in process thought one finds an holistic integrative structure where all thoughts and structures may reside in part and in piecemeal to its own structure. Like the proverbial process elephant wherein non-process spectators examine trunk, hide, tail, and ears, each likening their own process to the thing examined unrealizing the greater structure holding all together. Thus process and thus all of life which throbs with processual structure. Here is where divine and spirit, physical and cosmological, reside together. And is why the Christian faith can find a better address to live at than the former Westernized addresses it had been residing.

Thus today's discussion which touches indirectly on the concept of miracles in the bible and in our lives. Jung named this psycho-somatic inter-relationship "synchronicity" while Whitehead described it as a "prehensive relationality." I will explain what each mean and perhaps lay down a foundation on which to think of divine miracles not as rare events, nor as unnatural law-breaking events, but as daily constructs we live seamlessly with without notice.

R.E. Slater

May 12, 2025

* * * * * * * *

Whitehead & Jung: Correlating Synchronicity

with Divine Coherence in Process Thought

RES

In Whiteheadian thought is there any correlation with Jungian synchronicity?

ChatGPT

In Whiteheadian process philosophy, synchronicity and divine coherence are understood as interconnected aspects of reality. Synchronicity, as described by Carl Jung, is the meaningful coincidence of events, while divine coherence, as articulated by Alfred North Whitehead, refers to the underlying order and coherence of the universe, guided by a persuasive, non-coercive, divine presence. These concepts are not meant to be understood as literal interventions by a divine entity but rather as expressions of the interconnectedness and dynamic interplay of the universe.

Elaboration

While Jung focuses on psychic-symbolic meaning and Whitehead on ontological-relational becoming, both systems reject a purely mechanistic universe. They offer deep metaphysical support for a world that is alive, interrelated, and meaning-generating.

• Synchronicity

Jung's concept of synchronicity suggests that meaningful coincidences are not merely random occurrences but can reveal underlying connections within the psyche and the world.

These connections, according to Whitehead's process philosophy, every actual entity "feels" the world around it, as reality is built through relational process and not strict causality.

Moreover, in process theology, such meaningful coincidences can be seen as manifestations of the divine, a persuasive force guiding the universe toward greater complexity and coherence.

Summary: Both view the universe an as interconnected web of relationships where events are not fully explained by linear cause-and-effect. 

• Divine Coherence & Interconnectedness

• For Jung, meaning arises when internal psychic states and external events "mirror" each other.

• For Whitehead, each moment (or actual occasion) involves "concrescence" - the integration of data into a meaning unity.

• Further, Whitehead's God is not a traditional, coercive deity, but rather a persuasive, creative force that draws the universe towards a greater wholeness. This divine coherence is expressed in the interconnectedness of all things, where each event and experience contributes to the ongoing creation and evolution of the universe.

• Summary: Meaning is not imposed but emerges through participation in a flowing, relational cosmos. Whitehead emphasizes that every event is interconnected with all other events, and that these connections are not merely physical but also meaningful. This interconnectedness is seen as a reflection of the divine, which acts as a unifying force, drawing all things together.

• The Role of the Psyche / Subjective Aim

In Jung, the psyche has a deep structure shaped by archetypes, guiding personal meaning.

In Whitehead, each actual entity has a subjective aim, a goal-directed character that integrates experience.

Both suggest that inner purpose or intentionality shapes how the world is perceived and how novelty enters experience.

• Archetypes vs. Eternal Objects

In Jung’s archetypes there are deep symbolic patterns of meaning in the collective unconscious.

In Whitehead’s eternal objects, pure potentials that can be realized in actual occasions.

Both philosophic concepts hold timeless structures which inform and shape temporal experience.

• Re Process Theology: Divine Coherence is Non-Coercive

• Whitehead's God is not a force that dictates or manipulates events. Instead, it is a force that invites, encourages, and persuades the universe to move towards greater complexity and coherence.

• Re Process Theology: There is an  Unfolding of Divine Aims

Divine aims are not imposed on the world but rather emerge through the interactions of individuals and events, with wisdom arising from these interactions.

• Re Mystical Traditions there is the concept of Thin Places

The concept of "thin places" in the Celtic mystical tradition, where the divine and human meet, highlights the potential for encountering synchronicity and divine coherence in every encounter.

• Re Everyday Life Experiences: Cultivating Synchronicity

By being open to meaningful coincidences and recognizing the interconnect-edness of all things, one can cultivate a deeper appreciation for the under-lying divine coherence of the universe.

Acausality as the Metaphysical Bridge

In Jung:

• Acausality describes events that are not mechanically linked but are psychically meaningful.

• Synchronicity happens when the inner world and outer world align without direct cause.

In Whitehead:

• Causation is not the only mode of connection. Instead:

• Prehensions involve feeling past actualities.

• Creativity introduces novelty beyond strict causality.

• The world unfolds through process, where the past informs but doesn't determine the present.

The Bridge:

• In both, meaning arises through participation in a living, relational universe.

• Events emerge from a field of potentials, not just linear chains.

• Acausality is not randomness; it’s a higher-order pattern - a felt resonance between psyche and cosmos (Jung), or between actual occasions (Whitehead).

Shared Implications:

• Reality is not closed - newness, surprise, and transformation are real.

• Subjectivity matters - experience is foundational.

• The cosmos is alive with pattern, not just force and mass.

RES

Let's approach acausality from the perspective of panpsychic panentheism where God's generative Being is implanted or enmeshed into the fabric of life. Though God does not control the shaping of the cosmos, God's generative indwelling does move physical and psychic evolution forward in relentlessly generative ways. Thots?

ChatGPT

Yes—your framing is both theologically profound and metaphysically rich. You’re articulating a panpsychic panentheism that beautifully aligns with Whiteheadian process thought and can even deepen Jung's acausal psyche-world relations. Let’s unpack it:

---

1. Acausality as Generative Presence

In your view, acausality is not the absence of order but the presence of a non-coercive generative field—God’s indwelling lure toward becoming, beauty, and relational complexity.

• This non-controlling divine impulse is what moves evolution—both physical and psychic—toward novelty.

• It is not causal in the Newtonian sense, but it’s deeply formative.

• In Whitehead’s terms: this is God as the initial aim, present in every moment of concrescence as the offer of the best possible becoming.

---

2. Panpsychism: Every Entity Has Experience

• Panpsychism insists that all actual entities, even subatomic ones, have some interiority or experience.

• Thus, God's generative presence moves through all levels of being, not as a puppeteer but as an interior relational call to actualize potential.

• This gives a unified metaphysical substrate through which synchronicity and evolution are both possible and meaningful.

---

3. Panentheism: God-in-the-World and World-in-God

• God is not separate from the cosmos, nor reducible to it.

• Instead, the cosmos exists within God, and God’s Being permeates it as the source of its potentiality, becoming, and transformation.

• This indwelling sets the stage for meaningful emergence—not through divine intervention, but through divine participation.

---

4. Acausality as the Deep Structure of Evolutionary Meaning

• Events like synchronicity, inspiration, mutation, or intuitive leaps may not be mechanistically caused, but they’re not random—they emerge from the generative resonance between cosmos and divine presence.

• Acausality, then, is the creative interface between immanence and transcendence, consciousness and cosmos.

---

5. Theological Implication: God as Relational Becoming

In this vision:

• God is not an omnipotent mechanic, but a relational artist, guiding through persuasion, not force.

• The world is always in dialogue with the divine—an open, living, co-creative unfolding.

• Acausality becomes the spiritual logic of freedom, growth, and unexpected grace.

Reviewing Carl Jung's "Meaningful Coincidences," Part 2

Reviewing Carl Jung's

"Meaningful Coincidences"

Part 2

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

Meaningful coincidences involve both people and events, the cosmos and life around us. Carl Jung took the phrase and coined the word "synchronicity" to describe acausally related connecting events that may be mere curiosities or highly significant when noticed by the affected observer.

In simple terms, synchronicity happens when two or more events occur together in a way that feels purposeful or symbolically resonant, even though there’s no direct cause linking them.

As example: You think about an old friend you haven’t spoken to in years, and they call you that same day. Or, you dream about a symbol, and later that day you see it repeatedly in unexpected places.

Jung saw these moments as expressions of an underlying order of an acausal connecting principle where the inner world (mind, psyche) and outer world (events, reality) are mysteriously aligned.

Jung defined synchronicity as “meaningful coincidences that cannot be explained by cause and effect.” He believed that these events were not just random occurrences, but rather manifestations of a deeper order in the universe.

Carl Jung’s Synchronicity:

Meaningful Patterns in Life

The Living Philosophy

Nov 17, 2024

Synchronicity was coined by psychological pioneer Carl Jung. Its meaning is simple: a "synchronicity" is a “meaningful coincidence”. But it seems that there has been a lot of misreading of Jung going on. In this episode we are going back to Jung’s original definition of Synchronicity in his 1952 work “Synchronicity: An Acausal Principle” to see what he really meant by the term. 

📚 For Further Reading:

• Atmanspacher, H. “The Pauli-Jung Conjecture and Its Impact Today”
• Cambray, J., “Synchronicity as emergence” in “Analytical Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Analysis”
• Cavalli, C. “Synchronicity and the emergence of meaning”
• Jung, C.G. and Pauli, W., “The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche”
• Jung, C.G. and Jaffé, E., “Memories, dreams, reflections”
• Jung, C.G. “Letters of C. G. Jung vol.1”
• Shinoda Bolen, J., “The Tao of Psychology”
• Main, R., “Synchronicity and analysis: Jung and after” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642530701...
• Main, R., “Revelations of chance: synchronicity as spiritual experience”
• von Franz, M. L., “On divination and synchronicity: the psychology of meaningful chance”

Who was Carl Jung?

According to Wikipedia - Carl Gustav Jung (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist, psychotherapist, and psychologist who founded the school of analytical psychology. A prolific author of over 20 books, illustrator, and correspondent, Jung was a complex and convoluted academic, best known for his concept of archetypes. Alongside contemporaries Freud and Adler, Jung became one of the most influential psychologists of the early 20th century and has fostered not only scholarship, but also popular interest.

Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, psychology, and religious studies. He worked as a research scientist at the Burghölzli psychiatric hospital in Zurich, under Eugen Bleuler. Jung established himself as an influential mind, developing a friendship with Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, conducting a lengthy correspondence paramount to their joint vision of human psychology. Jung is widely regarded as one of the most influential psychologists in history.

Freud saw the younger Jung not only as the heir he had been seeking to take forward his "new science" of psychoanalysis but as a means to legitimize his own work: Freud and other contemporary psychoanalysts were Jews facing rising antisemitism in Europe, and Jung was Christian. Freud secured Jung's appointment as president of Freud's newly founded International Psychoanalytical Association. Jung's research and personal vision, however, made it difficult to follow his older colleague's doctrine, and they parted ways. This division was painful for Jung and resulted in the establishment of Jung's analytical psychology, as a comprehensive system separate from psychoanalysis. Scholar Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi believed that what he claims to be Jung's antisemitic remarks may be a clue to the schism.

Among the central concepts of analytical psychology is individuation—the lifelong psychological process of differentiation of the self out of each individual's conscious and unconscious elements. Jung considered it to be the main task of human development. He created some of the best-known psychological concepts, including synchronicity, archetypal phenomena, the collective unconscious, the psychological complex, and extraversion and introversion. His treatment of American businessman and politician Rowland Hazard in 1926 with his conviction that alcoholics may recover if they have a "vital spiritual (or religious) experience" played a crucial role in the chain of events that led to the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous. Jung was an artist, craftsman, builder, and prolific writer. Many of his works were not published until after his death, and some remain unpublished.

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung

Let's Review

> What is Synchronicity?

Synchronicity is a concept developed by Carl Jung to describe the occurrence of meaningful coincidences that are not causally related but seem to be connected in a deeply significant way.

In simple terms, synchronicity happens when two or more events occur together in a way that feels purposeful or symbolically resonant, even though there’s no direct cause linking them.

For example: You think about an old friend you haven’t spoken to in years, and they call you that same day. You dream about a symbol, and later that day you see it repeatedly in unexpected places.

Jung saw these moments as expressions of an underlying order or acausal connecting principle—where the inner world (mind, psyche) and outer world (events, reality) are mysteriously aligned.

> How is causality opposed to acausality in Jungian terms?

In Jungian terms, causal refers to events that are connected through a linear cause-and-effect relationship—one event directly produces another, as in classical science.

For example: If you drop a glass, it breaks. The falling caused the break. This is causality.

Jung argued that not all meaningful events follow this pattern of cause-and-effect. This is why he introduced synchronicity - to explain events that are not causally related but are psychologically meaningful. He called this an acausal connecting principle.

In short:

• Causality = one event causes another (e.g., physics, biology)

• Synchronicity = there is no cause but there is a (mysteriously) meaningful connection (e.g., an inner dream matches an outer event)

> How are synchronicity and coincidence are similar?

• Coincidence - is a random occurrence of two events at the same time. It carries no inherent meaning. Example: You and a stranger wear the same shirt on the same day.

• Synchronicity (Jung) - is a seemingly random meaningful coincidence. Events are not causally related, but feel psychologically or spiritually significant. Example: You dream of an owl, then the next day someone gives you a gift shaped like an owl and it feels deeply relevant to your emotional state or life question.

Jung’s key point:

• Synchronicity is a coincidence imbued with personal or archetypal meaning.

• While all synchronicities are coincidences, not all coincidences are synchronicities.

> Are "meaningful coincidences" random, seemingly random, or non-random occurrences?

This is central to Jung's idea of synchronicity. In his view, meaningful coincidences are:

Acausal, but not random.

🔹 Not Causally Linked. Jung used the term synchronicity to describe events that coincide meaningfully but have no apparent causal connection.

🔹 Not Purely Random. Though there’s no physical cause, Jung insisted the event isn’t just a fluke. It carries psychic or archetypal meaning—especially when it aligns with an emotional or spiritual state of the person experiencing it. The inner world (psyche) and outer world (event) align in a way that feels deeply personal and significant.

🔹 Though Seemingly Random on the Surface they are Not Non-Random in Depth. On the surface: it looks like coincidence. But under analysis: the person experiencing it feels it as a “message” or moment of transformation.

Summary

Comparing Wilder, Jung, and Whitehead's "Meaningful Occurrences," Part 1

Comparing Wilder, Jung, and Whitehead's

"Meaningful Occurrences"

Part 1

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

My last article adjudged how the literist and playwright, Thornton Wilder, had questioned the facticity of the church's teaching on divine determinism in the lives of mankind. Here, in this article, I would like to expand upon Thornton's theological engagement to include Jung's "Meaningful Coincidence" and Whitehead's form of "Synchronicity".

*Literist - Rare usage. The term lends “literary” with the suffix -ist, suggesting one who practices or is skilled in literary craft—perhaps with an emphasis on aesthetic style, narrative richness, or literary tradition.

*Facticity refers to the concrete and given aspects of an individual's existence, the objective facts which shape one's experience and/or limit one's freedom. It encompasses aspects like one's physical traits and characteristics, social context, historical circumstances, and past choices - all of which are not within one's control.

*Synchronicity refers to seemingly meaningful coincidences between acausal events or experiences which lack a causal relationship but seemingly appear connected. These coincidences are often interpreted as having some sort of omen of significance or perhaps spectral / divine message even though they are likely just random occurrences.

On this latter concept, I had earlier discussed "synchronicity" many years ago when reviewing sports writer turned popular author, Mitch Albom's tract, "The Five People You Meet in Heaven." In my August 2011 article entitled, "Divine Synchronicity: What Does It Mean for Christianity?" I used the TV series "LOST" as a corollary discussion to God's interactive presence within humanity's lives in juxtaposition with other (non-Calvinistic) themes.

Thornton Wilder's Determinism

In Thornton Wilder’s tract, "The Bridge of San Luis Rey," it readily appears deterministic on the surface, but as we further investigate Thornton's offerings we begin to suspect it's flirtation with both causal and acausal coincidence... even if he never fully commits to either philosophical concept in metaphysical terms.

🔹 1. Apparent Determinism

Wilder sets up the story with the collapse of an aged Peruvian rope bridge to which the hand of fate seems to be at work. Upon the bridge's failing five "innocents' perish provoking Brother Juniper to diligently investigate a deeply probing theological question weighing upon his heart: "Was the tragedy an accident or was it divinely orchestrated? As his investigations proceed it feels as if the friar's tone is one of determinism.

Why? Because the earnest friar begins at the onset with the assumption that there might have been a divine pattern or intention behind those who lived and those who died. Moreover, the friar wants a cause, even a hidden one - a divine logic that might redeem or explain the horrific tragedy.

And yet, in Wilder’s conclusion, he remained steadfastly ambiguous as an author to which Brother Juniper’s theological system fails and is condemned by the church for his heresy in questioning divine judgment. Thornton then ends his treatise with a literary-theological pivot: “There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love.” This pivot drops causal explanation in favor of a nebulous existential meaning.

🔹 2. Implicit Causal Threads

Each of the five lives which Brother Juniper traces back show an apparent cause-and-effect relationship:

Esteban’s life is shaped by his twin brother’s loss;

Doña María’s ambitions are betrayed in her desperate letters to her daughter;

And Uncle Pío’s mentorship of Camila is florid and intentional.

These backstories reveal relational causality: choices, love, grief, misunderstandings - all leading each actor to their fated moments on the bridge on the same day and appointed hour. And though their acts were not predestined their presence is more-than-causally embedded in the relational flow of their daily routines.

And though I am unfairly running ahead of myself here, from a Whiteheadian view, each of these mortal lives can be viewed as living processual concrescences which are actively integrating past lived choices and reflections to form new demonstrative or expressive acts. As such, Wilder’s causal treatment of the friar's search for a signifying determinism can allow for our Whiteheadian assertion even if Thornton isn’t aware of his schema.

*processual concrescence is the dynamic process by which a new actual occasion (sic, a unit of reality) emerges through the integration and synthesis of past influences, possibilities, and divine aim into a new, unified experience. (More treatment on this concept will be given below).

🔹 3. Acausal Resonance ( = Jungian Synchronicity?)

Yet… there’s more: Why those five? Asks the friar. Why that moment? Why the bridge's failing when wind and rain could have harmlessly undone it?

Here, Wilder invites a sense of synchronicity in the Jungian-style of "acausal meaningful coincidence" - even as he statedly resists giving it a theological label.

Wilder doesn’t say, “God did it.” But neither does he say, “It means nothing.” Instead, the convergence of all five separate lives join together on that fated bridge forcing a seemingly symbolic conclusion which Thornton refuses to enunciate as either determined, fated, or unfortunate. His conclusion? Their deaths catalyze a reflection on love, legacy, and perhaps acausal interconnection.

*Acausality refers to the concept of events happening without a cause, in contrast to causality, which describes the relationship between cause and effect. It suggests that certain phenomena, may occur without a preceding cause.

In this way, the novel feels like an acausal synchronous event even if it narratively rejects any metaphysical certainty.

🔹 In Summary: Wilder’s Layered Coincidence

Coincidence Type	In Wilder’s Narrative	Whiteheadian Interpretation
Deterministic	Brother Juniper’s inquiry, religious judgment	Rejected by narrator; coercive patterns fail
Causal	Life stories showing psychological causality	Matches Whitehead’s prehensive relationality
Acausal	Convergence of five people on the bridge	Feels like synchronicity; divine lure unspoken
Ultimate meaning	“The bridge is love”	Love as the coherence of becoming

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

 

The Bridge

A roped bridge spanning a deep chasm gave way,

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

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

Asked the friar as his parish shook their saged heads.

The burdened friar searched the pasts of each

Fallen victim for proof or plan that might show

God's justice within each life of fey unfortunate;

How their days were traced, their cares laid bare,

Though no divine pattern could hold them there.

Yet in the failing of the aged, neglected span,

A silence deeper than death's deadly chasm rang,

Hurtling downwards upon a friar's pained heart,

Whether fate, or wrath, or heavenly design,

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

And as he looked and prayed he startled found,

Love had shaped each victim's meager course,

As breath gave way there loved remained,

Not nakedly nailed to heaven’s door, but in

Determined assent woven within the core.

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

But became the space where love had leant,

Subtle instruction forsaken reasoned query,

Slipping all answers 'cept Loving Care,

as aftermath to a sorrow's befallen tragedy.

R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

May 11, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

References to be Read ahead of this article:

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

* * * * * * *

Thornton Wilder's Question of  "Determinism"

an Introduction to Parts 1-5

by R.E. Slater

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

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

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

The Tower of Siloam (Lk 13.1-11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Suffering is proportional to sinfulness.

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

3) Bad things happen only to bad people.

4) We have the right to make such judgments.

To each assumption Jesus says, "No."

1) Suffering is NOT proportional to sinfulness;

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

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

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

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

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

The question?

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

Framing Wilder's Question

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

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

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

Classical Theology’s Answer

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

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

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

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

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

A Loving Theology's Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Bridge of Love

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Let’s expand upon them meditatively and metaphysically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.E. Slater

May 11, 2025