What Is Process Philosophy?

https://csl4d.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/whiteheads-process-philosophy.jpg

What Is Process Philosophy?

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Introduction

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy is humanity’s ongoing effort to ask the deepest questions: What is real? What is true? What is good? What is possible? It is a way of thinking critically about existence, meaning, and value. From the Greek philosophia (“love of wisdom”), philosophy has always sought to see beyond appearances — to find the underlying structures of the world and our place within it.

Across history, philosophers have offered different answers. Some emphasized substance — the idea that reality is made of fixed things with stable essences. Others focused on mind or spirit, matter in motion, or the freedom of human existence. Each system frames how we think about science, religion, politics, and even daily life.

What is Process Philosophy?

Process philosophy is the recognition that reality is not a collection of static things but an ongoing flow of events and relationships that are, and are becoming, either more or less than what they are. It suggests that the most basic unit of reality is not an unchanging substance or conjected existential space, but a moment of experience — an event or relational connection which arises, relates somehow to the past, and then "concresces" into a new coherent event, occurrence, or relationship.

Rather than seeing the world, the cosmos, or creation, as a metaphysical machine, process philosophy metaphysical reality as a living, organic network of interrelated processes, always evolving, and continually open to novelty. This shift opens new doors for science, theology, ecology, psychology, economics, governance, and culture — because it teaches us to see change as the essence of reality, and relationship as the ground of being.

---

Amazon link

1. Process Philosophy — The Light Version

Process philosophy is a way of looking at reality as always in motion. Instead of imagining the world as made up of static substances of some kind - like solid entities or fixed essences which never change - it sees the world as an interconnected web of events, relationships, and ongoing processes merging, conflicting, absorbing, rejecting, and experiencing itself both in whole and in part.

• Rocks, rivers, trees, and people aren’t “finished” objects; they’re organic and quantum becomings, unfolding moment by moment as a concrescing mass.

• Even God, in process thought, isn’t outside time but is wholly engaged with the world, continually relating, adapting, and responding. In religious terms, God is theoretically transcendent but it wouldn't matter to the world; in process terms, God must be intimately and immanently connected to the world (what is known as panentheism; NOT pantheism).

• The key idea: reality is not a collection of things but a network of happenings, occurrences, evolving relationships.

As example, think of processual reality not as a static photograph or snapshot but as an evolving movie or  storyline.

---

2. Process Philosophy — The Heavy Version

Process philosophy, most prominently articulated by Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), is a metaphysical system built around the primacy of process over substance. Rather than treating substances (self-contained, changeless entities) as ultimate, Whitehead posited that the basic units of reality are actual occasions - momentary drops of experience that arise, relate to whatever is present, and perish in the flow of becoming.

Core Features:

• Concrescence: Each actual occasion integrates/merges "influences from the past" into a unique unity/essence, then perishes into objective immortality. Reality is always but a moment of time before concrescing towards the next moment.

• Creativity: Is the ultimate metaphysical principle/motif. Processualism eternally drives toward novelty in a perpetualized state of ongoing creativity (or creation).

• Prehension: All things feel or experience all other entities. This prehensive state is deeper than mere "sense perception" and is better understood as an ontological state of relationality.

• Eternal Objects: Pure potentials might be thought of as the goal of processual becoming. They are unlike Platonic forms that are fixed objectives and more like evolving objectives driving towards self-fulfillment within arising, actualizing occassions.

• God’s Role: Per religion, God functions dipolarly - as the primordial ordering of eternal possibilities (sic, God's primordial nature) as well as the fellow-sufferer who takes the world's experiences into the divine life of God's Being (sic, God's consequent nature).

This system overturns classical metaphysics (Aristotelian substance ontology, Cartesian dualism,etc.) and opens a framework for integrating science, philosophy, and religion in terms of relationality, dynamism, and becoming.

---

"The study of philosophy is a voyage

towards the larger generalities."

"The oneness of the universe, and the

oneness of each element in the universe,

repeat themselves to the crack of doom

in the creative advance from creature to

creature; each creature including in itself

the whole of history and exemplfying the

self-identity of things and their mutual

diversities."

"The elucidation of meaning involved in

the phrase ‘all things flow’ is one chief

task of metaphysics."

- Alfred North Whitehead

3. Expanded Lexicon of Terms, Concepts, and Phrases

Here’s a broadened vocabulary-set to help avoid recycling similar wordings, concepts, and ideas:

General Descriptors

• Becoming over Being

• Flux and Flow

• Ontological Relationality

• Dynamic Interdependence

• Cosmological Holism

• Events not Substances

• Processual Ontology

Technical Whiteheadian

• Actual Occasions (momentary drops of experience)

• Nexus (societies of occasions)

• Prehensions (affectuating feelings/relations)

• Concrescence (the act of becoming one)

• Perishing into Objectivity (an attained actuality which immediately perishes)

• Eternal Objects (potential forms)

• Novelty / Creativity as Ultimate Categories

• Dipolar Deity (Primordial vs Consequent)

Theological/Philosophical Extensions

• Panrelationalism (all things related to one another)

• Panexperientialism (all entities feel or experience one another to some degree)

• Panpsychism (there is a divine/cosmic consciousness all the way down to some degree)

• Panentheism (All of creation exists in God and not apart from God, relational model)

• Participatory Universe

• Cosmic Symbiosis (entities advantage or disadvantage one another in community)

• Mutual Becoming of God with World and World with God

Fresh Metaphors

• From snapshots to storylines

• From architecture to cosmo-ecological ecosystems

• From machine clockwork to continuous symphonic improvisation

• From building blocks to river currents (where no part of the river is the same twice)

• From monoliths to living, evolving networks

---

4. Light Contrast Chart

(For general readers — metaphors & simple categories)

Philosophy	How it sees reality	Metaphor	Focus of Attention
Substance (Aristotelian)	World made of unchanging “things” with fixed essences	Building blocks	Stability, essence, permanence
Cartesian Dualism	Split between mind and body; two kinds of substances	Two worlds	Thought vs matter
Mechanistic Materialism	Reality as a machine, predictable by laws	Clockwork	Matter in motion
Idealism (Platonic/Hegelian)	Ideas or spirit are more real than material things	Blueprint or script	Reason, spirit, forms
Existentialism	Reality defined by human choice in absurd freedom	Leap across a void	Authenticity, angst, freedom
Process Philosophy	Reality is relational, dynamic, in constant becoming	Flowing river	Events, relationships, creativity

---

Andrew Davis Papers

5. Deep Contrast Chart

(For advanced readers — metaphysical categories & Whiteheadian vocabulary)

Philosophy	Ontological Unit	Ultimate Reality	Relation to Change	Human/Divine Orientation
Aristotelian Substance	Substance (ousia)	Form + Matter	Change = accidental	God as Unmoved Mover
Cartesian Dualism	Two substances: res cogitans (mind) & res extensa (matter)	Thinking vs extended being	Change secondary to substance	God as guarantor of certainty
Mechanistic Materialism	Atomistic particles in motion	Matter + Laws	Change = motion, deterministic	God excluded
German Idealism (Kant, Hegel)	Mind/spirit or Absolute	Rational structures	Change = dialectical unfolding of spirit	God = Absolute Spirit
Existentialism (Sartre, Kierkegaard, Camus)	Individual existence	Radical freedom / absurdity	Change = choice, angst	God either absent or paradoxical
Process Philosophy (Whitehead)	Actual occasions (drops of experience)	Creativity + Relational Becoming	Change = essence of reality	God as dipolar (primordial + consequent, relationally engaged)

---

Jay McDaniel's website

6. Extra Lexicon for Contrasts

Process vs Substance

• Substance = static, self-contained, essence-driven.

• Process = relational, time-bound, becoming-driven.

Process vs Mechanism

• Mechanism = determinism, predictability, reductionism.

• Process = openness, novelty, emergence.

Process vs Idealism

• Idealism = primacy of ideas/spirit.

• Process = primacy of experience/events that integrate both matter & idea.

Process vs Existentialism

• Existentialism = isolated individual facing freedom/absurdity.

• Process = individual + world co-creating meaning, relational wholeness.

---

AC Grayling's History of Philosophy

7A. Precursors & Early Intuitions

• Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE) — “All things flow” (panta rhei). Reality as flux.

• Buddha / Early Buddhist thought (c. 5th century BCE) — impermanence (anicca) as fundamental.

• Daoist Tradition (Laozi, Zhuangzi, 4th–3rd BCE) — the Dao as flowing process, ever-becoming.

• Hegel (1770–1831) — dialectical unfolding of spirit/history; reality as process of becoming.

---

Matthew Segall link

7B. Founders of Modern Process Philosophy

• Henri Bergson (1859–1941) — philosophy of duration, creativity, and life force (élan vital).

• William James (1842–1910) — radical empiricism, stream of consciousness, pluralism.

• Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) — systematized process metaphysics in Process and Reality (1929).

• Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) — developed process theism, extending Whitehead into theology.

---

7C. Major 20th-Century Developers

• John B. Cobb Jr. (1925–2022) — leading figure in process theology, eco-philosophy, interfaith dialogue.

• David Ray Griffin (1939–2022) — expanded process thought into philosophy of science, religion, postmodern critique.

• Isabelle Stengers (b. 1949) — Belgian philosopher of science, co-wrote Order Out of Chaos with Prigogine.

• Ilya Prigogine (1917–2003) — Nobel laureate chemist, dissipative structures, irreversibility in physics.

---

7D. Contemporary Figures

• Catherine Keller (b. 1953) — constructive theology, feminist/process theology, ecological critique.

• Philip Clayton (b. 1956) — process-influenced panentheism, science-religion bridge.

• Roland Faber (b. 1963) — Whitehead scholar, comparative philosophy, process cosmology.

• Timothy Eastman (1947–2023) — process physics, processual logoi.

• Steven Shaviro (b. 1954) — philosopher, connects Whitehead with speculative realism, aesthetics.

---

Amazon link

7E. Influence Beyond Philosophy

• Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) — evolutionary cosmology, Omega Point (parallel to process views).

• Brian Swimme (b. 1950) — cosmologist, Big History with process leanings.

• Open & Relational Theologians (Thomas Jay Oord, et al.) — draw heavily on process categories.

Note:

The figures in Category #7E are not “pure” process philosophers in the Whiteheadian sense. Instead, they are process-like thinkers whose work resonates with or parallels process categories:

• Teilhard de Chardin leaned toward an evolutionary teleology of spirit, not Whitehead’s relational metaphysics.

• Brian Swimme narrates a cosmic story of emergence, echoing process themes without adopting the technical framework.

• Open & Relational Theologians (e.g., Oord) share the emphasis on relationality and openness but often simplifies or diverges from Whitehead’s deeper metaphysical system.

In other words, these figures extend the intuition of process — dynamism, relationality, evolution, and becoming — but are not always aligned with the full metaphysical depth and technical categories of Whitehead’s system.

In short:

• Process Philosophy provides the deep metaphysical foundation.

• Open & Relational Theology is a more accessible (i.e., less rigorous, public-oriented), theological expression that shares relational and open-future emphases but often does not go all the way down into Whitehead’s philosophical system.

• More simply, Open & Relational Theology's origins is in Process Philosophy and Theology; hence, a fuller description would be Open & Relational PROCESS Theology.

• Tom Oord is a personal friend and is reaching across non-process theologies as he is allowed - theologies such as Evangelicalism, Methodism, Lutheranism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc, to help each Christian sector understand God, faith, church, conduct, outreach, and mission, in a deeper, more Christological and contemporary setting of postmodernism. That is, Tom is attempting to connect the church of yesteryear to the church of the present. - re slater

---

The Center for Process Studies, Resources, News, & Blog

8. Summary

In short:

• Whitehead is the central architect.

• Hartshorne anchored the theological side.

• Bergson & James fed into the groundwork.

• Cobb, Griffin, Stengers, Keller, Clayton, Faber carry the mantle today.

---

Somya Thakker

Conclusion

Philosophy, at its core, is the quest to understand reality. Most traditions have tried to explain reality in terms of what endures — the stable, permanent, or timeless. Process philosophy turns this around. It begins with the insight that what is most real is not permanence but change itself; not isolated substances but relational becoming.

This reorientation offers a vision of the world as alive, dynamic, and interconnected. Rocks, rivers, cells, stars, and even God are not finished objects but participants in an unfolding story of creation. The cosmos is not a completed structure but an open adventure, where novelty is always possible.

To step into process philosophy is to move from seeing reality as a snapshot to seeing it as a movie — a living story of becoming in which we, too, are co-creators.

---

Amazon link

Process Philosophy & Metaphysics — Core Works & Introductions

1. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (1929; corrected edition edited by David Ray Griffin & Donald W. Sherburne, 1957, Free Press) — Whitehead’s magnum opus, laying out the full speculative metaphysical system. PhilPapers+2Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy+2

   • Online references / summary: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Alfred North Whitehead Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   • Stanford Encyclopedia entry on “Process Philosophy” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   • Internet Archive often holds older editions (check for public domain or open access versions).

2. Donald W. Sherburne, A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality (1966) — A classic guide aiding in navigating Whitehead’s dense terminology and structure.

3. C. Robert Mesle, Process-Relational Philosophy: An Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead (2008) — a clear, relatively accessible introduction to Whiteheadian process thought.

4. Nicholas Rescher, Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues — a helpful survey of major themes and debates in process thinking.

5. Process Philosophy article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2006 archive) — summarizing the nature, aims, and internal structure of process metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

6. Process Philosophy in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — focusing especially on the role of creativity and the contrast to substance metaphysics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

7. “What is ‘process philosophy’ and who is Alfred North Whitehead” — a more informal / popular introduction to the central ideas. Medium

8. Whitehead Research Project — critical edition, archives, ongoing scholarship. Wikipedia

9. Center for Process Studies — institutional hub for process thought, archives, bibliographies, journals. Wikipedia

---

Process Theology, Open & Relational Theology — Key Works & Resources

1. Thomas Jay Oord, Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Giving Faith — a contemporary theological presentation rooted in relational openness. OhioLINK

2. OpenTheism.info — “Open and Relational Theologies Bibliography” (compiled by Thomas Oord) — a curated list of books, essays, dissertations pertaining to relational theology, open theism, and process theology. OpenTheism.info

3. Center for Open & Relational Theology (C4ORT) — a repository of relational theology essays, open-access resources, reading groups, etc. Center for Open & Relational Theology+1

4. Studies in Open and Relational Theologies series — academic book series promoting discourse across open, relational, and process perspectives (ORT, process theology, etc.). Center for Open & Relational Theology

5. “Resources — Center for Open & Relational Theology” — a web page linking to essays, readings, and further bibliographic paths. Center for Open & Relational Theology

---

Secondary / Historical / Comparative & Contextual Works

1. Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution — foundational for the notion of duration, novelty, and evolving life that influenced process thinkers.

2. William James, The Principles of Psychology; Essays in Radical Empiricism — especially the idea of stream of consciousness and pluralism in experience.

3. Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity (1948), Man’s Vision of God (1964) — for theological extension of process metaphysics.

4. John B. Cobb Jr., Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition; God and the World — key humanist / theological interpreters of process philosophy.

5. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil; Whitehead’s Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy — important for bridging process thought with contemporary theology, science, and critique.

6. Catherine Keller, Cloud of the Impossible, Face of the Deep — feminist and ecological theology influenced by process-relational thinking.

7. Roland Faber, Theologizing after the End of Metaphysics, Charles Hartshorne’s Natural Theology — engaging process thought in comparative philosophy.

8. Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos (with Ilya Prigogine) — cross-disciplinary resonance with process ideas in science and cosmology.

9. Works on philosophy of science and process: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty, Exploring Complexity (with Isabelle Stengers).

10. Comparative philosophy: works connecting process philosophy with Eastern thought (Buddhist impermanence, Daoism, etc.).

---

Online / Digital & Reference Resources

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — entries on Process Philosophy, Whitehead, etc. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy+1

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — articles on process metaphysics and creativity. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• OpenTheism.info — relational / open theology bibliographies. OpenTheism.info

• C4ORT (Center for Open & Relational Theology) — essays, bibliographies, open theology resources. Center for Open & Relational Theology+1

• Whitehead Research Project / Whitehead Encyclopedia — for critical editions, archives, and scholarly interfaces. Wikipedia

• Center for Process Studies — archives and bibliographies in the process tradition. Wikipedia

• Open Access / Digital Theological Library — to access primary texts in theology / religious studies. DTL LibGuides

• Open access guides in religious studies (e.g. Duke’s open religion guides) — directories of journals, books. Duke University Libraries

---

Amazon link

Who Is the God of Jewish Sacrifice? Part 3 - Process Theology

Who Is the God of Jewish Sacrifice?

Examining Jewish Practice and Theology

from Process Theology Perceptions

Part 3

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Who Is the God of Jewish Sacrifice? Part 1 - Ancient Practices

Who Is the God of Jewish Sacrifice? Part 2 - Jewish Theology

 Who Is the God of Jewish Sacrifice? Part 3 - Process Theology

---

I

Divine Love & Wrath

Put simply, are divine love & wrath i) co-equal tensions within God's character or are they ii) descriptive attributes of God's character? How might we consider the question of God's love and God's wrath in juxtaposition with one another.

Further, when addressing these questions, iii) to importantly not deny divine wrath, when reframing divine wrath apart from the traditional Hebraic and church teaching that wrath is in some way a part of God's being?

Questions to consider:

(a) Is Process Theology's teaching of a loving God so shaded in inference that it neglects God's wrathful character or,

(b) Can Process Theology reposition the character of God as wholly loving in a way that allows for past propositional beliefs of a wrathful God to transition and transform to God's truer character?"

How then does a (Whiteheadian) process approach resolve the paradox we have been exploring in part 1, ancient perceptions of God, and part 2, traditional Jewish theology and heritage teachings of God?

---

1. How Classical Theologies Framed Wrath and Love

• In traditional Jewish and Christian theologies, God’s wrath was often taken as a real, personal stance of divine anger against sin - not merely metaphorical.

• God’s love was also affirmed, but the tension between the two has long driven theological reflection (e.g. how judgment and mercy meet at the cross in Christianity).

• This made wrath and love almost “co-equal poles” within divine character: justice and holiness on one side, mercy and compassion on the other.

[Side Note: My argument has always been since the outset of this blog, that love undergirds all of God's attributes... including justice and holiness. Without love there can be no true justice nor holiness.]

---

2. Process Theology’s Starting Point

• Process thought (Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, Keller, etc.) reframes God not as omnipotent ruler imposing decrees, but as persuasive love luring creation toward richer possibilities.

• God does not coerce or violently punish; God’s power is relational and invitational.

• Thus, the primary description of God in process is not wrathful sovereignty but co-suffering love: a God who feels the world’s pain, absorbs its tragedies, and persistently offers new paths forward.

---

3. What Happens to Wrath in Process Thought?

• Process theology tends not to emphasize wrath as an essential attribute of God.

• Wrath, when acknowledged, is interpreted more as a human perception of the pain we create when resisting God’s lure toward goodness, or as the natural consequence of destructive choices in a world that God cannot override.

• In this sense, wrath is repositioned, not denied:

  • It is not God’s active fury.

  • It is the world experiencing the tragic clash between divine call and creaturely refusal.

  • It is the consequence of human sin and the result of divine rage.

---

4. Is Process Theology “Neglecting” Wrath?

• Critics argue yes: by foregrounding love and relational persuasion, process thought risks under-articulating the seriousness of divine judgment, making God seem too gentle to confront evil.

• Supporters argue no: process theology is not neglecting wrath but translating it into a framework consistent with divine love. God’s “wrath” is not erased but understood as:

  • God’s grief over brokenness.

  • God’s unyielding opposition to what destroys life.

  • The felt consequences of rejecting God’s lure toward wholeness.

---

5. The Net Effect

• Classical view: wrath and love stand in tension almost as if co-equal attributes of God; essentially then, God is both wrath and love, and thusly to be feared.

• Process view: God is wholly loving; wrath is not an independent attribute but the shadow side of love in a resistant, non-loving, freewill world.

• So process theology does not make God “half-wrathful, half-loving.” It makes God wholly loving, but interprets wrath as the world’s tragic experience of love resisted.

---

Conclusion

Process theology does not neglect wrath; it repositions it. God is not divided between wrath and love, but wholly loving in nature. What tradition called “wrath” is reframed as either the consequence of resisting divine love or the pathos of God’s opposition to evil. This preserves the seriousness of judgment without making wrath an eternal attribute alongside love.

---

II

Observation of God's Nature

How is "wrath" contextualized in the dipolarity or multipolarity of God's Nature or Self?

Process Theology’s dipolarity (and some would even say multipolarity) really matters here. Let’s slow down and unpack what “wrath” could mean in a process framework that emphasizes God’s dual aspects. Let's first start with what is meant by divine dipolarity....

---

1. What is Dipolarity in Process Thought?

Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne describe God as having two poles:

• A Primordial Pole - Here, God is eternal. The One who values all possibilities and continually presents a divine “lure” toward harmony, beauty, love across all creation.

• A Consequential Pole - This is God as a temporal Being who is "touched" by creation, feeling it deeply. That is God feels and experiences all temporal actualities, sufferings, joys, and activities with the world, responding in real time to creaturely events.

Newer process thinkers some hundred years since Whitehead do now extend the concept of divine dipolarity to a multipolar model, thus highlighting God’s felt responsiveness in multiple relational ways rather than two rigid poles.

---

2. Where Wrath Fits in Dipolarity

Traditionally, wrath was imagined as a fixed attribute in God’s eternal nature. That is, God holds within His holy being a righteous indignation “against sin” in some way or form.

In Process theology's dipolarity model we might express divine wrath in this way:

• Primordial Pole → Wrath does not belong here. God’s eternal nature is persuasive love, not anger. God does not eternally decree wrathful punishment as consequence to sin.

• Consequent Pole → Wrath may be understood here, but reframed. God “feels” the destructiveness of evil, violence, injustice, cruelty. Wrath is not divine rage but divine grief or pathos resulting from human sin and evil:

  • God grieves over sin and evil.

  • God resists evil by refusing to integrate it into the divine vision of harmony except as tragedy to be overcome.

  • Wrath is the “No” of divine love in the face of what violates flourishing.

Thus divine wrath is relationally real - but not metaphysically essential to the primordial nature of God.

---

3. Multipolar Reading

If we extend dipolarity toward multipolarity (a fuller spectrum of divine responses), wrath could be viewed as one “face” of God’s relational engagement with creation:

• As lure: God calls us toward the good (love).

• As pathos: God suffers with us (compassion).

• As resistance: God opposes what destroys life (wrath).

• As creativity: God transforms evil into new possibilities (redemption).

Wrath here is not God’s opposite to love, but love expressed in another register: love’s resistance to sin and evil - as well as God's experience of sin and evil to which God's love responds.

---

4. Repositioning Wrath

So in process theology:

• Wrath is not a timeless attribute in God’s essence.

• Wrath is God’s relational opposition to evil, grounded in love, experienced in the (temporal) consequent pole.

• From the creaturely side, wrath feels like the direct outcome or consequence of not loving: when we resist the divine lure of love, we run into the tragic structures of reality.

• From the divine side, wrath is God’s participatory pathos - the suffering, grieving, and opposing emotions of love against all that corrodes creation.

---

5. Why This Matters

• Traditional theologies: Wrath and love are separate attributes, held either in tension  or as co-equal divine attributes (similar to the dipole between justice vs. mercy).

• Process theology: Wrath is not a coequal pole with love. Love is the essence; wrath is how love is experienced when resisted.

• Multipolar view: God has many modes of relation (lure, compassion, grief, resistance, transformation). Wrath is any one of these as many multiples of these - it is a real but secondary dimension or experience of God’s wholly loving nature.

---

Conclusion

In process theology, wrath is not erased but reinterpreted through di/multi-polarity.

• Primordial pole: only love.

• Consequent pole: love manifest as grief, opposition, even “wrath” against destruction.

• This makes wrath not a rival to love but love's protective and resistant face. God remains wholly loving, yet relationally wrathful against what frustrates love’s aims.

---

III

A Processual ReInterpretation of God's Wrath

How might we reinterpret the ancient and traditional observations of God’s wrath in light of process theology’s dipolar/multipolar framing?

---

1. Ancient/Traditional Observations of Wrath

From sacrificial practice and covenantal life, the Hebrew tribes inferred:

• God takes wrongdoing seriously (a blood sacrifice was demanded).

• Divine wrath implies divine anger and judgment.

• Divine wrath is a core attribute of God’s holiness, standing alongside mercy.

• The offender’s life is spared, but only through substitution.

This yields an image of God as partly wrathful, partly loving - a paradox of severity and mercy we might call "a severe mercy".

---

2. Repositioning Through Process Dipolarity

Process theology reframes these ancient insights by relocating wrath into the consequent pole of God, rather than God’s primordial essence:

• Primordial Pole (Eternal Love): God’s nature is wholly persuasive love, always offering harmony and life. Wrath is not an eternal “trait” of God.

• Consequent Pole (Responsive Pathos): Wrath is the way God relationally feels and opposes sin and evil's destruction, injustice, and covenant-breaking. Wrath is real, but it is the shadow side of love in motion, not an equal opposite of love.

Thus, the ancient perception of wrath can be reinterpreted as humanity’s early encounter with God’s resistant aspect of love - felt as judgment, consequence, and holiness.

---

3. Multipolar Nuance

Expanding beyond dipolarity, we can view God’s wrath as one of many relational expressions:

• Love as lure (drawing creatures toward flourishing).

• Wrath as resistance (opposing destructive choices).

• Compassion as pathos (suffering-with creation).

• Creativity as transformation (redeeming tragedy into new possibilities).

In this frame, wrath is not God’s essence, but the protective contour of divine love.

---

4. What Changes in the Repositioning?

• Then (ancient/tradition view): Wrath was inferred as part of God’s essential character - a coequal attribute alongside love.

• Now (Process View): Wrath is repositioned as love’s relational stance against evil. It is not erased, but nested within God’s wholly loving nature.

• Wrath is not God’s eternal decree of punishment, but God’s grieved and resistant response to life’s violation.

• The lamb’s sacrifice can thus be read not as appeasing a wrathful God, but as a human ritual attempt to repair relationship with a God whose love resists covenant-breaking.

---

5. Summary

The ancient observations of a wrathful God are not dismissed; they are reinterpreted. Wrath is still real - but not a coequal, eternal trait of God’s being. Instead, it is how finite humans experienced the consequent pole of divine love when their lives were out of alignment with the covenant.

---

In short: what the ancients named “wrath” can, in process theology, be seen as the resistant, protective face of a wholly loving God.

---

IV

Jesus' Sacrifice

How might a process theology reframe Christ's sacrifice on the Cross by the very Hebraic system which God established?

---

1. The Heritage of Propitiation

In classical Christian teaching:

• Jesus’ death is a propitiation - a sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath, satisfying divine justice so humanity can be forgiven.

• This flows directly from the logic of covenant sacrifice: sin breaches relationship, blood restores it, and a substitute (lamb, bull, goat) carries the cost.

• As historic background, in Genesis 15, God Himself passes between the pieces of Abraham’s covenant sacrifice, symbolically saying: “If this covenant is broken, may the cost fall on Me as I am the only One who can restore relationship.” Many later Christians read Jesus’ death as God fulfilling this self-binding promise.

---

2. Was Jesus’ Sacrifice Necessary?

Here the interpretive divide opens:

A. Necessary Divine Act (Traditional View)

• Jesus’ death was God’s self-sacrifice, bearing the covenant curse on behalf of humanity.

• This honors the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 15) and the entire sacrificial system.

• God’s wrath against sin is real; only divine self-offering can satisfy it without destroying creation.

• In this sense, the Cross is both justice satisfied and love revealed.

B. Symbolic Divine Act (Process View)

• In process categories, "divine" wrath is not a divine eternal trait needing satisfaction.

• Thus, Jesus’ sacrifice was not “necessary” to appease God’s inferred "wrath" as wrath is not a part of God's Nature - but it was necessary for us as religious-symbolic beings.

• Humans needed a symbol of ultimate covenant fidelity, a divine act that embodied God’s willingness to suffer with creation and show that love does not abandon, even in death.

• The Cross becomes the supreme symbol of persuasive love - not a transaction to satisfy wrath, but a revelation of God’s unbreakable solidarity.

---

3. Integrating the Two in Dipolar Terms

We don’t have to choose between the two extremes. In light of dipolar/multipolar theology:

• From the human perspective, Jesus’ death addressed our perception of wrath and judgment. We needed assurance that sin’s cost was real and borne in full.

• From the divine perspective, the Cross is God’s ultimate act of self-giving love - not to “appease” God, but to reveal God’s true character as love even when wrath is felt.

• Thus, Jesus’ sacrifice is necessary symbolically (for covenantal beings who interpret life through ritual and symbol) and necessary relationally (as God’s self-giving act that fulfills the Abrahamic covenant promise).

---

4. Summary

• If wrath is coequal with love (traditional view): Jesus’ sacrifice was metaphysically necessary to satisfy God’s wrath and keep covenant.

• If wrath is love’s resistant face (process view): Jesus’ sacrifice was symbolically necessary to assure us that God’s love holds even through sin, death, and tragedy.

• In dipolar synthesis: The Cross is both covenantal fulfillment (God bearing the cost) and relational symbol (God showing love’s solidarity). It unites the ancient language of wrath with the deeper reality of divine love.

And so, Jesus’ sacrifice can be seen as a divine symbol for religious-symbolic beings, and also as the self-binding fulfillment of God’s own covenant promise. In process theology, these are not contradictions but complementary readings of a God whose love expresses itself in many registers - primordial, consequent, symbolic, covenantal.

In process theology, God is not divided between wrath and love; God is wholly love. What we call “wrath” is love’s grief and resistance to sin and evil, while what we call “love” is God’s eternal lure toward life. Divine "wrath" is love in protest; divine love is wrath fulfilled in healing.

---

Appendix: Christ as Propitiatory Sacrifice

The word “propitiation” belongs naturally to covenantal language. Paul uses it to describe Christ’s death (hilastērion), drawing on the grammar of temple sacrifice and covenant fidelity. In this framework, Christ’s death is indeed a propitiatory act - the covenant cost borne by God’s own self-offering, fulfilling the promise first dramatized when God passed between the halves of Abraham’s sacrifice. It is not about appeasing an angry deity but about God demonstrating His initiative in reconciliation: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

Yet, over time - both in ancient perceptions of God and even now in present perceptions of God - “propitiation” became stretched beyond its covenantal setting. The image was hardened into doctrines of eternal hellfire, purgatorial torment, and a God imagined primarily as wrathful judge. Covenant symbol became cosmic ontology, and God’s character was cast in terms of punitive horror: an eternal torturer rather than a steadfast lover.

Process theology repositions this language. Wrath is not an eternal attribute of God, demanding appeasement; it is love’s grief and resistance to sin's destruction, experienced in the world as consequence. God is wholly loving, and the Cross is the supreme revelation of that love - not rage satisfied but solidarity enacted. Christ as propitiatory sacrifice is God bearing the weight of our fear of divine wrath and transforming it into assurance of unbreakable love.

In this sense, “propitiation” remains right and appropriate covenant terminology, but it must not be mistaken for the essence of God’s being. For process theology, it is a symbol pointing beyond wrath to the heart of God as love itself.

---

A Suggested Outline

1. Paul’s Use of Propitiation

• Paul reaches for sacrificial language (hilastērion) because covenant categories are the shared grammar of his audience.

• In that frame, Christ is indeed a propitiatory act: the covenant curse borne by God’s own self-offering, a symbol of ultimate fidelity and reconciliation.

• For Paul, this was less about appeasing divine rage and more about declaring God’s initiative in grace: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

---

2. The Horror of Wrath-Centered Theologies

• Over centuries, “propitiation” was stretched beyond covenantal limits:

  • Hell as eternal burning.

  • Purgatory as punitive cleansing fire.

  • God’s essence imagined as wrathful judge first, loving redeemer second.

• These developments turned symbolic covenantal imagery into ontological absolutes, presenting God as essentially punitive.

---

3. Processual Re-reading

• Process theology cuts to the root of this distortion: God is not wrath and love in competition; God is wholly love.

• Wrath is not God’s essence but love’s resistance to destruction, God’s grief over brokenness, God’s “No” to what corrodes life.

• In this light, the Cross is not divine rage satisfied but divine love revealed — the ultimate act of solidarity with suffering creation.

---

4. The Pastoral and Theological Shift

• If wrath is seen as God’s essence, religion tends toward fear, horror, and coercion — heaven and hell divided by an arbitrary decree.

• If love is God’s essence, religion moves toward healing, transformation, and invitation — wrath as the felt consequence of resisting love, never as an eternal decree of torture.

---

Conclusion

The word “propitiation” is covenantally right — it names how God bore the cost of relationship. But when misread as proof that wrath is God’s deepest essence, it generates the nightmare of a deity who eternally torments creation. The process view insists instead: God is not wrath tempered by love, but love experienced as both lure and resistance. Christ as propitiatory sacrifice is not God appeasing Himself, but God showing once for all that love bears all things, even the full weight of our fear of divine wrath — and transforms it.