Thomas Jay Oord - A Missional Theology of Love & Peace

God on a Mission: A Missional Theology

article link

Thomas Jay Oord

“Today, salvation has come to this household. For the Son of Man

came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:9-10).

Jesus says these words to a rich man, Zacchaeus. But we find the message repeatedly in the Bible that God seeks and saves. The missional adventure these words inspire prompts me to wonder:

What would it mean to believe Jesus’ loving pursuit of the lost – which seems to include you, me, everyone, and everything – tells us something essential about who God is?

This question may seem boring. But upon closer examination, I think it’s revolutionary! In fact, the missional theology emerging from believing God lovingly pursues creation radically alters the status quo.[1]

The God who seeks and saves is a God on a mission!

Overcoming the Status Quo

“Of course, God wants to save us all,” someone might say. “Who would argue otherwise?”

Unfortunately, a host of theological voices in the past and present argue this way. The theology supporting these voices is sometimes hidden or unconscious. But sometimes the not-really-wanting-to-save-all God is explicitly preached.

Let’s start with the easy pickings.

Those who believe God’s sovereignty and election means God predestines some to hell say God doesn’t want to save everyone. At least they would say God’s effective will doesn’t offer salvation to all. They argue for predestination, despite St. Peter’s claim that God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance (2 Pt. 3:9).

Their peculiar interpretation of this verse, in my opinion, undermines their own doctrine of divine sovereignty. I wonder, why isn’t a sovereign God supposedly capable of anything also able to save all?

Those in the Wesleyan tradition walk in step with theologians who reject this view of predestination. Wesleyans, instead, affirm genuine creaturely freedom. In philosophical terms, Wesleyans affirm “libertarian” freedom.[2]

John Wesley stressed the Apostle Paul’s admonition to “work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to will and to work for God’s good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12). Wesley believes passages such as this one argue that God’s loving action (“prevenient grace”) precedes and makes possible free creaturely responses. He advocates a theology of freedom, not predestination. This freedom has limits, of course. But it is genuine freedom nonetheless.

The God who wants to save all, however, may not actually save all out of respect for creaturely freedom. Wesleyans can affirm a missional theology that says God’s intent is universal salvation. Yet they can also say universal salvation may not occur. After all, free creatures may choose to reject God’s loving invitation. And God respects such decisions, despite their devastating consequences.

God Wants to Save Us?

In criticizing predestination, I picked the easy fruit. I said predestinarians cannot account well for the biblical notion God wants to save us all. But let’s stretch to pick some fruit less often noticed.

Many theologies – at least in their sophisticated forms – affirm an idea at odds with the missional notion God wants to seek and save. They say God lacks nothing whatsoever. God is “without passions,” to use ancient theological language.

Only a needy God, say these theologians, has desires. A perfectly complete God wouldn’t want anything. When the Bible says God seeks us, it isn’t saying God’s love desires or wants.

The Greeks called desiring love “eros.” Today, we unfortunately think of eros in sexual terms. But the original meaning of eros isn’t about sex. Eros love might best be defined as promoting what is good when desiring what is valuable, beautiful, or worthwhile. Eros sees value and seeks to appreciate or enhance it.

In addition to denying divine eros, some theologians believe the doctrine of original sin supports their view God doesn’t really have desires related to creation. Their view of original sin denies that anything good remains in creation. Sin – more particularly, the Fall of Adam and Eve – left creation totally depraved, they say.

A holy God would find nothing valuable in a totally depraved world, say these theologians. In fact, God would not associate with such sinful filth. We hear this argument today, in fact, when some say a holy God cannot be in the presence of sin. A holy God, so this argument goes, cannot relate to unholy people, because sin would taint God’s pure holiness.

To which I say, “Hogwash!” (or utter some other holy expletive)

Jesus Christ best expresses God’s desiring love – even, or especially love for filthy people. Jesus was known for hanging around unholy folk. He earned a reputation for befriending with those of ill repute and ungodly character. He wanted – desired – those sick and broken be healed and whole.

In short, the desire for salvation we see in Jesus reflects the desire we find in God. And vice versa: the desires of God are expressed in the desires Jesus expresses in his missional life. In other words, the incarnation is our best argument that God’s desires are so intense and God’s love so radical “that he gave his only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16a).

A robust missional theology, therefore, returns us to the biblical portrait of a God who desires. While God’s nature is perfect and complete, God’s relational experience and passionate heart include wanting something better: the restoration of God’s leadership of love. God’s salvation derives, at least in part, from eros.

Jesus Wept

Continuing my Christological focus, let’s look at another important issue for missional theology: what the ancients called “divine passability.”

Passability might best be described with contemporary terms like “influence,” “affect,” or “sway.” We certainly see Jesus being influenced, affected, and swayed by others. Jesus was passable.

The shortest verse in Scripture describes Jesus’ passability well: “Jesus wept” (Jn. 11:35). Matthew also reports Jesus had compassion on people, because they were “weary and worn out, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36). In these instances and others, we find Jesus affected by others.[3]

With skewed views of God’s perfection, some theologians have said God is uninfluenced by others. God is impassable, they argue. God only influences creatures; creatures never influence God. Many classic theologies implicitly adopted Aristotle’s view that God is unmoved.

This vision of an unmoved/uninfluenced/unaffected God doesn’t jibe well with the Bible. The God of Scripture expresses love that both gives and receives. God loves as friend (philia), for instance. When believers respond well to God’s love, we find God rejoicing. When they respond poorly, God is saddened, angry, and even wrathful. According to Scripture, creatures really affect God.

Today, many rightly speak of God’s passability by saying our Savior is the “suffering God.” This suffering was most poignant on the cross. In Christ, God suffers pain and death for the benefit of all. In fact, many theologians agree with Jürgen Moltmann and call the one who seeks and saves, “the crucified God.”[4]

A suffering God – one genuinely affected by creation – is the relational God at the heart of missional theology. The influence creation has upon God does not alter God’s loving nature, of course. We best interpret biblical verses saying there is “no shadow of change” (James 1:17) in God as describing God’s unchanging nature.

But creatures do influence the particular ways God relates to creation. Just as a perfectly loving father always loves his children, that same loving father allows his children to influence him, so he knows how best to love them in specific instances. A living God gives and receives in relationship.

To put it in missional terms, the God who seeks and saves does so to best address the specific ways we need saving! Some of us need saving from alcohol abuse; others need saving from dishonesty; others saving from unhealthy pride. God saves from all sin; but the specific ways God saves are tailor-made for creatures.

Kenosis and Mission

So… God wants to save us all. This is God’s loving desire, the divine eros. And the God of robust missional theology is affected by others. God is relational: both giving to and receiving from creatures. This is neither the God of predestination nor the status quo.

Now it’s time to reach for perhaps the most elusive fruit of all. It’s time to talk about the power of a missional God. We can’t ignore the power issue if we want a robust missional theology. Appealing to utter mystery isn’t helpful.

A number of contemporary theologians consider the Philippian love hymn especially helpful for thinking about God’s sovereignty. To refresh our memory, here’s the key part of that profound praise chorus:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness (2:5-7).

Theologians often focus on the Greek word, kenosis, which is translated here, “made himself nothing.” Other translators render kenosis “emptied himself” or “gave of himself.” These translations suggest that Jesus does not overpower or totally control others. Instead, Jesus reveals God’s servant-style power.

Kenosis suggests divine self-limitation. The Bible says Jesus reveals God’s very nature in this kenosis, because Jesus expresses limited power, like a servant.

Perhaps it’s best to say God empowers rather than overpowers. After all, empowering describes servant-style influence better than overpowering or total control. And empowering fits the notion that creatures possess some measure of freedom to respond well or poorly to God. Presumably, God grants power/agency to creatures to make freedom and agency possible. God is our provider.

There are two main ways to talk about God’s self-limitation revealed in Jesus. The first and more common is to say self-limitation is voluntary on God’s part. This view says God could totally control and overpower others. But God voluntarily chooses not to be all determining – at least most of the time. The voluntary self-limitation model says God could totally control others, however, should God so decide.

The main problem with the voluntary divine self-limitation model is the problem of evil. The God who could overpower those who inflict genuine evil should in the name of love. To put it another way, the God who voluntarily self-limits should become un-self-limited to rescue those who suffer needlessly. At least in some cases, God should become un-self-limited to seek and save the lost. Voluntary divine self-limitation cannot provide a satisfactory answer to why God doesn’t prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, and death.

The other way to talk about God’s limited power Jesus reveals says God’s self-limitation is involuntary. It is self-limitation, in the sense that no outside force or factor imposes constraints on God. But it is involuntary, in the sense that God’s power of love derives from God’s own nature.

Because God is love, God never overpowers others. In love, God necessarily provides freedom/agency to others and never completely controls them. God’s loving nature compels God to empower and never overpower others. We might call this “essential kenosis.”

John Wesley endorses involuntarily self-limitation in one of his sermons: “Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones,” Wesley argues. “Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done” (emphases added).[5] God must be God, says Wesley, and God’s nature of love involves giving freedom/agency to others.

Although often unnoticed, the Bible offers examples of things God cannot do. (E.g., God cannot lie; God cannot tempt.) In my view, however, these examples fall under the general category expressed in Paul’s words: “God cannot deny himself” (1 Tim. 2:13). God’s power as involuntary self-limitation says God controlling others entirely – coercion – would require God to deny God’s loving nature. And that’s impossible… even for God.

Of course, affirming involuntary divine self-limitation requires new thinking about doctrines of creation, miracles, and eschatology. But these doctrines can still be affirmed: God is still Creator, miracle-worker, and hope for final redemption. They may need recasting, however, in light of God’s persistently persuasive love. Such recasting is not new to Wesleyans, because they typically try to propose Christian doctrines in light of divine love.[6]

The main point of this section, then, is that the power God exercises in the missional adventure to seek and to save the lost is persuasive power. Missional theologians may prefer one form of divine self-limitation over the other. But they together affirm that God’s power operates through love. God’s kenotic love, revealed in Jesus, is primarily if not exclusively the power of persuasion. God calls instead of controls.

Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.

Free, Free, Set Them Free

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” said Jesus. Standing in his hometown temple, he continues reading a passage from Isaiah: “he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk. 4:18-19).

Among the many ways biblical authors talk about God seeking and saving, the themes of healing and freedom from oppression appear often. Healing and deliverance are part of the well-being/abundant life/favor the Lord generously offers. And we desperately need the well-being – shalom – of God’s salvation.

In a world of brokenness, wholeness breaks in. This wholeness is evident in the local church I attend, in which a robust Celebrate Recovery ministry has emerged. Those in this group believe God empowers them to overcome hurts, habits, and hang-ups. God is their deliverer. Through this and other avenues in the church, many find God’s healing and deliverance.

The Apostle Paul says liberation comes from the Spirit and becomes effective through Jesus. “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death,” he says (Rm. 8:2). In this liberation, we see God again empowering us in ways that provide salvation from destruction.

A look at the overall scope of Scripture leads one to believe humans are the focus of God’s seeking and saving. But the Bible also says God cares about nonhumans. In fact, Scripture says God intends to redeem all things. “The whole creation” hopes to be “set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rm. 8:21-22).

We play a vital role in this mission. We can be co-laborers with God’s work for the redemption of all things. God acts first to call, empower, and guide us in love – prevenient grace. But God seeks our cooperation. This becomes clear in the Revised Standard Version’s translation of Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him” (emphases added).

We can work for good with God. The healing and deliverance God has in mind involves our participation.

Love is on the Move

A God on a mission is a God on the move. And love is the primary and persistent intent of our God-on-the-move. A robust missional theology is a theology of love.

To love is to act intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. God’s initial and empowering action makes response possible. We live in community with others to whom we also respond. We are not isolated individuals, and God desires the common good.

God’s love establishes the God’s kingdom – or what I call God’s loving leadership. Here again, it is through Jesus we believe such things. Jesus preached God’s loving leadership as both possible and actual here in this life. And he proclaimed its fulfillment in the life to come.

As a young child, I learned a chorus I now sing to my kids. It derives from 1 John 4:7-8: “Beloved, let us love one another. For love is from God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. The one that doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love.” John says our best clue about what love entails is this: God sent Jesus.

The God who seeks and saves is revealed best in Jesus Christ. This God of love desires that all creation live shalom. God works powerfully through love to fulfill this desire, and we are invited to join in this love project. The result is the healing, restoration, and liberation of all held captive to sin and death. This holy God revealed best in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is on a mission of love.

John takes these truths about God, love, and Jesus a bit further and concludes with this logic: “Since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (4:11). Thankfully God makes love possible, says John: “We love, because he first loved us” (4:19). The empowering God enables us to love.

A missional theology supporting the endeavor to seek and save the lost is not based primarily on an evangelistic canvassing strategy. Nor is it based primarily upon duty and obedience to God. It’s not even based primarily upon worship. Strategies, obedience, and worship are all important. But missional theology is based primarily on love.

We ought to be “imitators of God, as dearly love children, and life a life of love, just as Christ loved us...” (Eph. 5:1, 2a). This missional ethic emphasizes generosity, listening and speaking, both influencing and being influenced by, enabling, mutuality, and community. It’s a strategy that cares for the least of these and all creation.

In short: God loves us, and we ought to love one another. We ought to imitate God’s full-orbed love – agape, eros, and philia as we cooperate with God’s mission to seek and save the lost.

The God on a mission invites us on an adventure of love.

Questions

• In your opinion, what in the theological status quo needs to be changed?

• How important is it that creatures are genuinely free and the Creator is not in complete control?

• What does it mean for discipleship to believe God empowers rather than overpowers?

• What does it mean to say we can and should imitate God by living lives of love?

Recommended Reading

Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 2000).

Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology: For Church and Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2009).

Brint Montgomery, Thomas Jay Oord, and Karen Winslow, Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction (San Diego, Ca.: Point Loma Press, 2012).

Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).

Thomas Jay Oord and Michael Lodahl, Relational Holiness: Responding to the Call of Love (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2005).

Index

[1] For a short and accessible introduction to the gospel of love, see the evangelistic book I co-wrote with Robert Luhn, The Best News You Will Ever Hear (Boise, ID: Russell Media, 2011).

[2] The distinction about forms of freedom is necessary, because some predestinarians say they affirm creaturely freedom but also the idea God alone decides the chosen few who will be saved. They are, to use the philosophical language, “compatiblists,” at least when it comes to issues of salvation.

[3] For an accessible theology of holiness from a relational perspective, see the book I wrote with Michael Lodahl, Relational Holiness: Responding to the Call of Love (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2005).

[4] Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993; New York: HarperCollins, 1991; London: SCM, 1974).

[5] John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1985) paragraph 15.

[6] See, for instance, my book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).

[7] For an exploration of a Wesleyan doctrine of creation, see Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way (Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2003).

[8] I explain the details of this definition from philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives in my book, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010).

Astrobiology, Exo-Philosophy and Cosmic Religion

REGISTER NOW

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/astrobiology-exo-philosophy-and-cosmic-religion-tickets-167646488159

An exploration of the relevance of process philosophy to

astrobiological science and the search for extraterrestrial Intelligence.

About this event

The possibility of a truly biological universe has not ceased to haunt the human imagination. Over the past three decades, the discovery of thousands of exo-planets has spurred novel research programs integrating science, philosophy and theology in exciting new ways. A variety of stimulating proposals have drawn together convergent insights in physics, cosmology and astrobiology; metaphysics and the philosophy of mind; the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. Ever-more-relevant questions as to the status and implications of wide-ranging life in the universe continue to be raised. These questions in turn spark deeper questions about the necessary philosophical assumptions or presuppositions of a bio-centric universe; and wider constructive considerations as to how theology, religion, and society must change in light of the impact of discovery.

Little attention, however, has been explicitly directed toward the valuable resources inherent in process philosophy when approaching these questions. What constructive dimensions do the organic philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin and others sustain for the interrelated scientific, philosophical and religious dimensions of astrobiological research? What is the place of process, organism, temporality, novelty, experience, value, mind and intelligence in a more than human universe? How does process philosophy anticipate the creative evolution of philosophy, theology and religion beyond earth? Sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and organized by the Center for Process Studies and the Whitehead Research Project, this conference is the first full-scale investigation of the relevance of process philosophy to extraterrestrial life. Visit https://www.processastrobiology.com/ for more information.

Date and time:

Thu, May 5, 2022, 4:00 PM –

Sat, May 7, 2022, 12:30 PM PDT

Location:

Willamette University

900 State Street

Salem, OR 97301

View Map

SPONSOR

Center for Process Studies

Organizer of Astrobiology, Exo-Philosophy

and Cosmic Religion

The Center for Process Studies (CPS) is a faculty research center of Claremont School of Theology at Willamette University. CPS conducts interdisciplinary research guided by the view that interconnection, change, and intrinsic value are core features of the universe.

 

Conference Vision & Rationale

"[O]n a grand scale, our cosmology discloses a process of overpowering change, from nebulae to stars, from starts to planets, from inorganic matter to life, from life to reason and moral responsibility. We can no longer conceive of existence under the metaphor of a permanent depth of ocean with its surface faintly troubled by transient waves. There is an urge in things which carries the world far beyond its ancient conditions."–Alfred North Whitehead

The possibility of a truly biological universe has not ceased to haunt the human imagination. Over the past three decades, the discovery of thousands of exo-planets has spurred novel research programs integrating science, philosophy and theology in exciting new ways. Indeed, a variety of stimulating proposals have drawn together convergent insights in physics, cosmology and astrobiology; metaphysics and the philosophy of mind; the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. Ever-more-relevant questions as to the status and implications of wide-ranging life in the universe continue to be raised. These questions in turn spark deeper questions about the necessary philosophical assumptions or presuppositions of a bio-centric universe; and wider constructive considerations as to how theology, religion, and society must change in light of the impact of discovery.

Little attention, however, has been explicitly directed toward the valuable resources inherent in the philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri Bergson and other process philosophers when approaching these questions. What constructive dimensions do pervasive themes of process, organism, temporality, novelty, experience, value, and mind, harbor for the interrelated concerns of astrobiology, philosophy, and theology? This conference proposes three core layers of investigation:

Astrobiology and Process Philosophies: Initial Connections

How should we frame the relationship between astrobiology and process philosophy?

• What points of convergence and divergence does this relationship sustain and how might this differ from that of other sciences and philosophies?

• In what ways does a “philosophy of organism” undergird affirmations of a “biological universe”? 

• Do the developments of astrobiology also inform the development, reaches and/or limitations of process philosophies as differently put forth by Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson?

• What challenges emerge in and among these figures with respect to the goals of astrobiology?

 A Philosophy of Exo-Life: Origins, Experience, Mind

• What must be assumed or presupposed metaphysically of a biological universe in the context of Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson’s work?

• Do these exo-philosophical assumptions inform or transform our understanding of cosmic origins and evolution; mechanism and organism; possibility and actuality; experience and freedom; life and mind; temporality and eternity?

• How do theories of life’s origins and possible pervasiveness (e.g. panspermia) relate to process theories of mind and its possible pervasiveness (e.g. panpsychism)? Is mentality necessarily “living?” Does life necessarily imply “mind?”

• What insights or challenges arise when considering the relationship between experience, life, and mind beyond particular planets, galaxies and perhaps even universes?

• How might considerations of a “bio-centric” cosmological principle challenge and/or expand narrower “anthropic” commitments when situated within the cosmological visions of Whitehead, Teilhard, and Bergson?

 Cosmic Religion: Toward a Constructive Process Cosmotheology

Steven J. Dick’s “cosmotheology” calls for radically new conceptions of a natural God and a “religious naturalism” that uniquely support a bio-centric evolutionary cosmos. While he has stated that “No Thomas Aquinas for cosmotheology has yet appeared…,” he does hold that “In its emphasis on evolutionary becoming, Cosmotheology resonates well with Whitehead’s process theology…It also resonates with the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary cosmology…” These statements open unique spaces for considering more deeply the resources of these and other process philosophers for reframing theological and religious approaches to astrobiology:

• What kind of radical changes are required of our religious and theological visions in light of the discovery of intelligent alien life? Do process philosophies offer unique resources to this end?

• What relevance or irrelevance do categories and distinctions of naturalism and supernaturalism; personalism and impersonalism; immanence and transcendence; monism and pluralism; creator and creativity actually have in a biological universe? Where do Whitehead, Teilhard and Bergson inform and/or transform these distinctions? 

• In what ways do these and other distinctions aid the development of theological models suitable for a bio-centric cosmos: whether atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, transpantheism, or others?

• Where do the strengths and weaknesses lie in current theological and religious proposals including: “cosmotheology” (S.J. Dick), “astrotheology” (T. Peters); “panoramic theology” (T. Walker & C. Wickramasinghe ); “biocosmic theology” (G. Genta) and others? How might they be critiqued, supplemented and improved in light of the philosophies of Whitehead, Teilhard, Bergson?

• In what ways might exclusive, terrestrial religion be expanded to pluralistic visions of cosmic religion in a bio-centric universe? What resources and challenges do world religions harbor? What might extraterrestrial religions harbor?

• Where are points of convergence and divergence when considering the roles and/or commonalities between human and extraterrestrial religion? What is the place of value, ethics, and morality; aesthetics and art; mathematics and science; doctrine and dogma in cosmic religion?

It remains a truly exciting time for science, philosophy and religion. Through exploration of the unique dimensions and themes of Whitehead’s, Teilhard’s, Bergson’s work, this conference aims to deepen human understanding and imagination by further uncovering the scientific, philosophical and religious implications of life beyond Earth.

Abstracts

“Astrobiology, Cosmotheology, and the Biological 

Universe: Implications for Religion and Theology”

by Steven J Dick

Recent discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology strongly indicate the need for a transformation of established theologies and suggest possibilities for new cosmically-oriented theologies such as cosmotheology. In particular the Biological Universe, the idea that intelligent life in the universe is common, necessitates a reconciliation of this new universe with dogmas of the Abrahamic religions in the same way that Thomas Aquinas tried to reconcile natural philosophy and Christianity in 13th century Europe. Other religions and their associated theologies will be less affected but still need to incorporate the cosmic perspective. In particular, discoveries in astronomy and astrobiology resonate with the dynamism of process theology in the sense that all theologies must take into account cosmic evolution and the possibilities of a biological universe in which life may be part of the very fabric of the universe. These discoveries also strongly suggest a denial of supernaturalism, a critical eye toward the epistemological status of revelation, and a rethinking of the nature of God and the sacred in the tradition of religious naturalism. In contrast to traditional theologies, human destiny is most universally couched in cosmic terms. The endeavor of transforming current theologies and creating new cosmic theologies is broadly characterized as astrotheology, a new and increasingly robust discipline that embraces the possibility of a more universal theology common to all intelligence in the cosmos. Astrotheology and its various flavors such as cosmotheology are part of a restructuring of our worldviews, a necessary endeavor as we internalize the realities of the new universe.

“Astrobiology, Astrotheology, and Cosmic Consciousness”

by Ted Peters

Like every natural science, astrobiology gathers objective data about the cosmos. But the data of astrobiology excites and even inspires the human soul. Astrotheology learns from astrobiological data while trying to account for its inspiring implications, for its subjective impact. Earthlings are growing in cosmic consciousness, at least in the minimal sense of being aware of possible intelligent consciousness living on exoplanets in the Milky Way. When contact with an extraterrestrial civilization is established, will the interchange of human and alien consciousness lead to a fusing of horizons, so to speak? Can we rightfully expect an expansion if not a deepening of human understanding, knowledge, and awareness? Might we test giving voice to a more intense cosmic consciousness with the physics of David Bohm and the metaphysics of Whiteheadian process theology?

“Religious Belief and the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life:

What’s Worldview Got to Do with It?”

by Constance M. Bertka

Astrobiology studies life in the universe, exploring from the perspective of an interdisciplinary science three general questions: “Where did we come from?”; “Are we alone?”; “Where are we going?” As a defined discipline Astrobiology is relatively new, but these questions are old, popular with scholars, including theologians, and non-scholars alike. While we can’t currently answer the question, “Are we alone?” with a definitive “no,” over the last couple of decades astronomers have discovered that planets around other stars are common and that some are rocky planets in locations around their stars comparable to earth’s location to our sun. Our first extraterrestrial life discovery is an increasingly reasonable expectation. How might this discovery impact worldviews, particularly theological perspectives and religious belief? The discussion around this question is multilayered. Academics within theological traditions answer differently than academics outside of those traditions and the religious beliefs of those outside the academic environment are likely moved by other concerns.

The question of worldview impact also falls within the context of how the relationship between science and religion is viewed. Some argue that a new cosmic consciousness will be awakened by the discovery of extraterrestrial life, decentralizing humanity and threatening belief in a classical supernatural image of God. But process theologians have already proposed revision of the classical view of God and though they have been at work for decades, the more traditional view still thrives. Will the discovery of extraterrestrial life increase the popularity of process theology? Perhaps the answer will hinge in part on normalizing science and religion discussions, breaking down siloed worldviews. Not only theologians but the scientific community writ large needs to be concerned with a broader conversation and one that reaches beyond academia. Recent efforts by the scientific community to support this broader conversation are encouraging, conflict between science and religion is falling out of fashion but work towards integration, where significant worldview change might happen, is still elusive. Without this work we are likely to prefer a mental shortcut, seeking out and accepting information that accords with our prior beliefs while dismissing information that does not- protecting our worldviews.

“Astrobiological Searches for Shared Knowledge”

by Chelsea Haramia

In this paper, I present arguments for the claim that humans and extraterrestrials will share common axiological and biological domains. I begin with a “partners in crime” argument that explores the partnership among biology, mathematics, and ethics. I outline important parallels between the scientific search for extraterrestrial life and pursuits of mathematical and ethical knowledge. These parallels justify an appeal for consistency in our reasoning. I identify and explain shared epistemic challenges in each of these domains, arguing that value is as real and as detectable as life and as mathematical truths. But the question remains: How real are these things? To answer this crucial question, I first address demarcation concerns regarding the difference between life and non-life. The puzzles produced by these concerns mirror some of the puzzles faced by those who posit robust intrinsic value in the universe or the objective truth of mathematical claims. I then propose the following avenue of response to these puzzles. We may assume that life and value are genuinely present in other areas of the universe in the same way that we may assume mathematics is genuinely present in other areas of the universe. That is, numbers, life, and value are non-observables the effects of which we may nonetheless recognize. Reorienting extraterrestrial searches with this in mind reveals overlooked commonalities in these domains, and it indicates that we may reasonably assume that at least some extraterrestrials could recognize these commonalities as well. This approach leaves open questions regarding the groundings or sources of non-observables, and it requires that we accept potentially significant limitations regarding our and others’ knowledge of non-observables. Ultimately, this view justifies claims of the reality of life and value in the cosmos and the assumption that, at least to some extent, our mathematical, biological, and axiological understandings will be shared by others.

"A Darker Forest?

The Fermi Paradox and Extraterrestrial Spiritual Life (ETS)”

by Roland Faber

One of the more fascinating solutions answering the Fermi Paradox is the “Dark Forest”-conjecture. It states that the universe is not only biotic (ETL), but full of intelligent life (ETI). However, since the probability that the encounter of ETIs will lead to mutual destruction rather than cooperation is “astronomical,” everyone hides as behind their tree in a dark forest, and any contact will passively or actively lead to the eradication of the communicator. Is the Earth doomed? This conjecture is based on an assumption that evolution is locked, in Darwinian terms, in the survival of the fittest, and that even cooperation, as on Earth, is, if not the exception, so merely a means for self-survival and -promotion. Other philosophical resources, such as Teilhard de Chardin, A. N. Whitehead and ‘Abdu'l-Baha, side with primary religious intuitions and desires for the function of cosmic religiosity to counter exactly this assumption. The question then becomes: How does the Fermi Paradox impact not only their acceptance that life is ubiquitous (ETL) and suggestive of the appearance of intelligent lifeforms (ETI) in our universe, but that evolution tends to foster the emergence of spiritual lifeforms (ETS) which actually strive to overcome this evolutionary, biotic condition of self-assertion and the survival strategies of competition and expansion?

"From Cosmological Negation to Metaphysical Exemplification:

A Deeper Whiteheadian Cosmotheology"

by Andrew M. Davis

For decades, Steven J. Dick has been a longstanding advocate of the development of “cosmotheology” as a scientifically rooted endeavor which uses our best understanding of nature to “inform a much broader range of theological discussion.” Cosmotheology as Dick defines it revolves around the use of our ever-expanding knowledge of the universe to “modify, expand or change entirely” current theologies. Central to these theological changes, Dick insists, is the rejection of anthropocentrism and supernaturalism: human beings are relegated to the cosmological periphery and there is nothing beyond the natural world. These commitments converge in Dick’s affirmation of both scientific and religious naturalism: nature is all there is and a creative evolutionary universe devoid of “God” suffices to inspire the reverence, awe and meaning traditionally assigned to the religious sphere. Dick’s six core “principles” of cosmotheology thus consist primarily in a series of cosmological negations of human existence and experience and ultimately, an ontological negation of God. While admitting that his proposal is perhaps better termed “cosmophilosophy” rather than “cosmotheology,” Dick ironically leaves open the possibility that advanced extraterrestrials in the “biological universe” may have something akin to the traditional theological attributes.

This paper argues that Dick’s laudable project can be considerably strengthened by Whitehead’s bio-centric cosmophilosophy (the “philosophy of organism”) which culminates in (rather than negates) a robust naturalistic cosmotheology that is actually deserving of the name. Demonstrating this requires showing how Dick’s cosmological negations can be transformed into metaphysical exemplifications. While Dick holds that the creative evolution at the heart of his own “cosmotheology” has limited resonance with Whitehead’s (and Teilhard de Chardin’s) process theology, a deeper investigation of Whitehead’s cosmotheological metaphysics effectively challenges and widens Dick’s proposal. For Whitehead, human experience while cosmologically peripheral is nevertheless metaphysically central: their existence and experience exemplifies fundamental metaphysical principles of an organic, experiential and axiological character that are essential to a creative evolutionary universe at all scales. Rather than being the great supernatural “exception” to metaphysical principles, “invoked to save their collapse,” Whitehead’s God is their “chief exemplification.” Whitehead’s wider naturalism coupled with his theological realism allow for imaginative metaphysical continuity in our reflection all the way “down” and all the way “up” the biological universe: from terrestrial and extra-terrestrial life to the culminating life of God. What is more, Whitehead’s vision arguably re-integrates and resolves outstanding metaphysical problems that remain unanswered by Dick’s proposal (and those of others). These problems surround the presuppositions of cosmic evolutionary novelty, including the metaphysical basis for objective rational, aesthetic, and ethical (or moral) values and their association with ontologically real possibilities in the nature of things. Whitehead therefore offers a wider cosmotheology that includes Dick’s naturalistic intuitions while also transcending his conceptual and explanatory limitations.

"Prospects for a Universal Philosophy of Organism"

by Derek Malone-France

There are a number of recent discoveries and developments in biology that seem evidently congenial from process philosophical and theological perspectives. Take for example, the discovery of “quorum sensing” functions and other anticipatory directive/non-random-adaptive environmental response phenomena in microbial societies, which may be interpreted as verifying essentially teleological (non-Darwinian, neo-Lamarkian) and cooperative-altruistic dynamics in the environmental responses of these individual and collective organisms. Increasingly—and often with real cogency—process thinkers are engaging with this new biology in order to make the case that process metaphysics can better explain these observational realities than can the dominant alternative philosophical perspectives (see the growing “biophilosophy” movement that is an outgrowth from contemporary process thought). This is an appropriate and productive response to this ongoing science. Yet, if we are to remain true to Whitehead’s conception of the proper function and mode of philosophical inquiry, we must also discipline ourselves, to maintain a certain degree of critical distance from these developments, and we must acknowledge that there are some other recent discoveries and developments that may be seen as potentially cutting against common principles or presuppositions of process thought. Take for example, elegant mechanistic modeling of the developmental pathways of the molecular regimes associated with the evolution of particular planetary chemical systems.

Moreover, if the ultimate aim is to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of Whiteheadian—or neoWhiteheadian—process thought as a universalizable metaphysical perspective, then we must also recognize the fundamental ways in which our biological and physical, as well as our philosophical and theological, concepts and categories necessarily, to some degree, reflect the contingent particularities of the evolution of the particular planet (and solar system) on (in) which we have emerged and by which we have been conditioned. Just as philosophy and theology have always needed to be mindful of the problem of anthropocentrism, we now understand, better and more specifically than ever before, the extent to which our thinking is also prone to the more generic problem of “terracentrism.”

One concrete implication of the recognition of our terracentric perspective is that we must look beyond “life” as a category around which we construct our most general claims. Over time, the concept of “life” has become, if anything, theoretically more, not less, problematic, especially in light of recent developments in a number of diverse (but increasingly intersecting) areas ranging from prebiotic chemical evolution and evolutionary virology, to planetary chemistry and astrobiology. I will argue, therefore, that the more general category of “organism,” as constructed in Whitehead’s thought, is not only a better candidate than “life” for universalizability, but also it has the additional advantage of reflecting the ultimate convergence (non-dualism) of both “physical” (non-biological) and “biological” phenomena, under the rubric of a more generic ontological category. This, in turn, allows for the ultimate clarification of both the common and the disparate elements characterizing what we refer to as “living” and “non-living” phenomena. It also suggests a cosmic application of this category with what I take to be productive theological implications.

"Cosmic Evolution Connected to Theory of Value

by Process-Relational Theology"

by Theodore Walker Jr.

Process-relational theologian John B Cobb Jr. encouraged developing “a richer account of evolution” in biology. Beyond biology, evolution more broadly considered embraces cultural evolution, stellar evolution, and cosmic evolution. Connecting cosmic evolution to theory of value is another enrichment that can be helped by process-relational philosophy and theology, including neoclassical metaphysics. For the sake of univocal references, the word “God” refers to the transcendent “all-inclusive whole of reality”; and unless explicitly qualified in ways indicating transcendence, the words “cosmos” and “universe” refer to the nontranscendent sum of all parts of reality.

"The Cosmological Context of the of the Hot Spring

Abiogenesis Hypothesis"

by Matt Segall & Bruce Damer

The question of how life on earth first arose has puzzled researchers since the inception of the modern science of biology around the turn of the 19th century. Advances in complex systems science and the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics have helped close the gaps between physics, chemistry, and living organization, but many questions remain unanswered. This presentation will examine the cosmological context and metaphysical implications of a leading candidate for the origins of life in Astrobiology: the “Hot Spring Hypothesis for an Origin of Life.” Connections will be drawn between key concepts from Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism and the astrophysical, geochemical, and protocellular processes described in the Hot Spring Hypothesis. For example, clear analogies are evident between the production of novelty via the process of concrescence and the liposomal combinatorial selection processes driven by wet-dry cycling in shallow freshwater ponds. Further convergence is seen in Whitehead’s account of the “sheltering” of living societies by environmental layers of social order and the importance of environmental rhythms and other conditions in making possible otherwise highly improbable chemical reactions. The question of whether the Whiteheadian notion of an “aim at satisfaction” may play any role in the emergence of self-organizing, self-producing protocells will also be explored. Finally, the social, ethical, and spiritual implications of our growing scientific knowledge of life’s origins will be discussed.

“What Is Life?

Panexperientialism, Cosmic Consciousness, and

Swami Vivekananda’s Religion of the Future”

by Jeffery D. Long

Is there life in the universe, or the multiverse, beyond the planet Earth? Responding to this question from the perspective of philosophies of process, such as that of Alfred North Whitehead, prompts us to raise another question, “What is life?” Is there finally anything which is not, in some sense, alive? The emergence of philosophies of process, as well as a growing sense amongst thinkers in the West that consciousness (or at least experience) is in some sense foundational to existence, and not something which evolves from an essentially material reality, puts the question of life in the universe on a different level from that of simply searching for entities like ourselves. It becomes not only an empirical question, but a fundamental question of ontology. Such a situation is already envisioned in many Indian philosophical traditions that both take consciousness to be foundational to existence and take for granted that there are many planes of existence inhabited by intelligent beings. We are therefore witnessing a convergence of Indian and Western thought, in our current period, as we reflect upon the question of life in the universe and the closely related question of the nature of life itself. Over a century ago, Swami Vivekananda envisioned this convergence when he spoke of religions to come in the future. This presentation will take up the interrelated questions of, first, the nature of life, experience, and consciousness as seen in the context of the search for extraterrestrial life, and secondly, the kind of religious sensibility that emerges from reflections of this kind. The demise of religion has long been predicted by scholars who have then proven to be premature in their claims. This presentation will suggest not that religion will be destroyed or superseded as humanity engages with the possibility, and eventually the reality, of extraterrestrial life, but that it will be radically transformed by this process.

“Astrobiology without Biology:

Will AI be Our Emissary or Our Bottleneck?”

by Noreen Herzfeld

Given the difficulties of space travel for biological beings, it seems likely that our first contact with another intelligence will be through their and/or our technology. AI offers the opportunity for a presence in space that is both dynamic and functional. Thus, AI might be the best emissary to other worlds. Yet Fermi’s paradox persists. If intelligent life is out there, why have we not encountered their technology? The answer may lie in a paradox of evolutionary biology. The very nature of biological evolution may mean that technological advancement always outstrips a society’s ability to control that technology. While AI might be our best avenue to space exploration, it might also be the technological bottleneck that precludes that exploration.

“Extending the Noosphere into Intergalactic Life:

Teilhard de Chardin and the Third Axial Age”

by Ilia Delio

In 1949 Karl Jaspers described a global breakthrough in human consciousness, which he described as the “axial age,” a term which has served as a heuristic marker of consciousness and human development, including the depth dimension of religion. Ewert Cousins described a second axial age ushered in by the new science and mass communication. This new age is marked by ecology, community, divine immanence and global consciousness. Teilhard de Chardin said that evolution is the rise of consciousness and described a process of theistic evolution grounded in second axial consciousness. He proposed that life is unfolding from simple, biological material life, to complex interconnected life, empowered by a divine presence, following Henri Bergson’s élan vital. Evolution continues in and through human development and is accelerating with technology toward the maximization of conscious life marked by the symbol of Omega.

This paper will examine the evolution of consciousness toward Omega by using the axial age as a paradigm of development. Attention will be given to Teilhard’s ideas on consciousness and matter and argue that the inextricable link between consciousness and matter, the drive to complex consciousness, and the development of the noosphere and computerized planetary consciousness, render the search for conscious intergalactic life the next logical step in the evolution of the Christic toward Omega. In this respect, Teilhard’s notion of the Noosphere marks the beginning of the third axial age, which will continue with interstellar exploration and the expansion of human consciousness into other life forms, a development consistent with the fecund symbol of Omega.

“The Organic Universe and Otherworldly Lives:

Bergson and Sagan”

by Wahida Khandker

In his 1985 Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow (published posthumously as The Varieties of Scientific Experience), the physicist Carl Sagan reflects on the spectroscopic analysis of comets that reveal that what is “out there” (a range of organic molecules in the tails of passing comets) is very close to what is “in here” (the organic molecules in living organisms on Earth). He finds in this molecular affinity between our own bodies and the stars a reason for humility and a greater sense of continuity with other living organisms, both on this planet and in the potential forms they may take on other planets. This will form the first part of the paper. The second part will turn to Henri Bergson, for whom the fundamental connection between the material and the biological enjoyed by organisms is both a necessity of life and a critique of the limitations of the function of the intellect. This motivates the entire project of Creative Evolution, which is at once a theory of life and a theory of knowledge. Bergson sets out to identify the structures that inform our everyday knowledge of the world, including life, and to speculate on the conditions of their formation, not in a priori structures of the intellect, but rather in the evolved conditions, in a fully biological sense, of our physiological interactions with our environment. What Bergson names “the double form of consciousness,” or the intuitive and intelligent aspects of conscious life reflects the material and vital aspects of reality. Accordingly, the long history of the study of nature (phusis) has tended to divide itself into the studies of physics and biology (material nature on the one hand, and the natural world on the other), but the history of physics is, it could be said, plagued by the resistance of living beings to its principles. The final part of this paper considers features of life that have evolved in the deepest parts of our oceans, and that have only recently become accessible with the development of technologies able to navigate ecosystems at these otherwise inhospitable depths. There, we discover forms of life capable of evolving and flourishing in the absence of sunlight, sustained by chemosynthesis, mirroring obliquely the development on land of ecosystems founded upon photosynthesizing plants. In summary, this paper explores varied perspectives on the challenges of traversing vast distances in space, in evolutionary time, and between land and the deep sea, and how all of these endeavors might enhance our understanding and appreciation of our own imperiled “habitat.”

“Multiplicity without Tyranny:

The Nonviolent Telos of Process and Jainism”

by Brianne Donaldson

Ethical-aesthetic terms within process philosophy, such as “beauty” and “intensity,” often aim to preserve the role of contrast, conflict, and inevitable loss as essential aspects of an ecological planetary multiplicity toward an open-ended future. In these views, exclusionary valuations, and even destruction, are accepted as a necessity, even if a tragic one, of a worldview that ascribes some level of self-determined creativity to all actual entities. If, as Whitehead states of the natural world in general, “Life is robbery” (PR 105), then suggesting nonviolence as a valuable aim could smuggle in a loophole of exceptionalism wherein homo sapiens’ morality is somehow different from that of “nature.” Moreover, any kind of telos could suggest a predestined future. Finally, nonviolence, if interpreted as passivity or sacrificial paralysis, could result in a stultified, rather than dynamic, universe.

While these concerns, and the (often) ecological sensibilities that motivate them, offer an important metaphysical and realist intervention in anthropocentric accounts of the universe, proponents often overlook a normative aspect of Whitehead’s religious and metaphysical vision of a possible future characterized by less, or perhaps no, loss. Utilizing the metaphysical framework of Jainism, an ancient Indian tradition centered on ethical experiments in nonviolence, as a comparative case study, I will provide an account of Whitehead’s ethical aim as a telos of nonviolence. Technical concepts in Whitehead’s works, such as “unison of immediacy,” the “many” and the “one,” the potentiality of “eternal objects” or the “subjective aim,” the “lure,” his description of the “khora,” and even his use of the term “peace,” present a vision of social and ecological nonviolence for an unfolding future. In this view, harm reduction and social ecology need not be at metaphysical odds. Rather, nonviolence is, I argue, part of the structure of becoming in a process metaphysics, not only for certain exceptional beings, but ultimately for all existent entities.

“The Connection-Action Principle:

A Basis for Process Philosophy and Cosmic ‘Creativity’”?

by Mark Lupisella

A centerpiece of contemporary Western process philosophy is Alfred North Whitehead’s “principle of process,” which features creativity as an important element. The modern science of cosmic evolution can be interpreted to suggest a highly “creative” universe—perhaps increasingly creative over time. In asking how the universe’s creativity arises, or increases, we can appeal to a wide range of approaches from scientific empiricism to more theoretical, conceptual, metaphysical, and philosophically speculative approaches—many of which arguably relate to the principle of process. In a book published in 2020, Cosmological Theories of Value: Science, Philosophy, and Meaning in Cosmic Evolution, I explore a kind of relational-action metaphysics in the form of a “connection-action principle” (CAP) suggesting, in its simplest form, that the universe’s (or multiverse’s) property of connectedness is instantiated as relations and actions. Drawing heavily from that book, this paper will explore how the connection-action principle may provide a basis for process philosophy and how it may relate to the universe’s apparent creative tendencies, with a particular focus on the emergence of life, intelligence, and meaning in the universe.

“Whitehead, Kalogenesis, & Cosmocentrism"

by Brian G. Henning

Environmental philosophers have for half a century debated whether ethics is anthropocentric, biocentric, or ecocentric. Yet even the most capacious of these theories typically have difficulty thinking beyond our own planet and its distinct evolutionary history. As humans consider “colonizing” other planets, mining asteroids, and interacting with extraterrestrial life, it is urgent that we develop an adequate extra-terrestrial ethic, a cosmocentric ethic. Just as Europeans’ latent metaphysics and ethics defined what was morally defensible in their colonization of this planet, our species’ latent metaphysics and ethics define whether certain actions require moral justification. We take our ethics—and our metaphysics—with us as we move into and beyond the solar system. In this paper I defend the view that, grounded in Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, it is possible to conceive of a cosmocentric ethic whose ultimate duty is beauty. Reality is fundamentally kalogenic; each drop of actuality is a unique achievement of beauty and value. “The teleology of the Universe,” Alfred North Whitehead tells us in Adventures of Ideas, “is directed to the production of Beauty.”