Core Elements of Process Christianity

Core Elements of Process Christianity

The Missional Core of Process Christianity is to sow spirited crops of connectivity, curiosity, creativity, compassion, collaboration, contemplation, and such like, rather than traditional Christianity's previous forms of sowing conforming, crusading, counterproductive, counteractive religious beliefs. 

 

by R.E. Slater

August 19, 2022

I believe that Process Religion in general, along with my own version within this concept, that of Process Christianity, gets more to the place Bertrand Russell would declare himself to be in his existential moments of reflective thought regarding the spirit of creation and mankind itself. For myself, as for Russell, though we pronounce our aversion to all myopic forms of religion which demeaning and degrade healthier forms of civil societal constructions - especially that found in militant religious prescriptions, prohibitions, and political apartheidism if not genocidal pogroms themselves - yet, intuitively, non-Religious, Religious, and their accumulative subsets of Christian process thinkers, will more readily speak to the core of process thought when deconstructing their present socio-political Religious Age. And when done, hopefully impose over the tattered remnants of what's left, not a withdrawal from humanity but healthier socio-politico religious forms of being and becoming in which religious and societal contexts of fellowships which affectations might sow spirited crops of connectivity, curiosity, creativity, compassion, collaboration, contemplation, and such like, rather than previous earlier and contemporary forms of conforming, crusading, counterproductive, counteractive religious beliefs.

At least this is the hope of process-based deconstructionists in their active kinships of supportive eco-societal reconstruction, socio-political reconstructionist, and  alternative Religious/Christian reconstructionist projects given to enacting, performing, and forming practicum fellowships of humanitarian becoming having once determined on paper, and within their academic/religious discussions, what it is process thinkers are trying to achieve; what processual foundations actually consist of; and their many processual reasons for proceeding in concrescing projections of processual possibilities.

I should also indicate my furthering interest in Whiteheadian studies re Bertrand Russell lies in his relationship with Alfred North Whitehead who was his mathematical partner for a number of years as they set out together to write "Principia Mathematica" (Volumes 1,2,3 published in circa 1910-1913). Whitehead, for his part, must have been a philosopher at heart as a mathematician even as Russell was a philosopher who sought a form of mathematical construction of his philosophy across the very heart of creation itself. Each, in their own way, I surmise, were looking for non-Platonic forms of organic "mechanisms" (described essential as relational flows and rhythms) lying across all cosmic centers of being beginning with the language of science itself... that of mathematics. Afterwards, Russell went on to win a Nobel prize in literature in 1950 while his older mentor and partner, Whitehead, wrote out a Philosophy of Organism, at the ages of 62-68 when most scholars had become too old in their thoughts and conformities to have attempted such a colossal project. Even so, process philosophy (more generally described as process thought) was born and has been seeping into the many streams of science and society ever since.

R.E. Slater

August 19, 2022

Key References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

* * * * * * *

A History of Western Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

A History of Western Philosophy

Cover of the first edition
Author	Bertrand Russell
Language	English
Subject	Western philosophy
Publisher	Simon & Schuster (US) George Allen & Unwin Ltd (UK)
Publication date	1945 (US) 1946 (UK)
Media type	Print
ISBN	0-415-32505-6

A History of Western Philosophy^[a] is a 1945 book by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for Russell's over-generalization and omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication. When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, A History of Western Philosophy was cited as one of the books that won him the award. Its success provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.

Background

The book was written during the Second World War, having its origins in a series of lectures on the history of philosophy that Russell gave at the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia during 1941 and 1942.^[1] Much of the historical research was done by Russell's third wife Patricia. In 1943, Russell received an advance of $3000 from the publishers, and between 1943 and 1944 he wrote the book while living at Bryn Mawr College. The book was published in 1945 in the United States and a year later in the UK. It was re-set as a 'new edition' in 1961, but no new material was added. Corrections and minor revisions were made to printings of the British first edition and for 1961's new edition; no corrections seem to have been transferred to the American edition (even Spinoza's birth year remains wrong).

Summary

The work is divided into three books, each of which is subdivided into chapters; each chapter generally deals with a single philosopher, school of philosophy, or period of time.

Ancient Philosophy

• The Pre-Socratics (including Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus and Protagoras)
• Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
• Ancient Philosophy after Aristotle (including the Cynics, Sceptics, Epicureans, Stoics and Plotinus)

Catholic Philosophy

• The Fathers (including developments in Jewish philosophy, Islamic philosophy (which he calls Mohammedan throughout, after the fashion of his time), St Ambrose, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Benedict and Pope Gregory the Great)
• The Schoolmen (including John the Scot and St Thomas Aquinas)

Modern Philosophy

• From the Renaissance to Hume (including Machiavelli, Erasmus, More, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Hume)
• From Rousseau to the Present Day (including Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Byron, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the Utilitarians, Marx, Bergson, William James and John Dewey)
• The last chapter in this section, The Philosophy of Logical Analysis, is concerned with Russell's own philosophical views at the time.

Reception

A History of Western Philosophy received a mixed reception, especially from academic reviewers. Russell was somewhat dismayed at the reaction.^[2] Russell himself described the text as a work of social history, asking that it be treated in such a manner.^[3] Russell also stated: "I regarded the early part of my History of Western Philosophy as a history of culture, but in the later parts, where science becomes important, it is more difficult to fit into this framework. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded. I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."^[3]

In the Journal of the History of Ideas, the philosopher George Boas wrote that, "A History of Western Philosophy errs consistently in this respect. Its author never seems to be able to make up his mind whether he is writing history or polemic.... [Its method] confers on philosophers who are dead and gone a kind of false contemporaneity which may make them seem important to the uninitiate. But nevertheless it is a misreading of history."^[4] In Isis, Leo Roberts wrote that while Russell was a deft and witty writer, A History of Western Philosophy was perhaps the worst of Russell's books. In his view, Russell was at his best when dealing with contemporary philosophy, and that in contrast "his treatment of ancient and medieval doctrines is nearly worthless."^[5] A History of Western Philosophy was praised by physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger.^[3][6]

The philosopher Frederick Copleston, writing in A History of Philosophy, described Russell's book as "unusually lively and entertaining", but added that Russell's "treatment of a number of important philosophers is both inadequate and misleading." He credited Russell with drawing attention to the logical side of Leibniz's philosophy, but questioned Russell's view that there is a sharp distinction between Leibniz's "popular philosophy" and his "esoteric doctrine".^[7] The critic George Steiner, writing in Heidegger, described A History of Western Philosophy as "vulgar", noting that Russell omits any mention of Martin Heidegger.^[8] In Jon Stewart's anthology The Hegel Myths and Legends (1996), Russell's work is listed as a book that has propagated "myths" about Hegel.^[9] Stephen Houlgate writes that Russell's claim that Hegel's doctrine of the state justifies any form of tyranny is ignorant.^[10] The philosopher Roger Scruton, writing in A Short History of Modern Philosophy, described A History of Western Philosophy as elegantly written and witty, but faulted it for Russell's concentration on pre-Cartesian philosophy, lack of understanding of Immanuel Kant, and over-generalization and omissions.^[11] The philosopher A. C. Grayling writes of the work that, "Parts of this famous book are sketchy ... in other respects it is a marvelously readable, magnificently sweeping survey of Western thought, distinctive for placing it informatively into its historical context. Russell enjoyed writing it, and the enjoyment shows; his later remarks about it equally show that he was conscious of its shortcomings."^[12]

See also

• A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston
• Lectures on the History of Philosophy by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny

Notes

1. ^ Full title A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day – the indefinite article was deleted in the British editions.

References

Citations

1. ^ Russell, B: "A History of Western Philosophy", page xi. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1972
2. ^ Monk p. 296
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Russell, B: "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell", Routledge, 2000
4. ^ Boas, G: "Review of History of Western Philosophy", Journal of the History of Ideas, 8(1947): 117–123
5. ^ Roberts, L: "Review of History of Western Philosophy", Isis, 38(1948): 268–270
6. ^ Erwin Schrödinger (1996). 'Nature and the Greeks' and 'Science and Humanism'. Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 9780521575508.
7. ^ Copleston, Frederick (1994). A History of Philosophy Volume IV. Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Leibniz. New York: Doubleday. pp. 270–272, 315. ISBN 0-385-47041-X.
8. ^ Steiner, George (1991). Martin Heidegger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-226-77232-2.
9. ^ Stewart, Jon, ed. (1996). The Hegel Myths and Legends. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. p. 383. ISBN 0-8101-1301-5.
10. ^ Houlgate, Stephen; Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1998). The Hegel Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p. 2. ISBN 0-631-20347-8.
11. ^ Scruton, R: "Short History of Modern Philosophy ", Routledge, 2001
12. ^ Grayling, A. C.: "Russell: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)", Oxford University Press, 2002

Sources

• Ray Monk (2000). Bertrand Russell: The Ghost of Madness. London.

External links

•  Quotations related to A History of Western Philosophy at Wikiquote
• History of Western Philosophy (1947)

* * * * * * *

Book Description

Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses. In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country.

I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing....

Bertrand Russell

Free Thought and Official Propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Free Thought and Official Propaganda

Author	Bertrand Russell
Country	United Kingdom
Language	English
Subject	political philosophy
Publication date	1922
Media type	Print

"Free Thought and Official Propaganda" is a speech (and subsequent publication) delivered in 1922 by Bertrand Russell on the importance of unrestricted freedom of expression in society, and the problem of the state and political class interfering in this through control of education, fines, economic leverage, and distortion of evidence.

Freedom of speech

Russell starts out by describing the more common use of the term "free thought" to mean that one does not accept unquestioning belief in the popular religion of a region, or ideally of any religion at all. But he goes on to say that a more important and global kind of free thought is the freedom of pressure to believe any specific ideas, that one be allowed to have and express any opinion without penalty.

He notes that this is not allowed in any country at all, with the possible exception of China at that time. One could not, for example, immigrate to the US without swearing they are not an anarchist or polygamous, and once inside must not be communist. In Great Britain he must not express disbelief in Christianity, in Japan of Shintoism.

Russell notes that countries like these may think of themselves as having freedom of expression, but that some ideas are so obviously "monstrous and immoral" that such tolerance does not apply to them. But, he points out, this is exactly the same view that allowed torture during the Inquisition, that all ideas must be allowed to be expressed, no matter how obviously bad.

Next, Russell describes incidents in his own life that illustrate the lack of freedom of thought.

1. One is that his father was a Free Thinker (agnostic or atheist), who arranged for three year old Bertrand to be raised as a free thinker when he was dying, but that the courts had overridden this and forced him to be raised Christian.
2. In 1910 Russell failed to receive Liberal Party nomination for Parliament when the party's inner circle had learned he was agnostic.[1]
3. When he became a lecturer at Trinity College, Russell was not allowed to become a Fellow (like having tenure) because the establishment of the college didn't want to add an "anti-clerical" vote to the college government. When Russell subsequently expressed opposition to World War I, he was fired.

This repression by the political class, Russell notes, is not limited to religion. Believers in free love or communism are treated even worse.

Will to doubt

What we need is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out.^[1]

Next, Bertrand Russell describes importance of the will to doubt.^[2] In 1896, American philosopher William James had written about the will to believe, and Russell uses this as a foil to express his own opposite position. James claimed that even without (or with conflicting) evidence, one might still simply choose' to believe in a thing — he cites Christianity — simply because one thinks the belief has beneficial outcomes.

Russell, along with Alfred Henry Lloyd and others, responds to this by describing the will to doubt, the choice to remain skeptical because it is the more logical, rational position that will lead to understanding more truth, while a "will to believe" will inevitably bind one into untruths in some way. "None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate."^[3]

As an example of the benefits of this kind of actual skepticism, Russell describe's Albert Einstein's overturning of the conventional wisdom of physics at that time, comparing it to Darwin contradicting Biblical literalists of the previous century.

What, Bertrand asks, if instead of overturning physics, Einstein had proposed something equally new in the sphere of religion or politics?^[2]

English people would have found elements of Prussianism in his theory; anti-Semites would have regarded it as a Zionist plot; nationalists in all countries would have found it tainted with lily-livered pacifism, and proclaimed it a mere dodge for escaping military service. All the old-fashioned professors would have approached Scotland Yard to get the importation of his writings prohibited. Teachers favourable to him would have been dismissed. He, meantime, would have captured the Government of some backward country, where it would have become illegal to teach anything except his doctrine, which would have grown into a mysterious dogma not understood by anybody. Ultimately the truth or falsehood of his doctrine would be decided on the battlefield, without the collection of any fresh evidence for or against it. This method is the logical outcome of William James’s will to believe. 

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is its exact opposite.^[3]

Assuming that the need for rational doubt or fallibilism is understood to be important, Russell then goes on to address the question of why irrational certainty is so common. He says this is largely because of three factors.

• Education — Instead of public education being used to teach children healthy learning attitudes, they are used for the opposite, to indoctrinate children with dogma, often patently false, even known to be false by the officials imposing the education.^[4]
• Propaganda — After being taught to read but not weigh evidence and form original opinions, children become adults who are then subjected to dubious or obviously false claims for the rest of their lives.
• Economic pressure — The State and political class will use its control of finances and economy to impose its ideas, by restricting the choices of those who disagree.

References

1. ^ William Wordsworth vs. Bertrand Russell
2. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b The Will to Doubt: Bertrand Russell on Free Thought and Our Only Effective Self-Defense Against Propaganda
3. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b Free Thought and Official Propaganda
4. ^ I Would Never Die for My Beliefs Because I Might Be Wrong

Adjusting the Church's Gospel to Jesus' Gospel

Adjusting the Church's Gospel

to Jesus' Gospel

by R.E. Slater

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.E. Slater

August 15, 2022

* * * * * * *

Audio Podcast with Tripp Fuller & Tom Oord

discussing Process Theology. 

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

Click here for audio podcast

* * * * * * *

Partial Imperfect Transcript

of Podcast

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

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

Yes. In Norway Yeah. At ESET.

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

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

That doesn't sound right.

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

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

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

you've had your dungeon be in my garage.

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

I do like there's something about that.

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

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

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

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

There was this moment, actually 13 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Break ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Break ---

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

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

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

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

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

END

* * * * * * *

August 15, 2022

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